Pretty much agree with your assessment and adding #8. But some of this information is not going to come up on a general data sift of public information (bank account and individual phone records would require individual suspicion). In fact, I am not sure how much we're going with regard to most of those categories (except for gun and foreign travel) without individualized attention. If you are not looking at the person, you're not going to get the information even though it's out there.
And Ricky I don't think the federal government is linking up those data sources (or can) right now. If they did they would have known about them.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Ray

Thanks; that's what I was getting at.

Freeman and Ray, what makes you think that this isn't what (or something close) being used as criteria to ferret out radiicalized persons now?

If it is, they sure dropped the ball in California.

(3) Recent visit to Muslim country
(4) Recent gun purchases, particularly multiple
(5) contacts with known radicals
(6) Internet postings supporting radical Islam
(7) unusual banking transactions

At the very least, 3, 4, 5, and 7 applied.

The guns were bought by a third party.

Good point.

Yes, I'd read he checked himself in on a mental issue after the attack, but is now fully cooperative.

Now, was that just the rifles or all the weapons they had? What about the pipe bombs? What sort and quantity of materials did they need for those? Should that have raised any flags?

Two of the guns were bought by Farook.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

freeman3 wrote:Two of the guns were bought by Farook.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

There really ought to be some arrests coming. We can easily deduce this attack was not pulled off by these two without help in funding, training, etc.

freeman3 wrote:Two of the guns were bought by Farook.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

Three or four years ago. Hindsight is 20/20, of course. As I understand it, Malik was not around at that time and of course Farook was a natural born citizen.

Without knowing what was in the pipe bombs (or indeed if they were operable) it is imposible to know if there is a way to monitor sales of components or ingredients.

freeman3

And Ricky I don't think the federal government is linking up those data sources (or can) right now

If you can make a list of information that can and should be tracked, the authorities have...and do.
I've traveled across the border with people from Iraq and Pakistan and right at the border they are asked about recent travel . (To Pakistan and Jordan) Its contained right in their digital file that is connected from their passport.
Its certainly not fool proof. What is?
Of your points, point 4 is not wholly traceable. Gun purchases.
There is no central form of gun registry or purchases in the US. The NRA fights that and most of Congress won't support such.
You can buy guns anonymously. And the San Bernadino couple did so.
You can also visit internet sites, but the technology exists to track visitors who have not taken extraordinary steps to ensure their anonymity. But the question remains about how much privacy Americans will surrender in search of complete security. And whether that sacrifice will actually contribute to safety significantly. The budget for the NSA is 52.6 billion dollars.... Annually.
What if more of that money was spent on things that contributed positively to most peoples lives rather than on security that can never be 100%?


However, if gun ownership was licensed, specific guns registered and all gun transfers required to be registered then your database would be better. And securing the weapons for a terror event would be more difficult. And it would be easy for the authorities to seize illegally held guns and get them off the streets and out of circulation..
But nothing is completely fool proof. And since there is far more danger to Americans from shooters who are neither Muslim, or foreign .... you are focusing all the effort on only a small part of the actual risk. At least the gun controls would have a dampening effect on the young, white male christian school/church/mall shooters too. (But still would not be fool proof)

Ricky:

young, white male christian school/church/mall shooters too

it's amazing to me that you still use this when Fate has called you on it several times and you haven't backed up your assertion with any evidence. Maybe you are right, and maybe you are wrong, but it is the ultimate of XXXXXXXXXXX (let me know if you want to buy a vowel) to keep asserting something when it's been questioned and you haven't answered the question.

P.S. It's also racist.

rickyp wrote:But nothing is completely fool proof. And since there is far more danger to Americans from shooters who are neither Muslim, or foreign .... you are focusing all the effort on only a small part of the actual risk. At least the gun controls would have a dampening effect on the young, white male christian school/church/mall shooters too. (But still would not be fool proof)

Oh boy. I would echo what RJ said. Prove that White Christians are the great threat.

Furthermore, your bigger point, such as it is, seems to be that tracking every gun will keep us safe. This is the fallacy that TSA is consumed by: following objects instead of profiling the actions of people (not "people," but their actions). How much manpower would it take to track the sales of more than 300 million weapons? What percentage of those weapons are used in mass attacks and/or terror?

The key, as we have seen over and over again, to preventing terror is intelligence. It's all about sorting through the people and identifying those who present a possible threat.

Say what you will, but the terror attacks are mostly done by Muslims. To claim otherwise is to make "terrorism" meaningless. What was the group claiming responsibility for the Charleston church shooting?

The number of attacks and thwarted attacks by Islamic extremists is greater by far than anyone else.

Males are the threat. And white males are disproportionately a threat when it comes to mass killings. Whether they are also Christians is less clear, and it is even more dubious to suggest that they do it "for" Christianity.

Mind you, Robert Dear may well turn out to have been motivated by Christian views on abortion.

Earlier the question of worrying about a backlash against Muslims came up. Don't worry, because the kind of moron who does this tends to target Sikhs instead. Probably due to confusion about turbans combined with ignorance and racism.

But frankly, the protection of Muslims is not to be dismissed - we can't retrospectively stop San Bernadino happening, but we can try to stop future attacks on all targets from all potential attackers. With the escalating rhetoric and hysteria, attacks on Muslim Americans are more likely, and putting that whole community into more fear is hardly going to reduce the chances of radicalisation.

That reminds me of Northern Ireland, where following an attack by one side or the other, there would be "reprisals", often targeting ordinary Catholic or Protestant civilians. Believe me, those were counter-productive in the extreme.

danivon wrote:Males are the threat. And white males are disproportionately a threat when it comes to mass killings. Whether they are also Christians is less clear, and it is even more dubious to suggest that they do it "for" Christianity.

Mind you, Robert Dear may well turn out to have been motivated by Christian views on abortion.

He may also turn out to be motivated by hazelnuts.

"Terrorism" is the issue. That is a smaller category than "mass killings." The bombing in Oklahoma City was terrorism. The shooting by Dear is far from being proven to be anything other than a crazy man with a gun.

Earlier the question of worrying about a backlash against Muslims came up. Don't worry, because the kind of moron who does this tends to target Sikhs instead. Probably due to confusion about turbans combined with ignorance and racism.

And, the statistics are clear: anti-Jewish attacks are far more likely than anti-Muslim attacks.

But frankly, the protection of Muslims is not to be dismissed - we can't retrospectively stop San Bernadino happening, but we can try to stop future attacks on all targets from all potential attackers. With the escalating rhetoric and hysteria, attacks on Muslim Americans are more likely, and putting that whole community into more fear is hardly going to reduce the chances of radicalisation.

If we didn't see widespread attacks on Muslim Americans after 9/11, why would that happen now?

According to the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Report, there were 1,014 hate-crime incidents motivated by religious bias in 2014. Of those, 154 — 15.2 percent — were anti-Islamic, a slight uptick from 2013’s 135 incidents (13.1 percent). How alarming are 154 anti-Islamic crimes? Consider this: Last year saw 609 anti-Jewish incidents, and anti-Jewish attacks accounted for 60 percent of religiously motivated hate-crime incidents. This would be uninteresting if the Jewish population in the United States were four times the Muslim population — but it’s not. In fact, the Jewish population (6.8 million) is only about 1/3 larger than the Muslim population (4.5 million, extrapolating from various estimates). That means that not only are anti-Muslim crimes lower in the aggregate; they happen at a lower rate per capita, i.e., There is one anti-Muslim crime for every 29,221 American Muslims; there is one anti-Jewish crime for every 11,166 Jews.​

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ch-implies

Who carries out most of the anti-Jewish attacks in the US, by the way? The use of swastikas as graffiti suggests that it's not Muslims doing it. The perpetrator of the attacks who killed three people in Kansas City last year was clearly targeting Jews but was a white male, associated with the KKK and the White Patriot Party.

