Merely claiming to have done the work of ISIS isn't enough to qualify as an act of terrorism unless we're going to call even the use of the word "ISIS" in conjunction with any crime an act of terrorism (I vandalize this wall in the name of ISIS). I think additional research about the person must be done, and if they were part of a terrorist cell, or were planning acts of violence in calculated fashion beforehand, then a case can be made for terrorism.
This seems to me to be a modern western conceit. The idea that we have to find a deeper meaning, to reach a ridiculous level of proof, before we make a conclusion about something. You'll note for instance, that ISIS's response wasn't to say they were going to investigate the shooter's claim and get back to us about whether they were claiming the attack. It's like we've forgotten an important part about what it means to be human.
Absent a
compelling reason, we should take a claim about the killer's motivation at face value.
I thought it was interesting yesterday, when I saw this thread, that AI immediately jumped on trying to control the narrative and make this about gun control. One could just as easily go back to the thread on this board where we discussed Trump's ridiculous idea to ban all Muslim immigrants, to see the quite logical arguments that were made that bringing immigrants to this country from countries where they have completely incompatible social beliefs will cause problems, and that the children raised will not always "be Americans". It's pretty clear that this young man, despite his birth in America, was heavily influenced by a culture and an interpretation of religion that is completely contrary to the generally tolerant culture of America.
To answer the original questions:
Some questions about us.
* Why do we tolerate this pattern of extreme violence?
First of all, not all of us do. But the answer here is that we tolerate it because we refuse to acknowledge it and deem our own personal rights to be preeminent even in the face of reality. It's admirable, and at some fundamental level very right, but is that really satisfying when you face a consequence? It's like the old argument about personal safety and rape, everyone should be safe no matter how they dress or where they go, but that ideal doesn't make reality safer.
In this case, no one in that club is at any fault, at all. What I'm referring to is that we tolerate a truly abusive culture/religion is the name of tolerance and even act with hostility towards those who would call it to account in the name of liberalism and tolerance, because we're pursuing in this case a naïve ideal rather than acknowledging reality.
There's no such thing as a "Lone Wolf" attack when it comes to Islamic extremism, it's remote radicalization not independent acting.
* No one here wants to ban guns. Does this event change anyone's mind about allowing people to buy and own AR15's?
Not to any great extent. I do think the gun has been deliberately connected to violence at this point, I'd hope purchasers would pick a different rifle, and that the manufacturer would consider retiring the model, but that's more for optics than because it would make anyone safer.
* Does anyone believe that support of ISIS is the reason he did this? Should we believe what a mass killer says about himself or instead try to figure out what mental illness drives him to act out in this bizarre way?
Why not do both? Absent compelling evidence we should believe what they say about their motives. They'd really need a truly bizarre personal motive to engage in an active misdirect of this magnitude. Not to mention, even if they did have a secret personal motive that actually decided the issue it's completely irrelevant when you consider the impact of terrorism as filtered through the media response. The majority of the damage is irrevocably done in the first 72 hours.
* What law(s) would you change or introduce to reduce the likelihood of this happening in the future?
What freedom should we give up for a false sense of security? How about we don't look just to the law the to fix our problems. Why not ask members of the Islamic community to help identify individuals at risk for, or that have become radicalized? Why not encourage psychologists and counselors to reach out to marginalized young men and help them integrate? Why not encourage everyone do reach out to these young men and bring them back into society?
It's not an accident that this kind of attack is most often propagated by individuals that are disconnected from society, marginalized individuals or that have recently become estranged from social networks. You don't need a law to address that, you need human to human outreach.
* Are all mass shootings of strangers acts of terrorism?
This has been asked and answered so many times on this board. Have you never read a single response?
Terrorism requires a connection to a "greater" goal. If there is no intended message there is no terrorism, there may of course be terror.
Add your own questions...
What's your solution to address the danger of remotely radicalized individuals?