Active shooters in San Bernardino, California

[Jub]

Technically this means that a husband who shoots his wife and two kids, then offs himself qualifies as a mass shooting. I have to say this doesn't quite feel right to me.It has the feel of the bar being lowered to inflate numbers. Like saying that a pile up is now '4 or more people injured in a car crash'.

That feels just fine in the context of looking at gun violence. 4+ people dying in one event should be large enough to draw extra eyes to the issue. There's also the fact that a shooter may be unskilled, lack enough ammo, lose their nerve, or simply not have time to kill/injure more than 4 people in an otherwise crowded area. Does 4 people killed or injured in a movie theater make it a mass shooting while 4 people killed in a family home just make it murder, or should both carry equal weight in terms of how we view them?

[Kojiro]

Well I'm not in law enforcement or politics, so it's not my job to come up with a practical number. But if you ask for a simple layman opinion, well... I'd say that one of the most important factors is the shooters intention. There would be, for my definition, a sort of maximum damage and indiscriminate element. So a guy who opens up in a crowded theater would qualify, even if some off duty cop somehow put him down before he killed anyone. A guy who decides to kill his wife and kids then himself- but has no intention of harming anyone else- would not.

The usage of 'mass' just seems misplaced. Surely we have to scale our language appropriately. If 4 people is a mass shooting, what was Paris? A mega shooting? You can't use the same word to describe both because the two events simply aren't on the same level.

Does 4 people killed or injured in a movie theater make it a mass shooting while 4 people killed in a family home just make it murder, or should both carry equal weight in terms of how we view them?

Again, I'd say intent is important in at least how we classify the act. Killing four specific individuals would be a quadruple homicide. Finding a mass of people and trying to shoot as many as possible would be a mass shooting, even if by some miracle no one dies.

[Wild Zontargs]

Apparently, the Daily Beast article I quoted last night was in error:

CORRECTION 12/3/15 1:41 A.M. An earlier version of this story identified one of the San Bernardino shooters as Syed Raheel Farook, not Syed Rizwan Farook. We sincerely regret the error.

Syed Farook, Tashfeen Malik ID'd as San Bernardino mass shooting suspects

Police said late Wednesday in Southern California that they are "reasonably confident" that the deadly mass shooting which occurred earlier in the day at a social services centre for the disabled was carried out by two people who are now both dead.

But authorities are unclear as to the motive for the shooting at the Inland Regional Center in San Benardino, Calif., which resulted in 14 people being killed and 17 injured. They say a motive could include workplace violence or terrorism.

The two suspects were identified as Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, a 27-year-old woman. Authorities said the pair were a couple, but it wasn't clear if they were husband and wife or engaged. San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said Farook was born in the United States; the chief said he did not know Malik's background.

The attackers invaded the Inland Regional Center about 100 kilometres east of Los Angeles around 11 a.m., opening fire in a conference area where county health officials were having an employee banquet, said Marybeth Feild, president and CEO of the non-profit centre.

"They came prepared to do what they did, as if they were on a mission," Burguan said.

Farook and Malik were pronounced dead hours later after a vehicle pursuit of a black SUV from a house in Redlands, Calif., and a subsequent gun battle involving about 20 police officers in San Bernardino.

Farook was a county employee for about five years in the public health department, Burguan said late Wednesday.

It is believed, according to witness accounts, that Farook left an event involving several people late Wednesday morning at the government centre and then returned.

Authorities were unsure as to the severity of the various injuries of the survivors.

"I think that based upon what we have seen and based upon how they were equipped, there had to have been some degree of planning that went into this," said Burguan.

Guns bought legally

Federal authorities say that the two assault rifles and two handguns used in the shooting were all purchased legally in the United States — two of them by someone who's now under investigation.

Meredith Davis of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives says investigators are now working to make a connection to the last legal purchaser.

She says all four guns were bought four years ago but she's not saying whether they were purchased out of state or how and when they got into the hands of the two shooters.

Davis says California requires paperwork when guns change hands privately but many other states don't.

