With all the nonsense that gets said (and said and said) in the media these days, I think it's worth focusing on one question each day which deserves rational discussion. Because of the Orlando terrorist attack and the aftermath, today's question is particularly pertinent. Here it is:
Since 2000, there have been a great many actual or attempted terror attacks in the USA. Which one(s) would have been prevented by barring those on the no-fly list from buying guns? The answer may surprise you. After all, we just witnessed a mini-filibuster in the Senate to supposedly get a vote on a bill that would add that prohibition to the list of people who cannot buy guns. The answer: there has not been even one terror attack or attempted terror attack which would have been prevented by this proposed change to the gun laws.
Obviously, the biggest attack by terrorists was 9-11. No guns were used.
The second biggest attack was in Orlando this past Saturday. Guns were used but the terrorist was not on the no-fly list. He got all his guns legally. He had been investigated more than once by the FBI, but he was not on any list of suspects.
In San Bernardino, we lost 14 people to gun fire. Again, the guns were purchased legally by someone who was not on the no-fly list.
At Fort Hood, the terrorist was a major in the US Armed Forces. He was not on the no-fly list.
In Boston, there was a bomb at the finish line for the marathon.
The shoe bomber and the underwear bomber tried to take down planes and failed. No guns were involved.
The Times Square bomber planned to use a bomb but it never went off. No guns there.
In the church in Charleston, the shooter was not an Islamic terrorist. It was, however, still a terror attack. The shooter was not on the no-fly list. In fact, he was under indictment for criminal acts, something that might have kept him from buying guns. The government, however, messed that up so he was able to buy the guns legally.
The list goes on and on. In not one single case has there been a situation where banning purchases by designated terror suspects would have prevented the attack.
Now let's be clear. It may be a good idea to bar those on the list from buying guns so long as people have an easy way to get a court to take them off the list if an error has been made. Whether or not it is a good idea, however, it is not something that has or will ever stop a terrorist attack here in the USA. All the attention in the media and by Obama and Clinton on this point is actually a way of changing the subject. We need a plan for dealing with ISIS and the other terrorists. That plan does not depend on gun control. Obama has not coherent plan. Hillary has no coherent plan. No wonder they want to change the subject.
Since 2000, there have been a great many actual or attempted terror attacks in the USA. Which one(s) would have been prevented by barring those on the no-fly list from buying guns? The answer may surprise you. After all, we just witnessed a mini-filibuster in the Senate to supposedly get a vote on a bill that would add that prohibition to the list of people who cannot buy guns. The answer: there has not been even one terror attack or attempted terror attack which would have been prevented by this proposed change to the gun laws.
Obviously, the biggest attack by terrorists was 9-11. No guns were used.
The second biggest attack was in Orlando this past Saturday. Guns were used but the terrorist was not on the no-fly list. He got all his guns legally. He had been investigated more than once by the FBI, but he was not on any list of suspects.
In San Bernardino, we lost 14 people to gun fire. Again, the guns were purchased legally by someone who was not on the no-fly list.
At Fort Hood, the terrorist was a major in the US Armed Forces. He was not on the no-fly list.
In Boston, there was a bomb at the finish line for the marathon.
The shoe bomber and the underwear bomber tried to take down planes and failed. No guns were involved.
The Times Square bomber planned to use a bomb but it never went off. No guns there.
In the church in Charleston, the shooter was not an Islamic terrorist. It was, however, still a terror attack. The shooter was not on the no-fly list. In fact, he was under indictment for criminal acts, something that might have kept him from buying guns. The government, however, messed that up so he was able to buy the guns legally.
The list goes on and on. In not one single case has there been a situation where banning purchases by designated terror suspects would have prevented the attack.
Now let's be clear. It may be a good idea to bar those on the list from buying guns so long as people have an easy way to get a court to take them off the list if an error has been made. Whether or not it is a good idea, however, it is not something that has or will ever stop a terrorist attack here in the USA. All the attention in the media and by Obama and Clinton on this point is actually a way of changing the subject. We need a plan for dealing with ISIS and the other terrorists. That plan does not depend on gun control. Obama has not coherent plan. Hillary has no coherent plan. No wonder they want to change the subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment