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.

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?

No.

[Valmy]

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?

Well right. How were we supposed to know there would be this problem with radical Islam 30 years ago?

[Zanza]

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

Could it be confirmation bias?

No.

So you don't have any numbers, but you can exclude confirmation bias? Impressive!

[derspiess]

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?

I think it's something to factor in when we decide how many visas/immigrants we allow from certain Muslim-majority countries.  If that ends up being too cautious because radical Islam is no longer that big of a problem 25 years from now, I could probably live with that.

[Martinus]

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.

You can make it a crime to access and download child pornography. Make it a crime to access and download jihadist content.

[derspiess]

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

Could it be confirmation bias?

No.

So you don't have any numbers, but you can exclude confirmation bias? Impressive!

Thank you.

[Valmy]

I think it's something to factor in when we decide how many visas/immigrants we allow from certain Muslim-majority countries.  If that ends up being too cautious because radical Islam is no longer that big of a problem 25 years from now, I could probably live with that.

Is it currently? Who makes this kind of decision? Probably Congress I would think.

[Martinus]

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?

Well right. How were we supposed to know there would be this problem with radical Islam 30 years ago?

We know now. So we can stop further immigration from Muslim countries. Let them stew in their own backward hate.

[Berkut]

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?

Of course - certainly having a handgun would be better than nothing. I could imagine all kinds of scenarios where you could make a difference if you were careful and thoughtful about the situation.

I was just pointing out that a handgun is no equalizer to a guy with an assault rifle.

[viper37]

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.

bah.  Death solve all problems.  No man, no problem.  Trump will fix this.

[Valmy]

You can make it a crime to access and download child pornography. Make it a crime to access and download jihadist content.

That is fundamentally different. Pornography and obscenity are not protected by the First Amendment. Ideology is. It is the same reason we never outlawed the Communist Party and its propaganda back in the day.

[Martinus]

US embassy in Warsaw.   

I'm planning to go tomorrow.

[Valmy]

It is appreciated Marty

[Martinus]

Christopher Rice (a writer and son of Anne Rice) has been posting pics of the victims all day on his Facebook. It's really heartbreaking.

[viper37]

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.

You can make it a crime to access and download child pornography. Make it a crime to access and download jihadist content.

Child pornography is harmful to the actors.
Jihadist content would fall in the realm of free speech, like neo-nazi content, anti-israeli propaganda, anti-american propaganda, claiming that Obama was born abroad, saying someone should kill the nigger in the White House or accusing the President of complicity in a terrorist attack.  If all of this has been judged as free speech, I don't see how you could determine that djihadist content is somewhat more harmful than typical neo-nazi propaganda.