She also says the rifles involved were .223-calibre — powerful enough to pierce the standard protective vest worn by police officers, and some types of ammunition can even plow through walls.

Travelled outside U.S. earlier this year

Co-worker Patrick Baccari said he was sitting at the same table as Farook, who suddenly disappeared, leaving his coat on his chair. Baccari said he stepped into the bathroom when the shooting started and suffered minor wounds from shrapnel slicing through the wall.

Baccari described Farook as reserved and said he showed no signs of unusual behaviour. Earlier this year he travelled to Saudi Arabia, and returned with a wife, later growing a beard, Baccari said.

Farook was a restaurant inspector for the health department, according to public records.

The couple dropped off their six-month-old daughter with relatives Wednesday morning, saying they had a doctor's appointment, Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said after talking with family.

Farhan Khan, who is married to Farook's sister, told reporters he last spoke to his brother-in-law about a week ago. He said he was in shock, condemned the violence, and had "absolutely no idea why he would do this."

Farook was born in Illinois and raised in Southern California, with his family originally from Pakistan, according to Ayloush.

A third person was identified by witnesses as fleeing near the scene of the shootout on the street, but not from the suspect vehicle, police said. It was not clear if the man had any relationship to the suspects, but Burguan expressed confidence there were just two shooters present at the Inland centre.

Investigators began processing the scene of the shootings late Wednesday after disposing of three explosive devices at the centre.

"I think we're leaning more towards a pipe bomb-type design, but specifically what it was made of, I don't have that right now," Burguan said.

Authorities are expected to provide their next update Thursday morning.

[Looks like the gun ID going around was wrong too?]

Went to Saudi Arabia, came back with a new wife and a new beard. Family originally from Pakistan. Dropped baby off with family before any of this started, and had three pipe bombs at the shooting scene. Yep, that sounds like Islamic Terrorist.

[Jub]

Well I'm not in law enforcement or politics, so it's not my job to come up with a practical number. But if you ask for a simple layman opinion, well... I'd say that one of the most important factors is the shooters intention. There would be, for my definition, a sort of maximum damage and indiscriminate element. So a guy who opens up in a crowded theater would qualify, even if some off duty cop somehow put him down before he killed anyone. A guy who decides to kill his wife and kids then himself- but has no intention of harming anyone else- would not.

The usage of 'mass' just seems misplaced. Surely we have to scale our language appropriately. If 4 people is a mass shooting, what was Paris? A mega shooting? You can't use the same word to describe both because the two events simply aren't on the same level.

Does 4 people killed or injured in a movie theater make it a mass shooting while 4 people killed in a family home just make it murder, or should both carry equal weight in terms of how we view them?

Again, I'd say intent is important in at least how we classify the act. Killing four specific individuals would be a quadruple homicide. Finding a mass of people and trying to shoot as many as possible would be a mass shooting, even if by some miracle no one dies.

The line starts to blur if you look at a large family, say parents and a dozen kids. If a parent snaps and offs the entire bunch is that a mass shooting? How about if the family is killed by an outside source? Or if instead this happens in a polygamists complex and two or three dozen wind up as casualties?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

So where does the buck stop? Where do we draw the line between guns protect us and our homes and guns kill people?

Never, not in our lifetimes. The well has been completely and totally poisoned and reached religious levels of irrational conviction on both sides. The only hope is that the underlying causes are addressed and fixed by someone who never once publicly breaths a word on the subject of gun control to prevent their work being torpedoed by either side at the outset.

Now this isn't strictly true. American gun policy is being decided by something like 10 - 19% of the voting population (take the terrifyingly low off-year primary turnout, combine it with the abysmally low off-year general election turnout, and add a dash of gerrymandering.) If we could only get progressive voters to care enough to consistently show up on off-year elections, you might eventually start seeing movement on the gun issue.

