San Bernardino

Spot on.

Gun control is definitely a discussion we need to have...but moreso in light of the Planned Parenthood attack, not the San Bernardino one, which is simply a case of a Muslim terrorist sleeper cell using whatever methods they had available to teach the infidels a lesson. Nothing more, nothing less, than that.

 

That's the point. The available weapons used were legally purchased firearms.

 

It's not irrelevant. We're allowing people to immigrate here who do not share our values.

And, even if the parents are good people, their kids are much more likely targets of Islamist recruitment than non-Muslim kids.

 

YF, you want the reporting to be, "Radical Islamic terrorism strikes again." Full stop. And that is almost certainly what drove him to this. At the same time, I don't find it intellectually dishonest that reporters and citizens alike are a little baffled by how it played out, particularly since the first reports were that he left the party after having a dispute, then came back and carried this out, which I haven't seen corrected.

 

It's entirely possible the problem is both guns AND Islamic terrorism.

 

There are certainly some unique aspects to this story.

And, that's worth discussing/questioning.

What's not different though is most important. A first generation Muslim-American, who grew up surrounded by violence in the home, becomes more radical as he becomes more religious.

His radicalism drives him to murder.

The story isn't work place violence. It's not about what his co-workers might have done to "anger" him. It's not about gun control.

The common denominator in all Islamic terror is Islam.

 

Look, I get the argument that guns are a problem, even if I disagree with the "fixes" proposed.

But, the 9/11 terrorists didn't use a single gun. The Boston Marathon bombers didn't use a single gun. Muslims in Israel have been terrorizing Jews recently with knives.

Muslim terrorists are playing a long game. They're planning out their actions, and not acting spontaneously. (Even if in the case they may have altered their larger plan.) A lack of guns will not prevent them from committing acts of terror.

I'm much more open to such an argument in the case of a mentally disturbed individual, who may not have the capacity to plan out a more complicated attack, in the absence of a firearm.

 

The FBI is as yet unwilling to state what the motive is, at least according to the LA Times Website I just scanned. I don't think that's due to some softness on terrorism. They are puzzled that the crime did not fit the usual terrorist pattern (why weren't all those bombs used, for instance) so are continuing their investigation.
There are roughly 1.6 billion Muslims on earth and 3 million in the US. If they were all inherently bent on violence, things would be much, much, much worse than they are.

 

It's part of the story.

If the implication is that they were "asking for it," you're right. But that's not necessarily the implication. It's part of the narrative here (not the "narrative," but the narrative) that we're trying to piece together. Dismissing it is like the people who didn't think it was relevant that Patrick Kane's alleged victim was hitting on him all night.

Not primarily.

Correct. Is someone denying that? What I see is a battle to just widen the lens. Some want to include things like Dylann Roof or the Colorado Planned Parenthood shooter in the box of "violent extremism." Others think the focus should be on Islamic terrorism, period.

 

Why do you seem to think there can be only one "takeaway"? Sorry, but the fact that the ARs used to massacre those people were legally and easily purchased in the US very much makes our gun laws fair game in this discussion. Doesn't mean we can't also address motive.

 

But depending upon the tragedy, we're only allowed to talk about these one at a time.

 

That's basically it. They are both huge, mostly separate issues in our country that happened to overlap in this instance.

We can certainly "have a discussion" about both things at once.