After having killed 14 people, and injuring 17 people, explosives were found at the home of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. This was a tactically planned attack, especially considering they had explosives planted all throughout their home. Aside from the fact that these people clearly had ties with ISIS, the place at which it occurred makes it just as horrific even if there wasn't a tie with ISIS. Although it has not been officially confirmed he was an ISIS affiliate, Law enforcement sources say Farook had been in contact with more than one person who had been the subject of an international terrorism investigation by the FBI. At a holiday banquet for his co-workers Wednesday, Syed Rizwan and his wife walked in and killed 14 people and seriously wounded more than 17 others. Not only that, but even after they massacred all of their co-workers, they fled the scene and had a high speed pursuit with shots being fired. This attack is truly alarming, considering that it was the nation's deadliest mass shooting since the attack at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, three years ago that left 26 children and adults dead. It's sickening that there has been so many mass-shootings all throughout America consistently for the past couple of years.
What needs to happen is a change. We can't have the same laws in place even with background searches. America has the highest amount of mass-shootings, and since 2006, there have been more than 200 mass killings in the United States. President Obama gave a speech regarding the shooting, and this is a quote from the speech "And there are some steps we could take not to eliminate every one of these mass shootings, but to improve the odds that they don't happen as frequently: common-sense gun safety laws, stronger background checks." I couldn't agree more with this philosophy, except for the fact that we've already tried it, and it doesn't seem to be working efficiently. So, some questions that should be asked are:
What's the next step America should take in ensuring mass-shootings do not occur at the current rate?
How does this impact the 2016 Presidential Candidates, and how they should act and try to gain momentum by acting like a leader (what would you do in a crisis like this) and move up or down in the polls?
In reality, it would be pretty impossible to repeal the second amendment, so what might be the best alternative to try and stop the widespread shootings?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/12/02/president-obama-shooting-san-bernardino
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/what-we-know-san-bernardino-mass-shooting/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/california-police-respond-report-active-shooter-35536102
5 comments:
The United States is the only superpower in the world who has this sort of problem on a regular basis. And this is in part to the unwilling attitude toward meaningful change in this country. Anti gun control advocates will not take no for an answer, which is a huge part of the problem. Furthermore, the fact that the shooters were not even on the United States radar in term of terrorist suspects is pretty upsetting. They were able to obtain weapons and bombs and contact Isis without the United States knowing. This shows the flaws in the background check system for America, among other things. At some point, the US should check in on people if they have an arsenal of weapons at their disposal.
In terms of the 2016 presidential race, I do not think that this issue is going to effect the campaigns of many of the candidates. At this point, it is pretty hard to flip-flop on issues without being attacked by another candidate, and switching sides on an issue would only lead to losing momentum for any candidate.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35000998
After reading this article, it saddens me to hear that there is another mass shooting in the United States. I definitely agree with Jefe Gilberto that it is sickening to hear of all these mass shootings. I believe the next step America should take to ensure that mass shootings do not occur at the current rate is to increase security and to make the gun laws throughout the country more strict. Currently, forty four states have a provision in their state constitutions similar to the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. I believe that there are other ways one can protect itself against someone other than a gun. Guns are a serious weapon. We should not allow average citizens to keep and carry a gun as it is important not to promote violence. Moreover, in terms of the 2016 presidential race, I highly disagree with Your Pal's statement that this issue will not affect the campaigns of many candidates. I believe it will play a large role in the race primarily due to the fact that there have been numerous shootings taking place in the country and outside of the United States. I believe that the candidates should display how they would decrease the amount of shootings and protect the American people.
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/
The next step that America should take in ensuring mass-shootings do not occur again in the United States, should be to create and enforce higher and stricter gun laws and regulation in the United States. As stated in this LA times article, President Obama needs to make the guns sales more restricted and guns harder to get by creating and implementing new laws. This will lower the amount of guns a seller can sell before having to do background checks on their customers, therefore lower the amount of people with illness and ill intent purchasing guns. This impacts the 2016 Presidential candidates because they need to address the issue of guns and gun control in a more serious light and offer a realistic answer to the violence and problems going on in this country, especially since the 2012 shooting in Newtown. Since then, the number of shootings across the nation has increased and next to nothing has been done to stop it. To move up or down in the polls, candidates would have to address their position and actions that would be taken if they were the Commander in Chief. While it is not necessary or realistic that the second amendment would be repealed, an alternative of stricter enforcement of the sales and ownership of these protected firearms needs to be implemented.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-obama-gun-order-20151203-story.html
Jefrito,
It's clear to me that one of, if not the most, pressing matter in America today is the realization that we are not at all safe at home. San Bernandino isn't the World Trade Center -- it's middle America. What would stop ISIS from attacking Main Street? Radicals are a reality in America, and they are most likely to attack those around them. To me, that's more scary than any other threat. Not only is Grand Central a target, but so is Boise, Idaho, or Lincoln, Nebraska. There are ongoing ISIS investigations in all 50 states (Fox News), so while we might not be able to stop ISIS's ideological influence, there must be something we can do to stop these sick, perverted people from acquiring guns in our country. It can't be this easy.
We will all be voting in the coming election. My biggest question to the candidates would be: how are you going to keep this country safe? Whoever can give me the best answer for that will have my vote. Enough of all the conjecture and lobbying -- we need to see someone take a firm stance against our enemies (unlike Obama), and an equally firm stance against this ridiculous system which has allowed MANY shooters to buy guns at American shops.
I think that the rise of "Internet terrorism," spearheaded by ISIS, puts us at a great risk of terrorist attacks in areas where we have lax security. ISIS is dangerous because it spreads its message online and converts young Muslims to their radical ideology. This means that anyone, anywhere, can carry out an attack in their name.
As a result, I do think President Obama has the right idea to try to tighten gun laws. People need to be thoroughly background-checked before acquiring a weapon, and even then they should only be allowed to carry weapons that are sufficient for self-defense. A semi-automatic machine gun is not necessary for defense.
Post a Comment