Also, the religious levels of irrational conviction in this argument are being held exclusively by the pro-gun lobby who vets the politicians chosen by the 10-19% of the voting public who likes the fact that the United States has more guns per-capita than Yemen and a social safety net with holes big enough to pass a Mack truck through. The gun lobby's first reaction to even homeopathic levels of gun-control is to drag out the slippery slope fallacy like the used-up, coked-out, disease-filled whore that it is. Their second reaction is to fling their own poo at whoever suggested it.

ON-TOPIC ... goddamn it, the shooters were Muslims. Now the comment pages of the internet will be screaming "ISIS/Islamonazis/Islamofascists/Evil Moozlums" until they're blue in their trollish little piggy faces.

However, we shouldn't jump to the "evil terrorists" conclusion just yet. The man apparently left the party either "nervous" or "angry," depending on who you ask. He then came back with his wife, and they shot up his employers' holiday party. Until I see conclusive evidence that they'd been radicalized by Youtube videos of jihad, or something, I'm not going to rule out the "disgruntled employee" line. The level of apparent planning that went into this attack doesn't rule out either hypothesis, since one can really hate their fellow employees and (in the US) have easy access to the tools to carry out the most twisted revenge fantasies secreted away in one's blackened, shriveled, heart.

[Channel72]

However, we shouldn't jump to the "evil terrorists" conclusion just yet. The man apparently left the party either "nervous" or "angry," depending on who you ask. He then came back with his wife, and they shot up his employers' holiday party. Until I see conclusive evidence that they'd been radicalized by Youtube videos of jihad, or something, I'm not going to rule out the "disgruntled employee" line. The level of apparent planning that went into this attack doesn't rule out either hypothesis, since one can really hate their fellow employees and (in the US) have easy access to the tools to carry out the most twisted revenge fantasies secreted away in one's blackened, shriveled, heart.

Your attempt to be steadfastly unbiased and politically correct is commendable - but really, you know what's going on here. The guy probably became enamored with conservative Islam, went over to KSA (the Jihad factory we call an "ally"), and found that the call to Jihad imbued his life with a sense of sacred purpose... we all know the drill.

It's possible of course, that this is more like "disgruntled worker goes postal", and I grant that the fact that it wasn't a suicide attack lends credence to that hypothesis. But uh... disgruntled workers don't usually get their wife to join in on the shooting. That requires some serious religious devotion.

[Zaune]

It's unusually egalitarian for an Islamic extremist to hand the wife a gun as well.

[Dominus Atheos]

Best definition of mass shooting I've found, from a US Congress research report:

There is no broadly agreed-to, specific conceptualization of this issue, so this report uses its own definition for public mass shootings. These are incidents occurring in relatively public places, involving four or more deaths—not including the shooter(s)—and gunmen who select victims somewhat indiscriminately. The violence in these cases is not a means to an end—the gunmen do not pursue criminal profit or kill in the name of terrorist ideologies, for example.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43004.pdf

Public places, mostly-random victims (at most targeting a "class" of people like government workers), not for profit or to further a broader goal.

[Tanasinn]

They're not all going to be the same. The Tsarnaev brothers ran like cowards, too, and the train attacker that got his shit pushed in in Europe initially tried to lie and claim it was just a robbery. The fact that this man had bombs and an apparent plan to leave them behind to murder first responders is something we've seen in a lot of Islamist attacks.

[Dominus Atheos]

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

SAN BERNARDINO, CA—In the hours following a violent rampage in southern California in which two attackers killed 14 individuals and seriously injured 17 others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Wednesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Michigan resident Emily Harrington, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep these individuals from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past six and a half years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

Onion

[The Romulan Republic]

Well fuck. Any shooting, of course, is horrible, but one associated with Islam is also a pretext for the Right to attack entire groups of vast groups of people and gleefully take away more civil liberties. Except for gun rights, of course, because that's the only one that really matters to some people.

Edit: Still, I'm surprised by how much the government and media have resisted jumping to the jihadi conclusion. Not saying they're wrong to be cautious, but it seems... atypical. No doubt conspiracy theorists will jump on that. But I wonder if there's something about the facts of this case that makes it more ambiguous than usual.

