The Motive in San Bernardino Obama blames guns, but some evidence points to sudden jihad.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-motive-in-san-bernardino-1449189003
The killers in San Bernardino hadn’t even been identified Wednesday before President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of Progressive America had blamed the murders on the lack of “common-sense gun safety laws.” The motives of the shooters apparently didn’t matter. But now that more details about the two killers are dribbling out, motive may turn out to be relevant in a way that Mr. Obama and the left won’t find so politically congenial.
Law enforcement officials haven’t made judgments about the motives of Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, for opening fire with semiautomatic weapons on a meeting of county employees. This restraint is more admirable than Mr. Obama’s rush to political judgment. Perhaps Farook had long seethed with animosity toward his work colleagues, or he had some personal feud or mental illness.
But the couple had certainly prepared for more than a single act of revenge. They came armed with pipe bombs with a remote trigger, which didn’t detonate, and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Police say they found 12 more “pipe bomb type devices” and material to produce IEDs at the couple’s home. These are the tools of the modern jihadist.
By Thursday the FBI had taken over the case, and even Mr. Obama was at pains to say that terrorism couldn’t be ruled out. Farook was an American of Pakistani descent who had traveled to Saudi Arabia, returning with a new wife he met online. He was a devout Muslim, though he hadn’t appeared to colleagues to be a fanatic. Farook’s brother-in-law expressed shock at his brutal turn, though jihadists often hide their radicalization from relatives.
We also know that sudden Islamist radicalization is possible even without direct contact with a jihadist network like Islamic State. Access to propaganda over the Internet can provide a religious trigger or justification for men or women with other simmering resentments. That was the case with Maj. Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 Americans at Fort Hood in 2009. These are the questions the FBI will be exploring as its probe continues. The implications for public policy will depend on what we learn.
As for the exploitative politics, Democrats were quick to use the 14 deaths to demand purely symbolic gun-control votes in the Senate. We say symbolic because measures like more background checks have no chance of passing, and in any event would not have stopped the San Bernardino shooting. The four weapons used in the attack were purchased legally, and the two rifles are variants of the AR-15 that was legal (when not modified) even when the Clinton-era assault-weapons ban was in place.
If Democrats are serious about gun control, why not have the courage of their convictions and call for an outright weapons ban? That would be unconstitutional, but at least it would be more than a cynical gesture exploiting another mass murder.
Comments are closed.
