I tend to agree with you on many matters, Opportunist (not that you should care) but in that particular case I respectfully tell you that you're talking out of your ass. The assaliant has ties to islamic fundies, even past connections to the Kouachi brothers, among other things. He's an example of "low key terrorism". Not really a lone rabid wolf, but also not part of a very structured organisation. A particularly dangerous bunch, because those are uneasy to detect before it's too late, since they aren't into any very structured "cell", but have access to better means than lone activists.
And here it becomes "news for nerds": this guy wasn't completely off the radar, he'd been watched as a potential threat for years, just like the Kouachi brothers. The proposed new legislation in France wouldn't result in any progress on how this was handled, only additional human means would, without the need to change laws.
There's that little matter of the ex post facto telecom immunity law passed back in 2008. Everyone gets off scott free. Even for criminal acts committed before the new law. It'll be a long, hard fight just to get this brought before the Supreme Court and there's no guarantee they will even give a shit about the US Constitution. And only then, can criminal trials commence.
Yeah, about that, aren't ex post facto laws strictly unconstitutional in the USA? I mean, in other countries it's not quite the case (France allows them, for example, but only in mitius - i.e. if the new law is more lenient) but I seem to remember that in the USA it's supposed to be very strict.
Can you link to a source for that? There's universal health care in France, too, yet liability insurance is still mandatory.
Liability insurance is a matter of tort law, it has nothing to do with the availability of health care. Ultimately, the health care agency becomes the demander, because free health care isn't actually free, and assholes have to face their responsibilities, or have to be made to.
We can predict everything, except the future.