Earlier today, I discussed whether or not prohibiting guns to those on the no fly list could prevent terrorist attacks. It engendered quite a response.
First, I was asked whether or not I thought that by banning gun purchases for these people, the law would actually work to let them know that they were under surveillance by the FBI or other law enforcement agency. Clearly, that would be a flaw in the law. After all, if terrorists knew that the FBI was onto them, they might rush to attack before they were apprehended.
The answer, however, is that the whole thing would depend on the list that gets used. There is a "no-fly" list and another list of those under suspicion of possible terrorist activity. The "no-fly" list keeps people off all airplanes within or to or from the USA. It also keeps people off American flag carriers outside of the USA. Anyone on that list understands already that they are under suspicion. Preventing these people from buying guns would not alert them to something that they did not already know. On the other hand, if the FBI just suspects a person of possible terrorist activities or sympathies, the person under suspicion well may not know. Barring that person from buying a gun would then alert the potential terrorist that the FBI was on his or her trail. We could have more, not less, attacks. It might make more sense if purchases by people on this second list were merely sent as alerts to the FBI of a dangerous situation.
Second, I was asked why I said that using the no-fly list to bar weapons purchases would not stop future terror attacks. The answer is that the terrorists are not limited to using legally obtained guns. It is not hard for a terrorist to find someone else to buy guns legally or to find a way to buy the guns illegally. They can also use bombs or other plans for terror. To stop terrorism, we need to destroy ISIS and the other terrorist groups. Limiting guns just won't do it.
First, I was asked whether or not I thought that by banning gun purchases for these people, the law would actually work to let them know that they were under surveillance by the FBI or other law enforcement agency. Clearly, that would be a flaw in the law. After all, if terrorists knew that the FBI was onto them, they might rush to attack before they were apprehended.
The answer, however, is that the whole thing would depend on the list that gets used. There is a "no-fly" list and another list of those under suspicion of possible terrorist activity. The "no-fly" list keeps people off all airplanes within or to or from the USA. It also keeps people off American flag carriers outside of the USA. Anyone on that list understands already that they are under suspicion. Preventing these people from buying guns would not alert them to something that they did not already know. On the other hand, if the FBI just suspects a person of possible terrorist activities or sympathies, the person under suspicion well may not know. Barring that person from buying a gun would then alert the potential terrorist that the FBI was on his or her trail. We could have more, not less, attacks. It might make more sense if purchases by people on this second list were merely sent as alerts to the FBI of a dangerous situation.
Second, I was asked why I said that using the no-fly list to bar weapons purchases would not stop future terror attacks. The answer is that the terrorists are not limited to using legally obtained guns. It is not hard for a terrorist to find someone else to buy guns legally or to find a way to buy the guns illegally. They can also use bombs or other plans for terror. To stop terrorism, we need to destroy ISIS and the other terrorist groups. Limiting guns just won't do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment