In the wake of the worst mass shooting in US history, Obama once again called for more gun bans.
As his former chief of staff Rahm Emmanual would say “don’t let a good crisis go to waste.”
But would more gun control have prevented the Orlando terrorist attack? Look at history and evidence:
1. All the guns used in the Paris attack were illegal. It didn’t stop the Paris attack.
2. The bar that was shot up was a gun-free zone. So all the weapons this terrorist used were illegal. That didn’t stop him. Criminals and terrorists don’t care about laws.
3. Would the government even be able to enforce a semi-automatic gun ban? Probably not. As per the example of Belgium, guns were made illegal in 2006. In subsequent years, a black market surged. Belgium is where the Paris attackers bought some of their weapons.
If semi-automatic guns were banned, criminals or terrorists who obtained semi-automatic guns illegally would have higher powered weapons than law-abiding citizens. This could be a terrible unintended consequence. Stopping guns should not be the focus, stopping criminals and terrorists should be the focus.
4. Because gun bans will not eliminate terrorism. The Boston bombers used a pressure cooker as a bomb. Should pressure cookers be banned? Most terrorist attacks are done through the use of knives or bombs. If terrorists want to do damage, they are going to use something. We cannot ban all inanimate objects. The problem is the terrorists who use objects for bad purposes.
What we should ban:
1. Muslim immigration. It is foolish to allow trojan horses in a time of war.
“But that’s not fair to Muslims who aren’t extremists”
Is it fair to the 49 people who died in Orlando that their life was taken? That is the fairness that is first and foremost.
If a restaurant has a reputation for food poisoning because of a few bad chefs, is it fair to their 100 co-workers that people avoid their restaurant?
No it’s not fair to them. But it’s not about them. It’s about the patrons safety.
It’s the chef’s fault for ruining the situation for the other 100 workers, not the patrons fault. The patrons are responding as anyone would. Anyone demonizing the patrons or pressuring them to eat at this restaurant is caught up in an abuse cycle. “You must put yourself in harms way because other people’s feelings might be hurt if you don’t”. Not healthy or moral to attempt to impose that burden on other people.
If the 100 co-workers are upset, they should focus their efforts to identify and eliminate the bad chefs, that’s the root of the problem. When they do that, the patrons will come back.
Bans or restrictions on Muslims immigration have shown to be effective as countries like China and Japan have proven. Europe and America have much more terrorist attacks by comparison.
2. Ban ISIS and other terrorist propaganda. As Colonel Ralph Peters has suggested: treat radical Islamic propaganda like they do child pornography. If someone is in possession of or known to be viewing this material, allow the FBI or police to charge them with a crime.
“What if someone looks at radical terrorist propaganda by accident?”
Of course there would need to be exceptions for context. But if someone was on a FBI watch list, attended a Mosque regularly, and viewed ISIS propaganda? Such as the Orlando shooter? That is plenty to identify a threat and preemptive action should be taken.
3. Political correctness should be discarded. The reluctance of the president to say “Islamic terrorism”. It’s so silly. It’s very childish, worried about hurting people’s feelings by telling the truth. Does it harm anti-terror efforts? It’s the attitude that’s the problem. An attitude when translated into policy can harm the fight against terror.
Such as what former DHS agent Philip Haney said in his book “See Something, Say Nothing”. Haney writes how the presidents DHS and Hillary’s state department scrubbed FBI records of hundreds of Muslims and various mosques. Over the “unfairness” of profiling Muslims.
Removing words from the FBI counter-terrorism training manuals such as Muslim, Islam, Jihad, Hamas, etc. What does that accomplish except for making it more difficult to communicate?
We need to take the blindfolds off. Allow the FBI to do their jobs. We should actively and unapologetically speak plainly to one another and tackle the problem directly. Not through a politically correct filter..
Conclusion
The time for half-measures is over. We will likely never be able to stamp out terrorism worldwide. Getting involved in foreign interventions may not pass a cost/benefit analysis. But at least in our own country we should be safe and free from fear.