It's the Guns, Stupid: Why Handguns Remain One of the Biggest Threats To Homeland Security
This past week, we were sadly reminded that guns in the hands of the aggrieved or the disturbed can produce horrific consequences.
Just as the nation dealt with the shock of an Army psychiatrist killing 13 and causing injury to another 38 on Thursday at Fort Hood in Texas, a disgruntled former employee of an engineering firm went on a gun rampage on Friday that killed one and injured another five in Orlando, Florida.
Both incidents are tell-tale signs that guns continue to pose one of the largest threats to homeland security.
Yet, read the last National Strategy put out by the Department of Homeland Security or read the Obama administration's list of homeland security priorities and you'll be hard pressed to find a discussion of the gun threat.
When will we wake up? Guns are a threat to our nation's security.
And unless we seriously address the ease with which the wrong people can obtain handguns in this country, it will only be a matter of time before we fall victim to a large-scale armed attack -- resulting not in a death toll in the double-digits, but the triple digits.
Think of this simple fact. According to the U.S. government's National Counter-Terrorism Center, over 50% of the 11,770 terrorist attacks that occurred worldwide last year involved armed attacks. Most prominent among these attacks was the siege in Mumbai, India, which claimed 173 lives (including six Americans).
I no longer wonder "if" a Mumbai-style attack will occur in the U.S. Absent the implementation of serious gun control measures, I now ask "when"?
The writing is already on the walls. This year alone, extremists in three separate incidents took the lives of an Army recruiter in Arkansas, an abortion doctor in Kansas, and a Holocaust Museum security guard in Washington, D.C. The common denominator in all three attacks: guns.
Politicians and authorities, however, seem fixated on plots involving large-scale explosives and weapons of mass destruction.
No doubt, terrorists would love to hurt this nation using such weapons. Just look at four recent cases in the news: the Newburgh, NY, cell desired to blow up a Jewish synagogue in New York City; Hosam Maher Husein Smadi sought to blow up a skyscraper in Dallas, TX; Michael Finton wanted to blow up the federal building in Springfield, IL; and Najibullah Zazi aspired to develop explosives using hair care products for an attack perhaps in New York City.
The intent to strike against the homeland with explosives and bombs is certainly present.
But the other lesson from all these cases is that "homegrowns," despite their intent, usually lack the capabilities, skills, and competence to mastermind any kind of high-casualty attack. It is just no longer easy to pull off a major attack involving complex munitions. In the post-September 11 era, new government-mandated restrictions coupled with the hyper-vigilance of law enforcement make such attacks extremely difficult to execute.
Guns, nevertheless, remain the exception.
We seem to forget that in the last two decades a significant proportion of successful terrorist attacks here in the U.S. involved guns: Mir Aimal Kansi shot CIA employees on their way to work in 1993; Rashid Baz shot Yeshiva students crossing the Brooklyn Bridge in 1994; Ali Abu Kamal shot visitors at the Empire State building in 1997; Heshem Mohamed Hadayet shot travelers checking-in at the El Al ticket counter at LAX Airport in 2002; and Naveed Afzal Haq shot patrons at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle in 2006.
Still, little is done to control the availability of guns - which is deeply disconcerting given that the most likely perpetrators of such violence are angry or deranged Americans who can easily purchase weapons, especially at gun shows where background checks are lax if not outright ignored.
Gun control is considered by many elected officials to be the third rail of American politics. Yet, it is only a matter of time before extremists sniff out the opportunity our current gun laws provide.
I can think of no better way to honor the victims of this week's violence than to initiate a national discussion on how to prevent handguns from falling into the hands of dangerous people.
Follow Louis Klarevas on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NYUProf
Kamran Pasha: A Muslim Soldier's View from Fort Hood
I spoke today with a friend who is a Muslim soldier stationed at Fort Hood. He and Hasan prayed side-by-side at the mosque the morning of the massacre. He agreed to share his story with me if I granted him anonymity.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I don't see the possession of firearms to be a problem in this country.
This year the FBI is reporting that since 1991, the highest crime rate year on record, the rate of violent crimes has fallen off by 40%. The Murder rate has dropped by 45% in this country since then.
At the same time firearm ownership has gone from about 220 million to almost 300 million.
To help make firearms ownership a safer proposition, I would suggest that this country follow the Swiss model and send all able bodied men to Basic Training and Advanced Individual Training. For those who do not want to remain on active duty, send them home with their assigned personal firearm (M16A3 rifle, M9 hi-cap pistol, etc.), and field gear. Then require them to maintain their equipment and practice at a range 2 or 3 times each year (at their own expense).
The theory that there are too many firearms in this country is based in emotion and not on the facts.
"Most prominent among these attacks was the siege in Mumbai, India, which claimed 173 lives (including six Americans)
Aside from the fact that terrorist attacks in foreign nations has zero to do with gun ownership in the USA, no automatic weapons are transfered, bought, sold or given, to new owners in the USA without first receiving a permit, known as a class 3 stamp, from the BATF.
I doubt that any of the attackers in Mumbai picked them up at a gun show in the USA. More likely, they were provide by Iran, the worlds foremost terrorist support organization.
"When will we wake up? Guns are a threat to our nation's security."
There is a story that the Japanese did not try to put their troops on the US Mainland during WWII because they knew most Americans had guns, knew how to use them and we weren't afraid to defend our nation.
Now that's what I call national security.
I would not argue that stricter US gun laws would weaken the ability to purchase weapons for the extremist, but I would not reduce the issue only to the extremist but expend it more - to our culture. It seems alarming that our culture is venting its anger on society and it seems less capable of dealing with pressure, demands and failures. Recent standoff in PINE PLAINS is the best example.
"And unless we seriously address the ease with which the wrong people can obtain handguns in this country"
I think that the author summed it up correctly but misses one vital factor. TIME.
A person isn't the "wrong person" until after the fact of having committed a crime or otherwise being deamed legally ineligible to own a gun. We have a process in place which does prevent the "wrong people" from buying a gun from an FFL.
Should we assume that everyone is the "wrong person" to own a gun to play safe? The heck with the Constitution? The heck with individual rights and due process?
India's strict gun control laws are a legacy of British colonialism. So to bring that incident to bear as a reason to restrict guns in America demonstrates a conserable lack of basic research or willful deception.
"This past week, we were sadly reminded that guns in the hands of the aggrieved or the disturbed can produce horrific consequences. "
Anything in the hands of the aggrieved or the disturbed can produce horrific consequences.
Having served in both iraq and Afghanistan, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that when the bad guys mount armed attacks on civilians, they almost always attack the unarmed.
Guns are not the problem. Guns are simply a tool.
"This year alone, extremists in three separate incidents took the lives of an Army recruiter in Arkansas, an abortion doctor in Kansas, and a Holocaust Museum security guard in Washington, D.C. The common denominator in all three attacks: EXTREMISM.
Fixed it for you! Now you can reflect what the real problem is. Otherwise, you might have people thinking that you don't mind extremists --so long as they don't have guns.
Hate, intolerance, bigotry and callousness are problems. A society that isolates and destroys people's spirits is a problem. By the time the extremist picks up a gun, the damage was done long ago.
For the sake of argument..
Barack Obama is continuing the failed drug war.
People in Cambridge Mass. killed a college student over marijuana.
Handguns are needed for protection in many places.
So stoned people would be better at keeping it together in a crisis than stone-cold-sober people and "shooting the right person"?
The writing is already on the walls. This year alone, extremists in three separate incidents took the lives of an Army recruiter in Arkansas, an abortion doctor in Kansas, and a Holocaust Museum security guard in Washington, D.C. The common denominator in all three attacks: guns.
Flawed logic, in these cases you had mentally ill?politically motivated people with access to guns. If you banned handguns tomorrow, there will still be millions of them out there. Whose going to collect those? How many cops will die in the process? Are there criminals that use guns? Sure. They will also use knives rocks or 2x4's if thats whats at hand. There are millions of law abiding Americans thats own not only handguns but also rifles shotguns and bluderbusses for all I know. Look at Britain, only the criminals have guns now. You could do more to end gun violence through education than you ever will through a gun ban. Marijuana, Cocaine there illegal too, but very available.
Nobody's talking about a gun ban. I think what he's saying is, 'why do we have to make it so easy for them'? We do need more sensible laws, instead of allowing anyone with a pulse to buy a high powered automatic weapon. 43,000 people are shot to death in America each year - the highest of any civilized country. Why are people so shocked when there are shooting sprees....
"Nobody's talking about a gun ban."
Bans of various sorts are talked about frequently, be it Obama, Biden, Clinton, and Holder calling for the AWB, or Josh Sugarmann calling for a ban on handguns.
"We do need more sensible laws"
We have plenty of sensible firearm laws. Over 22,000 all totaled.
"instead of allowing anyone with a pulse to buy a high powered automatic weapon."
Full-auto firearms are very strictly controlled items. The paperwork alone to purchase one takes months to process.
" 43,000 people are shot to death in America each year "
You are off by a good 10,000
" Most prominent among these attacks was the siege in Mumbai, India, which claimed 173 lives (including six Americans).
