Mass killing in Orlando gay nightclub

[derspiess]

Thing is, this particular attacker wasn't an immigrant or a refugee. He was a native-born American citizen. Not sure why an attack by an ISIS-inspired American should lead us to reject refugees,

Because of the tendency for many second generation immigrants to radicalize.  His parents may have been relatively harmless, but they gave birth to him. 

[derspiess]

More to the point is that it just isn't going to work.

A handgun is a pretty shitty weapon for anything but very short range. Compared to an assault rifle, you are pretty fucked unless you can close the range up a bit without being seen.

Really depends on the situation.  Obviously if you're a good distance away with lots of open space, you aren't likely to successfully enter ninja mode and get the drop on him.  But in a chaotic situation with a lone gunner, who knows where you'll be and what situation you'll find yourself in?

[frunk]

Thing is, this particular attacker wasn't an immigrant or a refugee. He was a native-born American citizen. Not sure why an attack by an ISIS-inspired American should lead us to reject refugees, who are in large part ISIS-victimized non-Americans, or immigrants. They weren't the problem in this particular case.

That's what I don't get.  Most of the immigrants/refugees are people who are leaving precisely because of the wackos killing people and the shitty place they are making it.  If the immigrants wanted to kill people and revel in extremism they'd stay.  Much more likely they'd get away with it (or be encouraged to) in Syria.  Of course there will be some violent people who sneak in to the west because of that, but that is not the intent of the bulk of the population.  OTOH people are very upset about western citizens leaving to go to Syria and join groups like ISIS.  So not only do we not desire immigrants who don't want to be violent, we also would rather hold onto those who want to be violent and instead potentially commit violent acts here.

It all seems backward.

[Barrister]

Thing is, this particular attacker wasn't an immigrant or a refugee. He was a native-born American citizen. Not sure why an attack by an ISIS-inspired American should lead us to reject refugees,

Because of the tendency for many second generation immigrants to radicalize.  His parents may have been relatively harmless, but they gave birth to him.

The second generation becoming 'radicalized' is certainly a thing that sometimes happens, but do we have any number on it that would justify the word "many"?

[viper37]

I wonder what happens when a man like this ends up on the FBI watch list. I mean how does he get an automatic rifle and all that shit with the FBI expending resources on monitoring his activities? What does it actually mean to be on some list the FBI has?

I don't think the FBI has the power to restrict one's access to guns, unless they can prove some extreme circumstances.  I remember reading in the NYT that the FBI was very concerned about these lone wolves getting their hands on assault rifles and there was nothing they could do about it except try to watch it closely.  Which is near impossible.  You can't put one cop behind every radical lunatic.

[Malthus]

Thing is, this particular attacker wasn't an immigrant or a refugee. He was a native-born American citizen. Not sure why an attack by an ISIS-inspired American should lead us to reject refugees,

Because of the tendency for many second generation immigrants to radicalize.  His parents may have been relatively harmless, but they gave birth to him.

Even assuming you could demonstrate this was true, this assumes that the challenges we will face in a generation will be the same as they are now. A generation ago, everyone was more worried about the Soviet Union than about radical Islam. In a generation, we may be more worried about the Russians again, or the Chinese.

[Zanza]

The second generation becoming 'radicalized' is certainly a thing that sometimes happens, but do we have any number on it that would justify the word "many"?

And can we judge the parents by the potential worldview of their maybe not even yet living offspring? I think we should judge individuals and not try to make general judgments about groups of people. We have a history of Sippenhaft, i.e. collective guilt, so I am rather wary of it. If we don't think that the parents warrant asylum or fulfill the criteria for other means of immigration that's fine and we should refuse them. But we should not deny anybody based on how his potential offspring might radicalize.

[Valmy]

By embracing catholic fanatism?

During the time of the Anglo-Saxons that was a considerable upgrade to what they had previously been embracing

[Zanza]

I wonder what happens when a man like this ends up on the FBI watch list. I mean how does he get an automatic rifle and all that shit with the FBI expending resources on monitoring his activities? What does it actually mean to be on some list the FBI has?

I don't think the FBI has the power to restrict one's access to guns, unless they can prove some extreme circumstances.  I remember reading in the NYT that the FBI was very concerned about these lone wolves getting their hands on assault rifles and there was nothing they could do about it except try to watch it closely.  Which is near impossible.  You can't put one cop behind every radical lunatic.

That will be solved by intelligent drones in a few years. 

[derspiess]

Thing is, this particular attacker wasn't an immigrant or a refugee. He was a native-born American citizen. Not sure why an attack by an ISIS-inspired American should lead us to reject refugees,

Because of the tendency for many second generation immigrants to radicalize.  His parents may have been relatively harmless, but they gave birth to him.

The second generation becoming 'radicalized' is certainly a thing that sometimes happens, but do we have any number on it that would justify the word "many"?

Not aware of any stats, no.  Just a trend I've noticed. 

[Valmy]

I think it is a minority who feel alienated and so our embracing an idealized and radical version of their ancestry.

Definitely people to watch out for.

[Zanza]

Thing is, this particular attacker wasn't an immigrant or a refugee. He was a native-born American citizen. Not sure why an attack by an ISIS-inspired American should lead us to reject refugees,

Because of the tendency for many second generation immigrants to radicalize.  His parents may have been relatively harmless, but they gave birth to him.

The second generation becoming 'radicalized' is certainly a thing that sometimes happens, but do we have any number on it that would justify the word "many"?

Not aware of any stats, no.  Just a trend I've noticed.

Could it be confirmation bias?

[Martinus]

Thing is, this particular attacker wasn't an immigrant or a refugee. He was a native-born American citizen. Not sure why an attack by an ISIS-inspired American should lead us to reject refugees, who are in large part ISIS-victimized non-Americans, or immigrants. They weren't the problem in this particular case.

That's what I don't get.  Most of the immigrants/refugees are people who are leaving precisely because of the wackos killing people and the shitty place they are making it.  If the immigrants wanted to kill people and revel in extremism they'd stay.  Much more likely they'd get away with it (or be encouraged to) in Syria.  Of course there will be some violent people who sneak in to the west because of that, but that is not the intent of the bulk of the population.  OTOH people are very upset about western citizens leaving to go to Syria and join groups like ISIS.  So not only do we not desire immigrants who don't want to be violent, we also would rather hold onto those who want to be violent and instead potentially commit violent acts here.

It all seems backward.

So your point is that we should be happy about murderous fanatics leaving our own homeland to murder gays and rape women elsewhere? That's the most immoral thing I have heard in months.

We should neither keep them here nor let them leave. We should eliminate them.

[Valmy]

We should neither keep them here or let them leave. We should eliminate them.

Well that's impossible. We have this thing called the Constitution of the United States.

[Berkut]

Yeah but I guess Otto's point is more about us letting in his rather bizarre father. But letting in Afghans fleeing Soviet aggression was what that was all about. So we could be letting in future problems from any number of currently innocuous regions.

The problem there though is that there was no way to predict back then that 20+ years later the world would be such that his son would radicalize and go on a shooting spree.

Who should we exclude today in order to protect us from their potential kids in 25 years?