Who knows. But after every crisis there should be a post mortem and we should learn from what went wrong. And why does every change in policy and approach have to be seen as a threat to anybody's freedoms? Not that many of the short-sighted response aren't just that, but this sort of knee jerk reaction seems just as unhealthy.

There's no way to prevent every crisis. Just because something bad happens doesn't mean that there is something that you could have done to stop it.

Sometimes people just need to realize that things happen and we don't have to pass new laws and regulations every time something bad happens.

Try saying that when you are directly affected by actions like this.

It is easy to stand back at 100ft and say this type of crap, but the fact is, crazy people are all around us, and we should try to be proactive instead of reactive.

We as a society owe it ourselves to reflect on events such as this, and see if there was anything that could have been done to prevent it. If the answer is yes, then we SHOULD act. Does that mean freedoms need to be restricted, laws to be enacted? No, it could mean better technology, maybe better security, maybe MORE security.

I hope no new laws come of something like this, but if it means reducing the chance that this happens again, I am all for it.

Our rights are absolute, but we also need to compromise. We can't let ourselves become 1984, but we can become safer, smarter, more efficient with regards to security.

"No, it could mean better technology, maybe better security, maybe MORE security."

Is it cold to point out that we are already living in an age of more security? There were paramilitary police teams at the marathon, ready to take on a small army -- but the attackers found a way to plant their bombs anyway.

When the TSA was established and billions of dollars were spent on securing our airlines, a tiny minority of people were saying that if another attack occurred it would not be on an airplane. Now we have seen another attack, it was not on an airplane nor anywhere near an airport. We do no need another massive security bureaucracy designed to prevent marathons or city streets from being attacked, because that will just push terrorists to attack something else. There are far too many ways to attack a country as large and developed as the United States to have a sprawling bureaucracy for all of them.

"I hope no new laws come of something like this, but if it means reducing the chance that this happens again, I am all for it."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_by_whiskey

"We can't let ourselves become 1984, but we can become safer, smarter, more efficient with regards to security."

Every time we become "more efficient" about domestic security, we sacrifice our rights. What makes you think this time will be different?

The problem is that there's always "something" more that could be done to prevent these types of incidents, but eventually the costs of additional preventative measures will outweigh the reduction in risk they provide, if they haven't already.

You're asking for a solution to the problem of people killing other people.

No, people will always kill other people, that is the unfortunate truth of human nature. That doesn't mean there aren't multiple problems here, and each one with multiple solutions.

Our lawmakers know just as well as we do, that more laws won't fix events like these, but better messaging ("See something say something"), better trained police officers, etc.. these are things that are controllable, changeable, and have a hugely positive impact on preventing horrible things like this from happening.

"See something say something" is still far too late in the process. As a society we need to do a better job of preventing people from being abused, neglected, and marginalized.

Agreed, I just was using it as an example. Taking action doesn't have to mean restricting our freedoms.

Please stop pretending to speak for everyone affected by this sort of tragedy. At least wait until the chaos is over to make such sweeping judgment.

Who said anything about the post-mortems necessitating new laws?

Use the powers we're given smarter, less broadly.

a security reseacher made a bomb from stuff he bought after going trough the costums at schiphol. so most of the security is just show off.

No doubt some "reforms" will be implemented that will funnel even more money into the pockets of lobbyist-using companies and big-time campaign donors.

"we gonna see in the name of security"

Watershed events always create these emotional knee jerk reactions. As opposed to "well we can save lives by driving 50 mph instead of 70 mph but since that's legacy we aren't likely to not consider the impact on society as a whole by lowering the speed limit."