We should be concerned about all sources and targets of terrorist or hate violence. But obviously in the wake of a specific attack it makes sense to be on guard for "reprisals". Because they are more likely, and they escalate the issue.

Also, last year this guy Robert Doggart was plotting to attack a Muslim community. He was caught, thankfully, but I don't believe that he is a complete one-off.

What amazes me is that he was given bail in July this year, and faces only up to five years. What kind of message does this send about planning terrorism in the USA?

While attacks on Jewish targets are higher than for Muslim ones, the trend is increasing for both, and that has to be a big worry.

danivon wrote:Also, last year this guy Robert Doggart was plotting to attack a Muslim community. He was caught, thankfully, but I don't believe that he is a complete one-off.

What amazes me is that he was given bail in July this year, and faces only up to five years. What kind of message does this send about planning terrorism in the USA?

While attacks on Jewish targets are higher than for Muslim ones, the trend is increasing for both, and that has to be a big worry.

Feel free to list all of the Muslims put to death by unruly mobs in the US. I'll wait.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Also, last year this guy Robert Doggart was plotting to attack a Muslim community. He was caught, thankfully, but I don't believe that he is a complete one-off.

What amazes me is that he was given bail in July this year, and faces only up to five years. What kind of message does this send about planning terrorism in the USA?

While attacks on Jewish targets are higher than for Muslim ones, the trend is increasing for both, and that has to be a big worry.

Feel free to list all of the Muslims put to death by unruly mobs in the US. I'll wait.

Does it have to be an unruly mob? I guess so that it excludes the murders of three Muslims in Chapel Hill in February this year. It was claimed that it was just a dispute over parking, but the shooter had also made anti-religious statements. (by the way, it is uncomfortable for me that he and the guy in Oregon appear to have been atheist killers, but I accept that they are atheists as much as I abhor their acts and justifications)

Not many Jews have been killed by "unruly mobs" in the USA either. It tends to be a lone killer. Same as when Sikhs are attacked. Or Christians (Charleston and Umpqua CC).

And of course anti-Islamic killers seem to have a bit of a problem identifying Muslims and end up killing brown people who are not followers of Allah, but that does not deflect from the motive.

Here's one example: Sunando Sen, pushed onto subway tracks by Erika Menendez (the story also lists Muslims attacked seemingly because of their religion in New York, with one dead and one clearly attempted murder)

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Also, last year this guy Robert Doggart was plotting to attack a Muslim community. He was caught, thankfully, but I don't believe that he is a complete one-off.

What amazes me is that he was given bail in July this year, and faces only up to five years. What kind of message does this send about planning terrorism in the USA?

While attacks on Jewish targets are higher than for Muslim ones, the trend is increasing for both, and that has to be a big worry.

Feel free to list all of the Muslims put to death by unruly mobs in the US. I'll wait.

Does it have to be an unruly mob? I guess so that it excludes the murders of three Muslims in Chapel Hill in February this year. It was claimed that it was just a dispute over parking, but the shooter had also made anti-religious statements.

No, you should feel free to include Chapel Hill--if you can demonstrate it's a hate crime motivated by a hatred for Islam. I don't think you can. If evidence of that existed, the media would play it non-stop. They want a backlash against Muslims because that would make a prophetess of our AG.

Not many Jews have been killed by "unruly mobs" in the USA either. It tends to be a lone killer. Same as when Sikhs are attacked. Or Christians (Charleston and Umpqua CC).

And of course anti-Islamic killers seem to have a bit of a problem identifying Muslims and end up killing brown people who are not followers of Allah, but that does not deflect from the motive.

Here's one example: Sunando Sen, pushed onto subway tracks by Erika Menendez (the story also lists Muslims attacked seemingly because of their religion in New York, with one dead and one clearly attempted murder)

In perspective, the anti-Muslim sentiment is minuscule compared to what one might expect. We haven't even managed to pass laws against going to fight for ISIS and then coming back.