[Elheru Aran]

I think it's mostly the fact that it doesn't fit your usual high profile jihadi shooting. Those tend to have a lot more volume with the whole classic 'Allahu akbar', filmed manifestos, terrorist groups claiming responsibility here and there, and so forth. Whereas this one smells more like 'disgruntled employee goes postal'. They can't decide which narrative to go with.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Edit: Still, I'm surprised by how much the government and media have resisted jumping to the jihadi conclusion. Not saying they're wrong to be cautious, but it seems... atypical. No doubt conspiracy theorists will jump on that. But I wonder if there's something about the facts of this case that makes it more ambiguous than usual.

As the day wears on, it sounds like law enforcement is moving closer and closer to making precisely that announcement. Farook's home seems to have had bomb-making equipment. He also had more guns and "thousands" of rounds of ammunition. According to the BBC, the police are looking into the prospect of additional 'co-conspirators,' and said that Mr. Farook and his wife were prepared to carry out another attack. The New York Times suggests that evidence has been uncovered indicating Mr. Farook had contact with known extremists over a period of years.

What looks especially suspicious, now, is the exact circumstances of his marriage to Ms. Malik. He went to Pakistan in 2014, and happened to come back with a brand new wife Ms. Malik, who got her green card in September of that year.

So, yes, the needle is starting to move away from "going postal" and towards "lone-wolf terrorism."

EDIT: The Times reports that Mr. Farook and Ms. Malik had been married for two years at the time of the attack.

[The Romulan Republic]

How is marrying someone in a Muslim country a sign that someone is a jihadist, unless you're a bigot?

The other factors- large stockpiles of weaponry don't prove anything either way. Conservative militia nuts do that shit too. So do apolitical shooters.

The only really indicative thing when it comes to jihadism is the apparent extremist connections. Maybe the possibility of co-conspirators and the plan for another attack as well, though neither automatically says jihadi.

Still, presuming all you've posted is accurate, I would say that in all probability their is a jihadist connection.

[Wild Zontargs]

Shooter was in contact with other terror suspects currently under investigation, had a dozen more pipe bombs at home. Sounds like he was planning something bigger, but the office incident set him off early.

Officials: San Bernardino shooter apparently was in touch with terror subjects

By Greg Botelho, CNN
Updated 2:39 PM ET, Thu December 3, 2015

(CNN)Syed Rizwan Farook -- who along with his wife, Tashfeen Malik, carried out the San Bernardino shooting massacre -- apparently was radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.

Farook's apparent radicalization contributed to his role in the mass shooting of 14 people Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said.

Still, it wasn't necessarily the only driver behind the carnage, as workplace grievances may have also played a role. President Barack Obama hinted as much Thursday when he said that the attackers may have had "mixed motives."

David Bowditch, assistant director in charge of the FBI's Los Angeles office, told reporters Thursday that Farook had traveled to Pakistan.

And two government officials said no red flags were raised when he'd gone to Saudi Arabia for several weeks in 2013 on the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca that Muslims are required to take at least once in their lifetime. It was during this trip that he met Malik, a native of Pakistan who came to the United States in July 2014 on a "fiancée visa" and later became a lawful permanent resident.

Officials had previously said neither Farook and Malik were known to the FBI or on a list of potentially radicalized people. Nor had they had any known interactions with police until Wednesday.

Yet Farook himself had talked by phone and on social media with more than one person being investigated for terrorism, law enforcement officials said.

The communications were "soft connections" in that they weren't frequent, one law enforcement official said. It had been a few months since Farook's last back-and-forth with these people, who officials said were not considered high priority.

FBI official: 'What is the motivation for this?'
As to what role those communications played in the San Bernardino carnage, the official said, "We don't know yet what they mean."

Added Bowdich, from the FBI: "That is the big question for us: What is the motivation for this?"

San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan echoed that sentiment, while adding that whatever led the two to launch Wednesday's assault, they could have killed more had they survived. He pointed to the discovery of hundreds of rounds of ammunition in their rented black SUV as well as in their apartment.

Authorities also found 12 pipe bombs there, as well as hundreds of tools that "could be used to construct IEDs or pipe bombs," the chief said.

"If you look at the amount of obvious pre-planning that went in, the amount of armaments (they) had, the weapons and the ammunition, there was obviously a mission here," added Bowdich. "We know that. We do not know why.

"We don't know if this was the intended target or if there was something that triggered him to do this immediately. We just don't know."

Chief: Shooter left party under 'angry' circumstances
The nightmare began at Wednesday's holiday party, which San Bernardino's police chief said that Farook had left abruptly "under circumstances that were described as angry."

He and his wife returned around 11 a.m. (2 p.m. ET) dressed in "black ... tactical gear" and heavily armed. Each had a semiautomatic rifle and a handgun. Then they opened fire, unloading 65 to 75 rounds.

The couple then slipped out the door and into a SUV, which they'd rented locally and had Utah plates.

By then, officers had arrived and began chasing a number of leads. One of them led them to Farook, after another person at the party at Inland Regional Center expressed "some concern over his behavior," Burguan said Thursday.

Officers went with a search warrant to the couple's rented apartment in the neighboring city of Redlands, where they saw a black SUV drive by them, slowly at first, before speeding away.

A police car took up pursuit, and the SUV raced back toward San Bernardino. Then came shots from that vehicle, and a barrage of police gunfire in return.

The couple ended firing at least 76 rounds, while the 21 responding police officers unleashed about 380 rounds of their own, according to Burguan.

By the time the last shot rang out, the SUV was riddled with bullet holes. And Farook and Malik were inside, dead.

Guns, explosives found
The husband and wife didn't leave a note to explain their attack, nor did they say anything during the bloodbath, said San Bernardino's police chief.

But they left behind plenty of ammunition. And explosives -- including three rudimentary devices packed with black powder and rigged to a remote-controlled toy car at the shooting site. None of these went off. The remote was found inside the SUV along with another pipe-like device, which was not an explosive, Burguan said.

Hundreds of unspent rounds were discovered in the vehicle, plus two .223-caliber rifles and two pistols. All were legally purchased three to four years ago, according to Burguan.

More ammunition and more bombs were found inside the couple's rented apartment in Redlands.

Farook and Malik had enough firepower to do more killing.

"They were equipped," the San Bernardino police chief said. "... And they could have done another attack."

Brother-in-law 'in shock'
Farook, an American citizen, was an environmental health specialist with the San Bernardino County health department, which was holding the holiday party. He had worked there for five years.

In an online profile, he described himself as a "Muslim Male living in USA/California/riverside" and his family as "religious but modern."

He "enjoys working on vintage and modern cars, reads religious books, enjoys eating out sometimes. Enjoys travelling and just hanging out in the back yard doing target practice with his younger sister and friends," his profile read.

Farhan Khan said he last talked to Farook, his brother-in-law, a week ago. Farook's family -- including his mother, with whom he and his wife had left their 6-month-old daughter and claimed they were heading to a doctor's appointment -- had tried to reach him all day Wednesday but could not.

"I have no idea why he would he do something like this. I have absolutely no idea. I am in shock myself," Khan said. "I don't have words to express how sad and how devastated I am."

Obama: Mass shootings 'too easy' in U.S.
Whatever their intentions, Farook and Malik caused an avalanche of pain. San Bernardino Mayor Carey Davis saw this suffering in the eyes of relatives of those killed, whose bodies were still in the Inland Regional Center early Thursday, according to county sheriff's spokesman Deon Filer.

Davis told CNN, "The desperation and despair that they feel, we feel that for them also."

At least ten people were still hospitalized Thursday morning, split evenly between Arrowhead Regional Medical Center and Loma Linda University Medical Center. The Loma Linda hospital CEO, Kerry Heinrich, said two of the victims there were in critical condition.

Authorities had not released the names of those who died in America's deadliest shooting since Sandy Hook, one that's especially unique in that it was carried out by multiple shooters.

Once again after a mass shooting, Obama appealed Thursday for something to be done to prevent more heartache.

