No Longer Active Shooter Reported In San Bernadino, Calif.

Does everyone remember how "going postal" became a phrase?

Because phychotic people have friends too?

Highly speculative still, so many possiblities.

You can create a stronger and cheaper bomb and kill more people.

And guess what? People just do that when they want to do it (cf. Paris).

Unless you A) remove every kind of weapon possible and B) remove every component from public's reach, and this include Sugar and ***, you'll still have mass murders.
Keep focusing on guns, this will help a lot.

Does Europe practice/have the public duty doctrine? It basically states that police must protect the people but has no obligation to protect individuals.

In the US multiple court cases in multiple districts have upheld this to mean that they are not liable for failing to protect individuals even when they promised help would arrive
Example
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Ah, yes. Always stating the problem and never suggesting a workable solution.

This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

Edit: This seems to be for normal people but I can't find anything regarding the police. Since there's no wiki article for it I don't know what I'd be searching for in Swedish (for example)

Duty to rescue is generally only applied to civilians (when it is applied at all), not law enforcement. There are two seperate guidelines for government employees vs civilians (in the US, and for some good reasons).

I don't really know how it works in the EU

Refresh next time!

Arson. It's already a fairly common way to kill multiple people or destroy property. You just don't hear about it, because it is not sensational.

Sincerity level: 0

Any so-called workable solution would involve limiting access to guns in some way. The solution is then called unrealistic, the conversation ends, and the status quo is maintained.

Way too good Kara, I laughed IRL.

You first please.

Actually, there have been some sensationalized arson fires in Seattle.

In the meantime:

Two suspects dead, M and F. One possible suspect captured.

Wounded up to 20. Dead still 14.

Well, that's one way of doing it. When step 1 is "We can't solve this until you think the way I think", then I guess that absolves anyone of even trying because it's never going to happen.

Arthur Deming (a famous figure in quality improvement) often taught that processes are often the problems that need to be fixed, not necessarily people. You can try and try and try to force your "perfect" idea, but if it doesn't fit for the people that actually have to live with it then it's a bad idea. Anti-gun people are so stuck on their utopian ideal of no-gun-happy-rainbow-unicorn-land-cuz-Europe that they're hardly getting anything accomplished at all. Take a reality check, look at what's feasible instead of ideal, and find a way to sell your ideas in a way that resonates with the people. I know that's way harder than bashing guns constantly and the people that like them, but if you want to keep the status quo then you can just keep on playing that broken record and watch as nothing changes.

Sadly the US needs a lot more than just gun control to lower their crime rate

The reasons people turn to crime have to be worked on as well

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

It NEEDS gun control but the rest as well. It'll take time to do but it's worth it in the long run. There won't be the same need for guns in the country then either. Not saying remove guns completely because that's stupid but restricting access absolutely.

Personally I don't see why you need anything more than hunting rifles (that's what most people have here) when you reach that point aside from target practice at a shooting range.

I didn't realize you were simply looking for a vague, Miss America answer. (No offense Drac)

Miss Bearmerica /poses

It's on the right path. I'll take even small wins from you guys. Less crime = less reliance on guns in order to feel safe. Less reliance = less resistance to changes in the law. Going for the direct grab is not only stupid, it's counterproductive. Going for the root of the problem is good for everyone.

You want to talk specifics in how to reduce crime? Great, let's continue on that path.

The suggestion of a bottom-up approach would be more believable if there wasn't such an overlap between pro-gun people and those would are also against things like universal healthcare, financial safety nets, increased minimum wage, and low-cost/free higher education.

Also, a problem can be addressed from multiple avenues. To suggest otherwise is a false dichotomy.

Shooter's name was Syed Farook.

/endthread