"San Bernardino shooter was well vetted" (1 Viewer)

[AccessBlaster]

Is this the new standard for vetting foreign nationals?

According to ABC News, Malik had given a false Pakistan address on her approved application, which authorities have been claiming are well vetted.
Malik was born in Pakistan but grew up and lived in Saudi Arabia. She entered the U.S. through the K1 visa program. The program is reserved for people marrying U.S. citizens and requires them to marry their sponsor within 90 days.
The K1 visa is the speediest of a dozen visa programs to process, but it still takes, on average, a minimum of six months.

 

[Steve R.]

Regretfully this will be true for political reasons. Listed below are bullet points why Obama will not "enhance" the vetting process. The Obama administration for obvious public relations reasons will assert with great pomposity that the incident was an aberration and that the veracity of the "vetting process" will be extensively reviewed and if appropriate fixed. (Similar the the investigation of Louis Lerner that was recently discharged as lacking in evidence.) In Obama's defense, here is the obligatory statement that, no system is perfect.

• Obama has little interest in actually bringing down ISIS. This can be seen by Obama's reluctance to actually take the fight to ISIS in an aggressive manner. Additionally, Obama recently declared that ISIS was "contained".
• Obama has declared global warming to be the major security threat to the world. Consequently he is devoting his resources and energy to promote that cause. Within that context, resolving any vetting concerns would be a distraction and a low priority.
• Obama, desires, for "humanitarian reasons" to bring in massive numbers of refugees into the US and to allow illegal immigrants to remain in the US. A comprehensive vetting process would slow down that process.
• Obama is projecting the incident as an issue of "gun control". It may be too early to tell concerning whether the failure to properly vet Ms. Malik will become a negative issue for the Obama administration. Yesterday, Smooth Visa Process for Woman in Attack Is Focus of Inquiry appeared in The New York Times on December 4, 2015.

  "Those checks turned up no negative information about the woman, Tashfeen Malik, a federal official said Friday."

  For obvious political reasons, the Obama administration will steer the narrative to "gun control" and suppress the failure of the vetting process. This favors a reinvigorated highly controversial vocal debate over "gun-control" and near silence concerning the issue of "vetting".
• Obama, assuming that he leaves office, only has 13 months left. Consequently, Obama may simply be hoping he can "run out the clock" without the veracity of the "vetting process" blowing-up again.

Update: The grayed-out text above is my attempt to identify the text as "deleted" since I can't find a strikethrough tag. Anyway, Obama's speech today gave apparent equal weight to both vetting and gun control measures.

 

[MarkK]

I heard the shooter's family were killed by a US drone strike in Pakistan, at her sister's wedding. Maybe. Certainly it's possible that US aggression and extra-judicial drone strikes across the middle-east are causing terrorism, not reducing it.

I also heard ISIS contributes to the NRA. It's the cheapest way for them to kill Americans, is make it super easy for Americans to just kill each other.

 

[Rabbie]

Since a lot of the refugee crisis in Europe has been caused by US military action in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya it only seems fair that the US takes its share of the refugees. There are also other countries that took part in the military actions that should take their share of refugees - the UK in particular.

 

[ColinEssex]

I also heard ISIS contributes to the NRA. It's the cheapest way for them to kill Americans, is make it super easy for Americans to just kill each other.

Apparently on average there are 31 people killed every day in the USA by the gun. That's roughly a jumbo jet full every week.

If a jumbo jet crashed every week killing all on board, they would all be grounded pretty damn quick. Yet to me it seems that most Americans are totally oblivious to this gun killing, and just accept it and care even less.

How can Americans be so unwilling to do something about it? It's insane and bloody stupid. Just because the president is a different party to congress any reforms or bans are blocked. But, surely, isn't it better for the nation to combine forces and deal with this mass killing every day?

Col

 

[kevlray]

I forget the number of people killed in car accidents daily, but they have not banned cars either (which I am glad of ).

 

[Frothingslosh]

Since 2001, approximately 3400 Americans have been killed by terrorists world-wide (and that does include 9/11). At last check, on US soil, that includes the 2990 killed on 9/11, plus the 40 killed by Muslim terrorists post-9/11 and 48 killed by non-Muslim terrorists, also post-9/11.

In the last 5 weeks, 3400 Americans have been killed by gun violence.

Since 2001, *150,000* Amercians have died to gun violence.

Terrorism and refugees are simply bogey-men used to generate the fear that is the only thing that generates moderate votes for the GOP. They sure as hell don't come close to being as dangerous to America and Americans as, say, bad cops or white dudes with axes to grind (both of which groups have killed far more Americans since 9/11 than terrorists have).