"Right now, it's too easy," he said. "We're going to have to search ourselves as a society ... to take basic steps that would make it harder -- not impossible, but harder -- to let individuals get access to weapons."

[gizmojumpjet]

So, yes, the needle is starting to move away from "going postal" and towards "lone-wolf terrorism."

Yeah, the guy who was in contact with international terror suspects and also brought his wife along to the murder party was totally just a lone-wolf, guys.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

How is marrying someone in a Muslim country a sign that someone is a jihadist, unless you're a bigot?

Normally, it doesn't, and it shouldn't. The most suspicious thing about Ms. Malik's arrival in the United States is the fact that it happened a bit over a year out from the couple's attack on Farook's holiday party (also the fact that they both went out Bonnie and Clyde style suggests that she had as much to do with it as he did.)

The other factors- large stockpiles of weaponry don't prove anything either way. Conservative militia nuts do that shit too. So do apolitical shooters.

Typically it doesn't. If one owns a lot of guns and likes target shooting, as Mr. Farook's dating profiles clearly suggested he did, then it makes some sense to stock up on ammunition when it's cheap, because it's usually very expensive, and its price movement has been very spikey in recent years. The suspicion starts with all the bombs that were found in conjunction with all the ammunition.

Yeah, the guy who was in contact with international terror suspects and also brought his wife along to the murder party was totally just a lone-wolf, guys.

Back under your bridge, you. When I say "lone wolf", I mean that, if he was radicalized and decided to strike a blow in the name of jihad, he and his wife appear to have done it on their own, and not in concert with any larger organization. As has been repeatedly mentioned, neither Mr. Farook, nor Ms. Malik were on the radar of law enforcement. And while extremist websites are supposedly celebrating this attack, none of the usual groups have stepped forward to claim responsibility.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Ali A. Rizvi I think sums up this particular aspect of the debate pretty well:

Which of the following statements would you say you agree with?

Pick as many as you like. My answer is at the bottom.

1. Better gun control is essential to curb gun violence.

2. Islamic jihadism is a dangerous ideology that must be fought.

3. Guns should not be banned or confiscated.

4. Muslims should not be harassed or discriminated against just because they're Muslim.

5. We should aggressively criticize and even satirize the problematic aspects of Islam (the religion), as we would with any other religion or political ideology.

6. Day-to-day gun violence is more deadly than Islamic terrorism right now because it has killed many more people.

7. Islamic terrorism is more deadly than day-to-day gun violence, because if it actually succeeds in its stated goals (such as obtaining weapons of mass destruction as ISIS wants to do), it will kill millions more.

8. Anyone who kills innocents to advance a religious/political agenda is a terrorist -- this could include Muslims, far-right Christian abortion clinic bombers, radical leftists from the 1960s, Jews, Hindus, and atheists.

9. Islamic terrorism is the most deadly form of terrorism in the world today.

10. Anyone who is mentally disturbed or disgruntled and shoots up his school or workplace is a criminal, but is not a terrorist -- even if he's Muslim.

11. All Islamic terrorists are Muslim.

12. The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, and should not have to apologize for the few that are.

13. The few Muslims that do commit terrorist acts do so in complete accordance with a plausible, legitimate interpretation of the Islamic religion.

14. Islamic jihadists are motivated by many legitimate grievances like US foreign policy and the nagging remnants of Western imperialism.

15. Islamic jihadists are motivated by Islamic doctrine, the words of the Quran and hadith, and the promise of an afterlife, eternally, in Paradise.

16. Islamic imperialism (whether the 7th century Arab kind or the Ottoman kind) has done just as much harm (if not more) to the world than Western imperialism.

My answer:

All of them.

None of these points contradict each other. Go ahead and read through them again.

Gun violence, Islamic terrorism, and anti-Muslim bigotry are all real, serious problems that need to be faced head-on. It's disingenuous to be in denial about one or the other just because you have a certain political affiliation. These don't have to be conservative or liberal issues. Don't make them be.

#Solidarity with the victims and their families in San Bernardino.

