What Should Have Been Done to Prevent this Mass Shooting?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Didn't Carter do a lot of this without stripping rights? It is just common sense until time and re-education has taken hold, it is temporary and necessary right now due to the movement around the world to kill wherever they can.

STM

a reply to: seentoomuch

Carter merely prevented Iranians (not the entire Muslim religion or even the Shia sect of Muslim which Iran is predominantly) from entering the country. So not only did that include Muslims, but also Christians, atheists or anyone practicing any religion. There is a big difference there. Though it can be hard to see that since most people from Iran are going to be Muslim.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Carter was dealing with just Iran and dealt a common sense answer to just Iran. Today we are dealing with an ideology/theocracy that is endemic within a large group of people from many countries. I would take his template and adjust it to help hold the tide and hope for re-education taking hold for the new generation.

STM

a reply to: snowspirit


Those open carry and even concealed carry 'privileges' do not trump property rights.

The world isn't safe you aren't safe you can't get safe get used to it.

Safe spaces are delusions weak minded individuals with no identity or sense of self

originally posted by: seentoomuch
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Carter was dealing with just Iran and dealt a common sense answer to just Iran. Today we are dealing with an ideology/theocracy that is endemic within a large group of people from many countries. I would take his template and adjust it to help hold the tide and hope for re-education taking hold for the new generation.

STM

Instead of taking the square template that Carter came up with in the 70's and shoving it into the round hole of a problem we have here, how about just coming up with a new idea that fits better?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Carter found a way to enforce his answer to the situation without stripping rights. I thought that perhaps the new administration could use the same route through Congress to allow for temporary common sense limits on access to sensitive positions and education. I haven't studied up on Carter's route, have you? And if so, do you think a adjusted version would work today in Congress?

STM

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not looking for answers that strip rights away. I want working solutions that can apply to everyone without infringing on liberties.

You are seeking answers that cannot be found within the system you wish to uphold, given its present state.

In order for situations like this to be prevented the state would need to be able to act on suspicion alone; not just investigate, but actually take measures. The buzzword of the present time is "thoughtcrime". That is what the government would need to act against in order to avoid these potential crimes becoming a reality.

Blackstone's ratio: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

It is applicable to turn this principle on its head and say: It is better that ten innocent people die than that one potentially but not proved guilty person suffer.

Quite the conundrum.

a reply to: seentoomuch

In order to pass a thing through congress today, you would have to propel it at something like 2,000 feet per second.

They are a singularly useless bunch.

a reply to: seentoomuch

Carter's route was Constitutional because it applied to a country and it didn't strip access for Iranians who had already moved here from working in sensitive employment positions either. Your suggestion would effectively violate the 1st Amendment's freedom to practice religion clause as well as violate Civil Rights by profiling Muslims and not letting them work in certain jobs. Such a plan would be MASSIVELY detrimental to our relations with the Muslim community both domestic and abroad. We want to improve those relations, not further break them.

a reply to: Jonjonj

And this is the conundrum of freedom. Where do we stop the stripping of our freedoms for security? There has to be a line drawn somewhere, but once that line is drawn we have to accept that certain actions will be unpreventable because of the circumstances surrounding them. Actions like the one in Orlando.

The only way we could have prevented this is if we were willing to break civil liberties to do so. I'm glad you saw the point of my thought exercise here.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I thought Islam is a theocracy? Isn't that like a country wherever they find themselves? It's similar to large corporations being a law unto themselves. Idk, Krazyshot, I'm really just trying to figure this out without a lot of people dying. When if it's nuclear next year? How many would die then? There has to be an answer to this, it's probably right in front of us. I'll step back from the thread now and read everyone else's ideas with hope.

Great thread,

STM

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is crystal clear that this is what would be needed, and that is absolutely horrifying in concept. I would bet a pound to a pinch of salt though that if such attacks were to become weekly or even monthly events such action would be proposed, debated and passed into law rather quickly, not just in the USA but in every so called democracy.

We live in interesting times.

a reply to: Jonjonj

You are probably right, but if they were an often occurrence than maybe there would be more need for them being implemented. I guess that depends on the direness of the situation, but as it stands now terrorist attacks (especially ones caused by Muslims) are rather infrequent in this country. When they do happen, not many people die. Even this shooting with 50 people dead is a small number of deaths when compared against other things that kill Americans regularly.

I really wish that Americans would wake up and realize that terrorism isn't as dangerous as a threat as it is made out to be in the media. Yes it is dangerous and we are at risk, but it is nowhere NEAR as terrifying or deadly as it is pitched to the public. The numbers and statistics bare this out rather easily. Even non-Muslim terrorism in this country is rather infrequent (and 90%+ of all terrorist attacks on this soil are non-Muslim caused).

a reply to: seentoomuch

Islam is a religion. It has religious laws, but so does Judaism or Christianity. It does remain one of the few religions that also heads up theocracies on this planet, but that doesn't mean that it needs to exist within a theocracy for it to be worshiped either. We should treat it like any other religion.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: seentoomuch
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Carter was dealing with just Iran and dealt a common sense answer to just Iran. Today we are dealing with an ideology/theocracy that is endemic within a large group of people from many countries. I would take his template and adjust it to help hold the tide and hope for re-education taking hold for the new generation.