 

[Alc]

I forget the number of people killed in car accidents daily, but they have not banned cars either (which I am glad of ).

Once again, the single most ridiculous comparison the pro-gun lobby uses is trotted out.
1. Cars have a primary purpose which is not to kill.
2. Guns' have a primary purpose which is to kill.

"But...but, I shoot targets". That's nice, doesn't alter the fact that guns exist primarily to kill. If they didn't, the people who want one "for defense" wouldn't be so keen to have one and the macho pr*cks who want one because they feel it makes them look tough would have to rely on camouflage clothing, pick up trucks and whatever bullsh*t music they opt for. All this without realizing that admitting they feel they can only defend themselves with a gun when most people can manage without one makes them look like far more of a wimp than the average person.

"I like hunting". Good for you. If you have to kill something to prove yourself, go up against a moose, bear or boar with a knife and make a real sport of it. As someone once said, this is a sport in the same way walking up to a stranger at a bus stop and punching him in the back of the head is boxing.

"Make guns illegal and only the criminals will have guns". Yes, that's how laws work. Criminals also have high explosives, class A drugs and child prostitutes. Even the most ardent NRA enthusiast usually stops short of advocating that these should be legalized. Go to the parents of one of the children killed by a legally bought gun and explain to them how their child dying is just an unfortunate side effect. If you really want to make a friend, add that their son or daughter would be alive today if only the people around them had been armed or, better yet, if you'd been there to protect them.

"It's our right to own guns". It used to be your right to own people. Now it isn't. Society changes as does the needs of society.

If someone is genuinely incapable of seeing that the number of firearms available is contributing to the number of deaths then never mind guns, it's probably risky allowing them to own anything more dangerous than a toothbrush.

[Edit]
I forgot

"You're a liberal" and "You're not even America, so you have no right to an opinion on OUR country. You're country has done X, Y and Z"
Either of these amount to "I don't have a rational argument in favour of allowing these killings to continue - any sane person would want to do something to prevent them - but I want to have a gun for one of the reasons already provided, so I'll do my damndest to steer the topic onto an irrelevant area....ummm... if the French all had guns, the recent Parisian attacks wouldn't have happened"

 

[AccessBlaster]

Since 2001, approximately 3400 Americans have been killed by terrorists world-wide (and that does include 9/11). At last check, on US soil, that includes the 2990 killed on 9/11, plus the 40 killed by Muslim terrorists post-9/11 and 48 killed by non-Muslim terrorists, also post-9/11.

In the last 5 weeks, 3400 Americans have been killed by gun violence.

Since 2001, *150,000* Amercians have died to gun violence.

Terrorism and refugees are simply bogey-men used to generate the fear that is the only thing that generates moderate votes for the GOP. They sure as hell don't come close to being as dangerous to America and Americans as, say, bad cops or white dudes with axes to grind (both of which groups have killed far more Americans since 9/11 than terrorists have).

This is all true. Except this is not a gun control issue. Just like Paris all the gun laws were in place and working, in this case it's ideologically driven. Tough to defend against ideas even with sticker gun laws.

 

[Alc]

This is all true. Except this is not a gun control issue. Just like Paris all the gun laws were in place and working, in this case it's ideologically driven. Tough to defend against ideas even with sticker gun laws.

It may not apply in all cases, but in this case stricter gun laws might have prevented it entirely. If I'm some lunatic with a chip on my shoulder and I know I can just bide my time and legally amass a number of automatic weapons I might do so. If the only way I could get them was by illegal means, it would - at the very least - have made it more difficult.

Unless the suggestion is that it's just as easy to stockpile arms illegally as it is legally and that no one would be deterred from doing so.

 

[Frothingslosh]

What I find telling is that the Dems introduced a bill to prevent people on the national 'no-fly' list (ie - known and suspected terrorists) from being allowed to purchase firearms from federally licensed dealers.

The Republicans wasted no time in immediately killing the bill.

The Right has no interest in preventing gun violence, because the fear and outrage caused by these massacres is useful to them in their drive to remain in power at all costs.

 

[Rx_]

President Obama gave his 3rd Speech from the White House since his term began.

The president argued as much for gun control as he did for increased vigilance against terrorists. But Americans have said in the past that more focus on the mentally ill is a better way to stop mass shootings than increased gun control.
The polls from last night show the majority do not support President Obama in his job.
This was a major poll, that included people who watched. Many are not affiliated with the two major parties.

Gun sales for Christmas by law abiding citizens with background checks is up even higher this year again. Projections are they will increase more after President Obama's speech. Some of this has to do with "trust" or "competence" of our government. The polls didn't actually break down all of the reasons.

One of the big percentage sticking points the polls noted was how President Obama chose to call the Colorado Springs gunman a "Terrorist". Evidently, most people watching were not impressed with the choice of words.

Today is December 7. In 1941, Japan bombed military bases at Pearl Harbor Hawaii and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Just Saying

 

[ColinEssex]

This is all true. Except this is not a gun control issue. Just like Paris all the gun laws were in place and working, in this case it's ideologically driven. Tough to defend against ideas even with sticker gun laws.

What about all the other monthly (it seems) massacres like Columbine, Sandy Hook etc etc.

Those acts are committed by normal gun owning yanks. Any yank who owns a gun is well capable of unspeakable acts like that. Oh, and it helps if you are a Christian so you get instant forgiveness as you fondle the gun in your pocket as the vicar gives you communion.

Gun owning in the USA is a big joke to most everyone outside the USA. And those that own guns are obviously brain dead one celled freaks.

Col

 

[Alc]

Gun sales for Christmas by law abiding citizens with background checks is up even higher this year again.

As are mass killings by the same group, no?

Today is December 7. In 1941, Japan bombed military bases at Pearl Harbor Hawaii and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Just Saying

I had a protein bar for breakfast, since we're naming irrelevant things.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Actually, the Dutch Harbor attack was June 3-4, 1942, as part of a feint to draw the American fleet away from Japan's true invasion target at that time: Midway Island. My grandfather was actually serving with the engineers who helped support the Aleutian Islands Campaign to remove the Japanese who landed on a couple of the islands there. (And that was a shock to him, let me say - he was just there to put up telephone poles and lines, when suddenly the Japanese showed up all unfriendly-like.)

 

[Alc]

Actually, the Dutch Harbor attack was June 3-4, 1942, as part of a feint to draw the American fleet away from Japan's true invasion target at that time: Midway Island. My grandfather was actually serving with the engineers who helped support the Aleutian Islands Campaign to remove the Japanese who landed on a couple of the islands there. (And that was a shock to him, let me say - he was just there to put up telephone poles and lines, when suddenly the Japanese showed up all unfriendly-like.)

I think that's the stuff that's hardest to imagine with today's immediate access to information. Imagine an invading force getting that close to an industrialised, western nation nowadays without plenty of advance warning?

 

[AccessBlaster]

What I find telling is that the Dems introduced a bill to prevent people on the national 'no-fly' list (ie - known and suspected terrorists) from being allowed to purchase firearms from federally licensed dealers.

The Republicans wasted no time in immediately killing the bill.

The Right has no interest in preventing gun violence, because the fear and outrage caused by these massacres is useful to them in their drive to remain in power at all costs.

On the face this does seem like a "no brainier" unless you just happen to share the same name as someone on the list. It would be cleared by finger prints no doubt by the DOJ or ATF. In this case a small delay would be okay.

BTW all the Dem's who purpose legislation governing gun control all have well armed body guards, armored vehicles not to mention conceal carry permits basically everything they need to stay safe from the great unwashed.

 

[Alc]

BTW all the Dem's who purpose legislation governing gun control all have well armed body guards, armored vehicles not to mention conceal carry permits basically everything they need to stay safe from the great unwashed.

The politicians, perhaps. What about the average person? I'd be willing to bet the majority of people on the forum who live in the US and support tighter control on guns don't have this kind of protection but still think it's a good idea for just that reason.

 

[Frothingslosh]

On the face this does seem like a "no brainier" unless you just happen to share the same name as someone on the list. It would be cleared by finger prints no doubt by the DOJ or ATF. In this case a small delay would be okay.

BTW all the Dem's who purpose legislation governing gun control all have well armed body guards, armored vehicles not to mention conceal carry permits basically everything they need to stay safe from the great unwashed.

1) The GOP has actually fought every attempt to clean up the No-Fly list (which is, itself, secret, of course), even though as it stands, not only do you not find out you're on it until you show up, but it's actually very, VERY difficult to get off of. They found it to be perfectly acceptable until someone tried to tie gun control to it, and only then was considered to be unacceptably inaccurate...for this one use ONLY.

2) Honestly, with the violent rhetoric and all the right wingers talking about 'cleansing' the nation of liberals, people calling for the 'elimination' of democrats, and all sorts of right-wingers calling for everything up to and including sedition, can you blame them? That said, ALL congresscritters get heavy-duty protection while in office.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I hear ya, it's insane however you look at it.