I no longer wonder "if" a Mumbai-style attack will occur in the U.S. Absent the implementation of serious gun control measures, I now ask "when"?"
Yet India has gun control laws that would make New Jersey look like a Libertarian paradise. Gun control is not going to prevent a Mumbai-style terrorist attack in the US. Terrorists, like all criminals, operate outside the law. Any law preventing a terrorist from purchasing a gun through legal channels will only push him to purchase one through the various illegal channels.
"I no longer wonder "if" a Mumbai-style attack will occur in the U.S. "
Consider that the Mumbai attackers attacked a largely unarmed group of people.
Using this logic, we can end obesity by banning spoons.
nobody is talking about a ban.... it's just that we don't have to make is SO easy to buy weapons that are meant for mass killings.
If the OP is advocating the British Commonwealth solution--he is advocating a gun ban
When structuring the Constitution, the drafters realized that civil liberty was paramount. Police states may be "safer" than the United States with respect to the number of people killing one another, but they achieve this safety at the cost of civil liberties. This was deemed to be unacceptable. Our civil liberties are the safest in the world because the government is limited in its ability to impose paternalism upon the people (at least in theory) and the people retain a high degree of autonomy (again, in theory) and the ability, through the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms, to provide a final check on a government that would seek to confiscate civil liberties.
Guns are not the threat to our national security, they secure our nation and our civil liberties. Where a people retain a high level of civil liberties, there will always be those that abuse those liberties to the detriment of others. Freedom is not free. This risk is the price we pay for it. Those who would trade our civil liberties for some added security threaten the ideal of personal liberty upon which the country was founded. There is no greater threat to national security.
To seek to turn this tragedy into support for curbing civil liberties dishonors these soldiers' willingness to enlist in order to fight in defense of those liberties.
AttorneyAtLaw-and what would your position be on the PATRIOT Act? Is this not a far greater and more direct threat to our civil liberties than restricting the types of weapons people can own? It really doesn't matter if people having guns will some how prevent tyranny when the government already has free reign to crap all over the 4th Amendment. If it is okay for the government to spy on its citizens, why is not okay for them to come into your home and take your guns?
"... what would your position be on the PATRIOT Act?"
===========
My post made clear my thoughts - "Those who would trade our civil liberties for some added security threaten the ideal of personal liberty upon which the country was founded." It is not okay for the government to spy on its citizens.
"It really doesn't matter if people having guns will some how prevent tyranny when the government already has free reign to crap all over the 4th Amendment.
===========
I disagree. The unalienable rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are a direct response to the escalating tyranny and reflect a hierarchy of protections against government tyranny.
The inability to practice religion is certainly an affront to individual liberty. Likewise, limiting the ability to speak out against oppressive government, disseminate those ideas through assembly and the free press and petition the government to remedy its inequities undermine effective representative government.
Perhaps even more devastating than inability to practice religion or disseminate information about bad government and take informed remedial efforts against that government is the prospect of being denied one’s physical freedom or property without due process. The right to speak out is of no use if one is unwilling to exercise that right for fear of arbitrary imprisonment.
When a people are deprived of their means of armed resistance all of their other rights are in jeopardy. The ability to speak freely, practice religion, be free of false imprisonment and secure in one’s property can easily be cast aside when the government can summarily execute citizens without resistance. The right to keep and bear arms is the final security of all other rights where peaceful political recourse has failed.
What began the Revolutionary War was the attempt by the British to seize the armory at Concord.
You're right. It is SO worth the 43,000 lives per year.... No ban - just sensible laws, as right now we have virtually none.
"... just sensible laws, as right now we have virtually none."
============
I'm not sure where the number of gun laws now stands, but per Daly, Rossi & Wright's 1983 review of gun laws across the country (as reported in their 1983 book "Under the Gun"), at that time there were over 22,000 federal, state and local government laws regulating gun ownership and the carry of firearms. As the legislative process tends to be one of accretion (rarely removing existing laws, but frequently adding more), I can only imagine that there are now significantly more such laws.
I read your sarcasm with respect to the number of annual deaths by firearm. I agree that it is sad the people die senselessly, whether by gunshot, car accident, drowning or otherwise. We seem to accept car accidents as outweighed by the convenience that cars provide. What about those potential victims who deter crime by means of a firearm? Some estimate that the number of such instances is as high as two and a half million each year. Also, per the National Center for Health Statistics, over half of the number of people who die by gunshot every year are people who commit suicide with guns. Should they be denied the right to make a decision regarding their life? Some number are also shot by people defending themselves. Should we curb self-defense?
Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.
so do longbows..
so do knives, axes, machetes, rocks, cars and drugs
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
