Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So what do you think is the root cause?

http://www.radicalisationresearch.org/guides/francis-2012-causes-2/

The above link is a nice primer of the subject of 'Radicalization' and includes links to the various ideas on why and how it happens.

The frank answer is "No one really knows and it could be a bunch of things" that lead to radicalization. One of the most direct methods of curtailing radicalization is to target non-radical groups for support while isolating radical groups as one of the most direct routes to radicalization is interactions with members of radical groups who actively seek to turn others to their cause using a lot of the same methods you might associate with a cult (isolation from friends and family, overt/badgering exposure to their ideas, etc).

This is very difficult in a modern age, with global economics and its made worse by many foreign policy decisions which inadvertently see Western Governments backing governments and powers which are themselves enabling radical groups (the case book example being the Saudi government). I feel recent events in the Middle East also show how attempts to directly isolate and combat radical groups can directly lead to more radical groups rising to power (Israel's attempts to defeat the PLO in the late 90's politically directly led to Hamas' rise to power, and the US' killing of Osama Bin Laden helped lead to the rise of ISIS).

 LordofHats wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
[

I ask, because when we look at motivation, we can acknowledge that the Charleston shooter's motivation was that he was a racist who wanted to kill blacks, and that other racists who want to kill blacks deserve scrutiny, but we have trouble acknowledging that this shooter's motivation was that he was a Muslim who wanted to kill non-Muslims, and therefore is a member of a protected class.

(Godwin)

Snarky internet memes don't really do anything for anybody, especially when you incorrectly reference Godwin in response to a post devoid of Nazi analogies.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
[

I ask, because when we look at motivation, we can acknowledge that the Charleston shooter's motivation was that he was a racist who wanted to kill blacks, and that other racists who want to kill blacks deserve scrutiny, but we have trouble acknowledging that this shooter's motivation was that he was a Muslim who wanted to kill non-Muslims, and therefore is a member of a protected class.

(Godwin)

Snarky internet memes don't really do anything for anybody, especially when you incorrectly reference Godwin in response to a post devoid of Nazi analogies.

Yet what you said implies Muslims kill non Muslims because they are Muslims, which is absolutely wrong. The killer was Muslim long before he decided to murder in its name.

Either way I think there is some disconnect going on in society. I have heard there is a growing trend towards fundamentalism all over the world in all religions, though I have not personally done the research. Why is that after having gone through a sharp decline.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

It could also run into the simple problem of many locations being inside "gun free" zones. We have recruiters inside the nearest mall, which doesn't allow guns. The office isn't exactly a military installation, it's just office space rented from the mall. So I would think that no special federal laws governing the recruiters office there and legally that space is no different than Hot Topic in the mall (I could be wrong about that).

Yes, you are wrong. Any space leased/rented by the feds to include the DoD (and that means recruiting offices) are 'gun free' due to being considered a 'federal facility' according to the regs they have to follow. In fact, you can see the 'No Guns' sign on the door of the recruiting station hit yesterday (surrounded by bullet holes).



So, regardless of if it is in a larger 'gun free' zone or not, current regs make any recruiting station/center/office a 'gun free' zone.

The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

In title 18. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930

Thanks for clearing that up. But can't fededal workers still be allowed to be armed? My hospital is a federal gun free zone, yet we still have armed police present, and military installations still have armed people present as well. But I wouldn't be surprised if that mainly just covers law enforcement.

But if recruiters were allowed to be armed, do you think that there would be places that would reevaluate leasing to the military?

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
[

I ask, because when we look at motivation, we can acknowledge that the Charleston shooter's motivation was that he was a racist who wanted to kill blacks, and that other racists who want to kill blacks deserve scrutiny, but we have trouble acknowledging that this shooter's motivation was that he was a Muslim who wanted to kill non-Muslims, and therefore is a member of a protected class.

(Godwin)

Snarky internet memes don't really do anything for anybody, especially when you incorrectly reference Godwin in response to a post devoid of Nazi analogies.

Yet what you said implies Muslims kill non Muslims because they are Muslims, which is absolutely wrong. The killer was Muslim long before he decided to murder in its name.

Either way I think there is some disconnect going on in society. I have heard there is a growing trend towards fundamentalism all over the world in all religions, though I have not personally done the research. Why is that after having gone through a sharp decline.

It is absolutely wrong? The killer's motivation was not religious? I can't wait to hear the mental gymnastics that allow you to arrive at that conclusion.

Your point about the timeline is invalid...when was he supposed to carry out the murder, as an infant? 24 years old is fighting age. Jihad isn't only about physically fighting - plenty of Muslims provide ideological and materiel support for terrorists as well. He just reached the appropriate fighting age and decided to fulfill his duty as a Muslim. This should be terrifying to you...the fact that it is not terrifying to the majority of Americans is terrifying to me. Burying your head in the sand doesn't make it any harder for them to cut it off, you know.

 d-usa wrote:


Thanks for clearing that up. But can't fededal workers still be allowed to be armed? My hospital is a federal gun free zone, yet we still have armed police present, and military installations still have armed people present as well. But I wouldn't be surprised if that mainly just covers law enforcement.

