I actually don’t think gun control will stop terrorists or hardened criminals. But it will decrease some deaths and injuries - for example, the number of children injured or killed when they find a loaded gun at home.
That’s just for starters – something I myself would be fine with in an of itself.
"I am wondering if there are taboos within Islam that could be used to advantage by the authorities, after incidents such as this, that might discourage some future would-be terrorists. For example, are there ceremonies associated with burial that, if not done, are considered to cause great shame to the individual? We have, dare I say it, glamorous coverage of these shooters as they being pursued by the police. I’m sure that’s being used by ISIS now as part of its recruiting propaganda. Are there humiliating and shaming details that the authorities could release to the recruitment websites? "
TOTALLY AGREE WITH THIS. Make them look as bad as possible…not just to normal human beings like us, who are disgusted by such evil, but things that would humiliate them in their graves. Why should they get a burial in the practice of their religion? Reveal the most embarrassing things about them, make any wannabes think a little closer about being so shamed.
Were medical records ever really private within the lifetime of people posting here? Insurance companies have been sharing them for over a century.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence claims that there is a mass shooting (defined as four or more people shot (not necessarily killed) in one incident) almost every day in the US since December 2012.
But, as noted elsewhere, mass shooting deaths are only about 11% of firearm homicides and 8% of all homicides in the US.
I think we’re all trying to think about two things at once – mass shootings in general and this incident in particular.
Most mass shootings in the United States are not acts of terrorism, and it seems reasonable that stricter gun control might reduce the number of such crimes.
This particular shooting, however, seems to be atypical in that it does appear to be a terrorist act – although a confusing one because it’s hard to understand why terrorists would pick the particular target that was attacked. Gun control may not be a particularly effective tool for deterring incidents like this one.
From the FBI, it is officially terrorism.
San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook had contact with people from at least two terror organizations overseas, including the Nusra Front in Syria and Shabab in Somalia, a federal law enforcement official said Friday.
The revelations came as the FBI formally announced it was investigating the shooting rampage as an act of terrorism.
This is a quote from the LA Times.
I’m not at all convinced that “evil” is a mental illness. People who are mentally ill are far more likely to turn a gun upon themselves than upon others.
If there was a way to detect “potential evil intent” in firearm checks I would be all for that. However, that might certainly curtail the sales of guns to, you know, humans.
But how do we do that and still uphold our own democratic principles? One of the perpetrators in this latest attack was a US-born citizen. Aside from forbidding travel to certain countries, or allowing only for one-way travel (and the possible forfeiture or one’s citizenship), which may be reasonable at this point, what exactly are you prepared to do?
Where did anybody say or imply this? Can you kindly point it out, as it doesn’t seem that anyone is missing anything.
Some interesting reading material
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf
I find it interesting how many of the mass shootings were in places that were either gun free zones (for law abiders) or in places with very strong gun control laws.
News is reporting that ISIS is now referencing this attack (though CNN says ISIS is not taking credit). ISIS apparently (per CNN) called them “supporters”, not “fighters” , as they referred to the Paris terrorists, so it is being seen as that ISIS did not have any foreknowledge of this attack.
While you are there, read the article right under it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/one-map-shows-why-americas-gun-violence-is-so-much-worse-than-anywhere-else/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na
I live in the Detroit area, not really noticing much of a decline in gun violence around here.
“From the FBI, it is officially terrorism.” And it doesn’t sound like either of these murderers was on anybody’s radar.
That is what seems scary, that there are potentially others out here that are plotting things but are going undetected.
But as the FBI spokesperson said ,people
should continue to
go about their daily lives and the FBI doesn’t seem to have any credible threats they are currently concerned about.
I’m troubled by how much broad-brush stereotyping there is on this thread—you know, all the “they do this sort of thing” and “that’s the way they are” and such.
Generally, most of these theys are referring to Islamist radicals, but in a few cases it appears to refer to all Muslims. Even allowing that the latter meaning is silly (to put it mildly), the first meaning poses some difficulties—even within Islamist radicalism, there’s a great deal of divergence of opinion on methods and aims. (The most obvious example: Daesh and al-Qaeda are on quite unfriendly terms, and not just because they’re in competition for followers and influence—they differ hugely on how to accomplish their aims.)
Not to mention that saying something like “they want this to happen” seems to require a bit too much mind-reading for my comfort.
Anyway, I guess that what I’m saying is, if you’re going to characterize the way some group of people act or desire or whatever, make sure that you’re being specific enough that your characterization has even a remote chance of being correct. That’s all.
It sounds as though these shooters were sympathetic to ISIS but not directly connected with it. People like that would be particularly hard to detect, I think.
"Generally, most of these theys are referring to Islamist radicals, but in a few cases it appears to refer to all Muslims. Even allowing that the latter meaning is silly (to put it mildly), the first meaning poses some difficulties—even within Islamist radicalism, there’s a great deal of divergence of opinion on methods and aims. (The most obvious example: Daesh and al-Qaeda are on quite unfriendly terms, and not just because they’re in competition for followers and influence—they differ hugely on how to accomplish their aims.)
Not to mention that saying something like “they want this to happen” seems to require a bit too much mind-reading for my comfort.
Anyway, I guess that what I’m saying is, if you’re going to characterize the way some group of people act or desire or whatever, make sure that you’re being specific enough that your characterization has even a remote chance of being correct. That’s all."
I don’t think it takes much thought to figure out who the “they” is. The bad guys that are spreading throughout the Middle East, Europe, and now the United States. ISIS, Daesh, ISIL, whatever you would like to call them. And people who sympathize with and support them. Clearer now? I guess we wouldn’t want to attribute any evil desires of ISIS to the kinder, gentler al-Qaeda, now, would we?
“It sounds as though these shooters were sympathetic to ISIS but not directly connected with it. People like that would be particularly hard to detect, I think.”
I believe it may take some time to determine that. With all the support of people that were helping them, it is quite possible there is some connection. They didn’t just do this on their own, from what they have reported so far.
The al Nusra Front is an Al Qaeda affiliate and so is al Shabab.They are opponents of Daesh. Just so we get our combatants correct here.
I get the feeling that the people who are susceptible to being radicalized end up picking some random cartoon villain/ video game bad guy group, without much attention to the supposed political or religious aims of the group. It’s more about being angry and wanting to be a superhero and feel important than about religious or political aims. And that’s why I think any condemnation from mainstream Muslims is ineffective; the radicalized jihadists don’t care.
I’ll probably get some crap for this comment but I wish the police had captured one or both of them alive. It could have been beneficial to extract info from them re: co-conspirators, accomplices, why/how they became radicalized, etc.
Right. Exactly. And that’s why argument that if we say Islamic terrorism (or such things), then the terrorists WIN. Which is ludicrous. They just don’t care what we think or say, they just want to kill, maim, destroy, terrorize and spread their message.