STM

Instead of taking the square template that Carter came up with in the 70's and shoving it into the round hole of a problem we have here, how about just coming up with a new idea that fits better?

I think the answer isn't really about 'just' dealing with one culture, be that faith based or some other aspect of society, but that killing other people really isn't the best way of dealing with your own issues.

Sadly in a few weeks this incident will be partly forgotten - why? How could it when it's such a shocking loss of life? Because there will be another mass killing, then another, then another. The killers may be of one faith for one, another for the next, no faith for the one after. If you look at mass killings in America over the last decade or so, you cannot pin all on a specific demographic......... actually, I'm wrong, you can, they are predominantly male, on the whole that's it - maybe an age range, maybe some level of mental issues (although not always formally identified).

Should that be the issue that needs to be given some soul searching?

The knee jerk reaction on here has been to blame Islam. While Islam is hardly gay friendly, technically it's no more or less so than at least Christianity or Judaism (word to the people who don't agree, they all take the root from the same book, talk of killing homosexuals comes more from extremists than anything recorded in the 'official record'), that doesn't mean everyone of those faiths is stuck rigid to archaic opinions from a couple of thousand years ago. Likewise, you don't have to have a faith to take issue with a societal group you don't like.

The real point is being a mature enough person to understand just because you don't like/understand that particular group doesn't give you the right to remove their right of living. Instead of demonising others people perceive as somehow different to themselves, perhaps there should be more of a push to at least understanding other peoples perspectives, even if you would never agree with them.

originally posted by: uncommitted
Sadly in a few weeks this incident will be partly forgotten - why? How could it when it's such a shocking loss of life? Because there will be another mass killing, then another, then another. The killers may be of one faith for one, another for the next, no faith for the one after. If you look at mass killings in America over the last decade or so, you cannot pin all on a specific demographic......... actually, I'm wrong, you can, they are predominantly male, on the whole that's it - maybe an age range, maybe some level of mental issues (although not always formally identified).

You're right here. I posted in a previous post a few posts up that 90% of all terrorist attacks in this country since 1970 are non-Muslim related, and the Set that contains "non-Muslims" is a rather large Set.

Should that be the issue that needs to be given some soul searching?

Time fades all pain. It is a fact of life. Are you still mourning the deaths of the 3000 people who died during 9/11? It's true that this is a monumentally painful event, but we need these wounds to heal over time otherwise it would be hard to function from day-to-day. There is too much awfulness occurring in the world to not grow numb to it eventually.

The knee jerk reaction on here has been to blame Islam. While Islam is hardly gay friendly, technically it's no more or less so than at least Christianity or Judaism (word to the people who don't agree, they all take the root from the same book, talk of killing homosexuals comes more from extremists than anything recorded in the 'official record'), that doesn't mean everyone of those faiths is stuck rigid to archaic opinions from a couple of thousand years ago. Likewise, you don't have to have a faith to take issue with a societal group you don't like.

The real point is being a mature enough person to understand just because you don't like/understand that particular group doesn't give you the right to remove their right of living. Instead of demonising others people perceive as somehow different to themselves, perhaps there should be more of a push to at least understanding other peoples perspectives, even if you would never agree with them.

Agreed. Attempting to understand a culture you don't understand would probably do FAR more to alleviating future terrorist attacks against us from them rather than blowing them and their country up for decades.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I understand your point, and for that you have the media to blame in part; not for creating the problem of course, the problem is a real one, there are people whose intention it is to kill in our free societies, but for fanning the already brightly burning fear of flame so it rages.

There is something quite terrifying for the average citizen in the thought of losing their lives and those of their loved ones to people who exist in their society in large part due to the freedoms those societies guarantee. They think that perhaps if we just tighten those rules, for a bit, then we could deal with this and then get back to life as normal.

I suppose it is analogous to the person who gets heart disease; they love that steak, those beers, the ice-cream and the cakes, but once that call from the heart hits they have to stop with those dangerous practices and cut out on the danger factors, reduce those calories. The analogy breaks down at the point where they realise that those changes are for life, not for a short time.

Honestly it doesn't seem like much. Perhaps listen to the co-worker who had been complaining about his radical and violent language?

a reply to: Jonjonj

This is why it is common for people to accuse the government of taking a mile whenever you give them an inch. The government works by trying to apply its edicts to the entire population equally. Naturally this often fails due to human error and bias, but the intent is definitely there. This causes clearly biased edicts against certain groups to eventually balloon to include the entire population. After all, that is how our Constitution is defined. If it is good enough for one group, then it is good enough for all of them.

So actions like banning a group from entering the country or profiling said group for illegal activity get applied outside of those groups because someone sits down and says, "well I see the same or greater rates of occurrence to the same thing we are looking for in group A in group B. So let's apply this to them as well." This is how you end up with things like PRISM, originally designed to keep track of terrorist activity and talk outside of the country, end up monitoring domestic Americans and it being used in simple drug trafficking cases.