But if recruiters were allowed to be armed, do you think that there would be places that would reevaluate leasing to the military?

MPs (or their other DoD/civilian equivalents) can be armed due to their LE function/duty. Similarly, a guard for a SCIF or Ammo Holding Area can be armed due to their duty position.

As for allowing recruiters to be armed, if you mean with military weapons, it won't ever happen for the reasons I've listed in this topic as well as a few others. I doubt even if you could/would overcome the obstacles to doing so many venues would object. I doubt those venues make cops disarm before they enter/come onto the property....

 CptJake wrote:

As for allowing recruiters to be armed, if you mean with military weapons, it won't ever happen for the reasons I've listed in this topic as well as a few others. I doubt even if you could/would overcome the obstacles to doing so many venues would object. I doubt those venues make cops disarm before they enter/come onto the property....

Would it need to be a military weapon, though?

I mean, why not a simple Glock 37, or whatever else that particular individual chooses to carry...

We're going to have to move the recruiting stations to military facilities. Actual armories have recruiting stations in them and they are not armed but can change
Someone from the unit will have to go on orders just to man the arms room to issue weapon(s). Then move to another secure location in a building just to issue live rounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

As for allowing recruiters to be armed, if you mean with military weapons, it won't ever happen for the reasons I've listed in this topic as well as a few others. I doubt even if you could/would overcome the obstacles to doing so many venues would object. I doubt those venues make cops disarm before they enter/come onto the property....

Would it need to be a military weapon, though?

I mean, why not a simple Glock 37, or whatever else that particular individual chooses to carry...

You don't go to work with what you want.
You go to work with what we give you

 cincydooley wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

As for allowing recruiters to be armed, if you mean with military weapons, it won't ever happen for the reasons I've listed in this topic as well as a few others. I doubt even if you could/would overcome the obstacles to doing so many venues would object. I doubt those venues make cops disarm before they enter/come onto the property....

Would it need to be a military weapon, though?

I mean, why not a simple Glock 37, or whatever else that particular individual chooses to carry...

Because troops cannot currently carry any non-issue weapons while in uniform or while performing official duties. Doing so on a 'federal facility' will get them is a world of trouble.

I would LOVE if the feds changed the rules on concealed carry. I HATE the fact that my wife may be the last one in her building at 22:00 at night (when she left her office last night) and has to go across dark parking lots and cannot legally even carry a stun gun or pepper spray.

But laws is laws...

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Thanks for clearing that up. But can't fededal workers still be allowed to be armed? My hospital is a federal gun free zone, yet we still have armed police present, and military installations still have armed people present as well. But I wouldn't be surprised if that mainly just covers law enforcement.

But if recruiters were allowed to be armed, do you think that there would be places that would reevaluate leasing to the military?

MPs (or their other DoD/civilian equivalents) can be armed due to their LE function/duty. Similarly, a guard for a SCIF or Ammo Holding Area can be armed due to their duty position.

As for allowing recruiters to be armed, if you mean with military weapons, it won't ever happen for the reasons I've listed in this topic as well as a few others. I doubt even if you could/would overcome the obstacles to doing so many venues would object. I doubt those venues make cops disarm before they enter/come onto the property....

After I typed that I remembered that I did my finger printing for my concealed carry license at the sheriff substation that is leased from the mall and which is located right across from the recruiters, so that should have answered my question about leasing space to officials with weapons at that particular mall.

 CptJake wrote:


Because troops cannot currently carry any non-issue weapons while in uniform or while performing official duties. Doing so on a 'federal facility' will get them is a world of trouble.

I would LOVE if the feds changed the rules on concealed carry. I HATE the fact that my wife may be the last one in her building at 22:00 at night (when she left her office last night) and has to go across dark parking lots and cannot legally even carry a stun gun or pepper spray.

But laws is laws...

Ahh,okay. Makes sense.

What's the standard issue sidearm in the military these days? Is it the M9?

For some reason I was under the impression that when it came to sidearms, you were allowed to choose which you carry. Sounds like that's totally off base.

 CptJake wrote:


Because troops cannot currently carry any non-issue weapons while in uniform or while performing official duties. Doing so on a 'federal facility' will get them is a world of trouble.

I would LOVE if the feds changed the rules on concealed carry. I HATE the fact that my wife may be the last one in her building at 22:00 at night (when she left her office last night) and has to go across dark parking lots and cannot legally even carry a stun gun or pepper spray.

But laws is laws...

Similar situation here...other guys back here work with explosives, so I guess our best defense is hoping that if anything happens, one of them can kluge something together to Wylie Coyote the terrorist.

 cincydooley wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Because troops cannot currently carry any non-issue weapons while in uniform or while performing official duties. Doing so on a 'federal facility' will get them is a world of trouble.

I would LOVE if the feds changed the rules on concealed carry. I HATE the fact that my wife may be the last one in her building at 22:00 at night (when she left her office last night) and has to go across dark parking lots and cannot legally even carry a stun gun or pepper spray.

But laws is laws...

Ahh,okay. Makes sense.

What's the standard issue sidearm in the military these days? Is it the M9?

For some reason I was under the impression that when it came to sidearms, you were allowed to choose which you carry. Sounds like that's totally off base.

9mm Beretta
USMC are being issued the new version of a .45

Army is preparing a Request For Proposal (RFP) for a new sidearm. They are considering allowing use of hollow points when it comes to meeting the requirements stated in the RFP.

Good
I hated that P.O.S. 9mm which I only used once in a situation
5-2 Stryker 1st Sgt carried a SAW instead of his 9mm because he hated that weapon himself

Edit

5-2 Stryker have disbanded

CptJake wrote:I would LOVE if the feds changed the rules on concealed carry. I HATE the fact that my wife may be the last one in her building at 22:00 at night (when she left her office last night) and has to go across dark parking lots and cannot legally even carry a stun gun or pepper spray.

Can she at least ask a security guard for an escort or something? I'm lucky my current building sits right on top of a metro station. My last building, OTOH, was a little uncomfortable getting to metro.

CptJake wrote:Army is preparing a Request For Proposal (RFP) for a new sidearm. They are considering allowing use of hollow points when it comes to meeting the requirements stated in the RFP.

Hope it goes through. Not that I think attacks like these will become an every day thing, but if there's a group I can handle being armed all the time, it's the military.

I'm pretty sure this was an episode of NCIS.

 Jihadin wrote:
Good
I hated that P.O.S. 9mm which I only used once in a situation
5-2 Stryker 1st Sgt carried a SAW instead of his 9mm because he hated that weapon himself

Edit

5-2 Stryker have disbanded

When my assigned weapon was a M9, I carried an M203.

feth a pistol.

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm pretty sure this was an episode of NCIS.

Close, that was a kid that wanted to be a sniper but was ruled unfit for duty because of his mental state.

So he started murdering people to prove how good a shot he was, because obviously once you have a few civilian kills under your belt the marines will suddenly want to take you.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm pretty sure this was an episode of NCIS.

Close, that was a kid that wanted to be a sniper but was ruled unfit for duty because of his mental state.

So he started murdering people to prove how good a shot he was, because obviously once you have a few civilian kills under your belt the marines will suddenly want to take you.

Ah that is right. When we were waiting for the new place we stayed at my father-in-laws and he was fanatical about watching NCIS. I remembered an episode where someone targeted recruiters.

Well he had a automatic AK-47.

I've seen references to AK style weapon, but nothing confirming full auto. Where are you seeing that?

EDIT: I have also seen references to 30 round magazines or at least a 30 round magazine.

Fox News
Seems he had quite a bit of Arsenal
News Briefing mention a AK..........rapid trigger squeeze more likely
Plus some assorted shotguns


Local officials there are basically calling it Terrorism Investigation

 Jihadin wrote:
Fox News
Seems he had quite a bit of Arsenal
News Briefing mention a AK..........rapid trigger squeeze more likely
Plus some assorted shotguns


Local officials there are basically calling it Terrorism Investigation

My buddy purchased a Czech copy of an AK-47. It was Semi and had a tendency to jam believe it or not. Also the recoil from the weapon caused his After market red dot site to constantly break and misalign. So having a semi-automatic AK-47 is completely believable. I wonder where you could get a fully automatic one.

As far as 30 round magazines. They are incredibly easy to come by or to manufacture yourself if you know how.

30 round magazines are the STANDARD size for many military styled weapons, including the AR and AK series. So of course they are easy to come by.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

FBI saying two long guns and a side arm was carried by the shooter
Plus a LBV that he was wearing, no body armor

Edit

Multiple news source saying a AK

Yeah, I keep seeing AK, but that does not mean full auto. All the ones you can buy here legally are semi-auto or require all the class III stamps and taxes, and cost a fortune even if you can find one.

 CptJake wrote:
30 round magazines are the STANDARD size for many military styled weapons, including the AR and AK series. So of course they are easy to come by.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

I thought High Capacity magazines had been banned recently. I could be wrong

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
30 round magazines are the STANDARD size for many military styled weapons, including the AR and AK series. So of course they are easy to come by.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

I thought High Capacity magazines had been banned recently. I could be wrong

Only in a few short sightd states with gullible legislators.