Quote:Two hundred years ago practitioners of religion were at the forefront of ending Institutionalized Slavery in the western world, both by law and by violence.

 

Exactly. And folks also used religion as a justification for slavery, as Anchorman said. From this one might determine that many if not all ideologies can be used to justify both good and bad actions. 

 

There doesn't seem to be much discussion about what policies should be adopted to get rid of the problem. Some claim gun control would help. A ban on 'modern sporting rifles' or whatever the term is as well as limiting magazine size might decrease the number of folks killed per incident, or allow for others to have more of a change to disarm/counter-fire during reload. Even so, at most this seems to be mitigation, and those intending to do mass violence might switch to even more dangerous means such as explosives, etc. Off the cuff I might thing that such guns are really made for battlefields. However, while I personally don't see much value in 'modern sporting rifles' for hunting or home defense, I do feel we should probably discuss things well before deciding to restrict other people's liberty. I am not talking second amendment here, as historically, the SC has ruled that restrictions can be placed. Just a dislike of bans or restrictions without strong evidence the savings would very clearly outweigh the onus of placing the restriction. 

 

The same goes for those wanting to put blanket bans or similar special treatment regarding Muslims. From what I have seen, there is absolutely no justification for doing something like banning Muslim immigration due to the actions of a few bad actors. Whether race, religion, nationality, or other factor is used as a justification for discrimination, such discrimination should be examined closely to determine what possible justification exists to warrant it. So far, I haven't seen any cogent reasoning that would do so. 

 

And finally, there has been a good bit of reporting on comments the shooter made in the past. From what I understand, the guy in the past claimed he supported groups that were hostile to the U.S. , but also to each other. From what I understand, he did the same thing the night he attacked. While this might show him as even more of a nut-job (if possible), it also seems to point out the limitation of action regarding those who make comments that other might well deem dangerous.I am not sure what good placing someone on a 'watch' list does, in cases like this. In the event of an organized attack with multiple parties and coordinated communication, sure, intel can be gathered and perhaps events can be interrupted. But in an event like this, I have yet to see any effective and not ridiculously over-extensive action that would have prevented it. Doesn't stop me from hoping someone can come up with something. 

---