San Bernardino

One more note on this. It's another example of how we infantilize minorities.

We say on one hand how Muslims are strong, smart, peaceful people, with a rich history. We honor the young clock makers in their community, and the head of NASA goes overseas to tell them all about the contributions they made to science hundreds of years ago.

But, as soon as they do something terrible, it's like they're helpless victims, who couldn't avoid the lure of radicalization.

They're not idiots, right? So why do we think they fall for "radicalization"?

They don't. They seek it. They choose it. They act on it.

 

Small, what people want to do, and what they are capable of in our society are very different.

Just because the current President hasn't acted to take away guns doesn't mean he wouldn't if he could. You do get that, right?

 

But enough about Starman...

 

I haven't seen any indications that he wants to take away anyone's guns.
It's not going to happen, so unless what you're trying to do is prey on people's fears and get them to buy more guns and vote a certain way, why worry about it?

 

Don't evangelicals say they "were saved"?

 

"Radicalized" has been around since, what, the 60s? It means someone was indoctrinated into a radical theology. Seems pretty accurate here.

What you're doing here is taking issue with words that are accurate but hit you funny. That's just another form of political correctness.

 

You might want to read John Lott on his introduction to a young University of Chicago law school lecturer.

Yes. I know this. But it's not because our current President wouldn't like for it to happen.

 

I'm not an expert, but I think they would argue that salvation is somewhat passive. It's based on the grace of God.

 

Sorry, I can't take anything John Lott says seriously.

 

You're a writer. You surely know the difference between an active and passive verb, and how they are used.

They mean very different things.

And, in fact we did see something similar recently where Jews in Israel kept just getting stabbed.

 

I would guess that, if he were aware of you, the feeling would be mutual.

 

You can kill someone with your bare hands. With a rock. With a strip of cloth. With a pencil. With a hammer.

On the other hand, when's the last time that you read that someone walked into a movie theater and killed thirty people with a hammer?


Look, no one is saying that passing a law will prevent all murders or that it will prevent terrorism. What *can* be done is to make it harder to get guns, take high capacity magazines off the market. Taking 100 round snail magazines off the market means that you can't buy one, put it on an M4, and shoot a hundred times before going dry. Guns make killing and seriously wounding people quick and easy. You can aim at specific people, taking out those who seem the most threatening first.

As to bombs, Timothy McVeigh loaded 55 gallon drums full of nitrate fertilizer and diesel oil into a truck and used an improvised detonator. Bombs are not easy, they require some specific knowledge and fabrication, and you have to acquire the ingredients. If I were a terrorist, that's the way I would go. Do some internet research, gather the ingredients cautiously over time in small amounts bought far from home. Pay in cash. Pick your target site and time for maximum harm and frightfulness. Use a timer or cell phone detonator and be nowhere near. That sort of thing is going to be very hard to prevent if it is done by a loner who keeps his mouth shut and is cautious. In a general sense, you can't get pissed off, go home and get a bomb, and go light up the guy you were fighting with by impulse the way you can guns. Not impossible, but you don't hear about that they way you do going to the house or car, getting a pistol, and coming back.

The ultimate bottom line is this... if the shooter does not care if he lives or dies, it is near impossible to prevent him from doing a helluva lot of damage before he is taken down. That's why suicide bombers are so effective.

Passing a law is not a cure all, but if even as few as 5% of mass shootings are prevented, that's a lot of people who go home alive who otherwise are shot to death. You do what you can, and incrementally over time you find effective tools. The ones that don't work well you either refine and improve, or you chuck them and try something else. It worked for cancer - no, we can't prevent cancer, or cure them all, but if you are diagnosed with one you have a helluva lot better chance of beating it or living a longer life than you did in 1975.