I wish such a nuanced and unapologetically forthright stance had a bit more traction, but too many people want to acknowledge half of those points and ignore the other half.

[Kojiro]

The line starts to blur if you look at a large family, say parents and a dozen kids. If a parent snaps and offs the entire bunch is that a mass shooting? How about if the family is killed by an outside source? Or if instead this happens in a polygamists complex and two or three dozen wind up as casualties?

Obviously sheer volume of casualties affects the way we term it. But that's an odd circumstance. A crotchety farmer who unloads two barrels of birdshot at a group of teenagers jumping his fence may well hit four of them, causing superficial injuries but it wouldn't qualify- to me at least- as a mass shooting. Another unlikely scenario but you get the point. There's more to it than simply counting the number of people hurt. Hell if air guns count, as someone said then every paintball/airsoft match also technically qualifies as a 'mass shooting'. Obviously that's absurd.

As an aside, according to Wikipedia there were 21,175 gun suicides in 2013, which some simple maths tells me is about fifty eight people per day. Now if 58 people got together and killed themselves, I'd have no problem whatsoever calling it a mass suicide, but since they're all isolated individuals, they're just suicides. I'm not sure I'd call four of them getting together and doing it a mass suicide (though technically it would count as a mass shooting under this definition).

I don't know, like I said I'm a layman and it's not my job, but if someone said there was a mass anything, I'd assume that a) the number was large and b) the number was not readily apparent. Saying 'mass shooting' when you could say 'quadruple shooting' seems like rushing to exaggerate the size. But meh, just an opinion.

[Wild Zontargs]

California massacre shooter pledged allegiance to Islamic State: sources

One of the two people accused of killing 14 at a holiday party in California apparently pledged allegiance to a leader of Islamic State militant group, two U.S. government sources said on Friday.

Tashfeen Malik, 27, and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, were killed in a shootout with police hours after the Wednesday massacre at the Inland Regional Center social services agency in San Bernardino, about 60 miles (100 km) east of Los Angeles. The attack was the deadliest mass shooting the United States has experienced in three years.

U.S. investigators are evaluating evidence that Malik, a Pakistani native who had been living in Saudi Arabia when she married Farook, had pledged allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, two U.S. officials told Reuters. They said the finding, if confirmed, could be a "game changer" in the investigation.

Pakistani intelligence officials have contacted Malik's family in her homeland as part of the investigation, a family member said.

Malik and Farook had spent time destroying computer hard drives and other electronics before embarking on their rampage Wednesday, a U.S. government source said.

Investigators are looking into a report that Farook had engaged in an argument with a co-worker who denounced the "inherent dangers of Islam," a U.S. government source said.

CNN reported on Friday that one U.S. official said Malik had pledged allegiance to al-Baghdadi in a posting on Facebook made on Wednesday, the day of the attack, under an account that used a different name. The attack appeared to be inspired by, but not necessarily directed by Islamic State, CNN reported, citing unnamed sources.

(Reporting by Mark Hosenball in Washington and Yasmeen Abutaleb and Lisa Baertlein; Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu in Washington and Suzannah Gonzales in Chicago; Writing by Scott Malone; Editing by Bill Trott)

The train is fine, though.

[TimothyC]

Well, the crime scene is contaminated now.

[Wild Zontargs]

What. The. Fuck.

Every goddamned conspiracy theorist in the world is going absolutely apeshit right now, and I can see why. Who in their right fucking minds would have anything to do with that clusterfuck? I really hope each and every one of those news outlets ends up in court over this.

[Solauren]

Well, the crime scene is contaminated now.

That landlord, and possibly the news outlets, should be in serious legal trouble now.

You could probably get the landlord on 'after the fact' charges.

[Wild Zontargs]

A concise summary of the San Bernadino clusterfuck:

[Crossroads Inc.]

You know, this may sound really really petty, but I so wish this guy had gone in a rampage BEFORE the Colorado shooting.

Because now everyone on the right is back to OMG the Muslims will kill us all!!!!
And the media has totally forgot about the White Christian who shot up the Planned Parenthood