Crack down on handguns
Yes Folks another fine gun story and with elections coming get used to seeing some of the worst anti-gun dribal hit print... www.nydailynews.com When we conjure up images of the terrorist threat to America, it usually involves chemical, biological or, God forbid, nuclear weapons. But it turns out one of the biggest terrorist threats to ordinary New Yorkers is also one of the most familiar - and most ignored: ordinary handguns.
Yet America's strategy for keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists is lax beyond belief. It's so lax, in fact, that today, people on the federal terrorist watch list are not prohibited from purchasing guns. Just think - a person on the watch list can be barred from getting on a plane, but he or she cannot be prevented from buying some weapons.
For that matter, unlicensed dealers are, under some circumstances, permitted to sell guns without a background check. Want to buy a gun without drawing attention? Just go to a gun show.
And at a time when Osama Bin Laden and his associates are encouraging "homegrowns" to rise up and heed the call of jihad, this kind of willful blindness could be deadly.
Overseas, small arms already account for most terrorist violence. According to the National Counter-Terrorism Center, armed attacks accounted for nearly half of all terrorist fatalities worldwide last year.
And here at home, we've seen the damage ordinary weapons can do in the wrong hands. More American civilians died in the Virginia Tech gun rampage than were killed by terrorists worldwide in the entire year of 2006.
If a foreign national with serious mental health issues can readily obtain guns in the U.S., imagine how much easier it would be for a resident self-starter to get his or her hands on weapons.
Not likely, you say? A 2005 Government Accountability Office study found that in one five-month period, 35 suspected terrorists purchased guns in the U.S.
The National Rifle Association and its supporters are quick to retort that the most recent high-casualty attacks in the U.S. involved truck bombs and hijacked planes that were commandeered using sharp cutting devices, not guns.
But in the post-Sept. 11 era, given the new precautions now in place and the hyper-vigilance of law enforcement, such complex attacks are far less likely. For the savvy terrorist, ordinary guns could very easily come back in vogue.
The anti-gun control position also glosses over the use of firearms in the last 15 years by terrorists like Mir Aimal Kansi, who shot CIA employees on their way to work; Rashid Baz, who shot Yeshiva students crossing the Brooklyn Bridge; Ali Abu Kamal, who shot visitors at the Empire State Building; Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, who shot travelers checking-in at the El Al ticket counter at LAX Airport; and Naveed Afzal Haq, who shot six people at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle.
The death toll in those cases never reached the double-digits. But as the Virginia Tech case illustrates, all one needs is an abundant amount of reload ammunition, a densely populated soft target, and the will to kill to produce dozens of deaths in just minutes.
We've got to put the safety on gun sales to potential terrorists - now. A bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) would start giving the federal government the tools to deny the sale of guns to anyone associated with terrorism.
Unfortunately, it's sitting idly in committee.
And that's only one sign of how out of touch the federal government is on the issue. The White House has recently updated its National Strategy for Homeland Security - and conspicuously absent from the report is any serious discussion of gun control as a means of preventing terrorism.
If our leaders don't act soon, terrorists will capitalize on the opportunity our current gun laws provide. And when that happens, the one thing we have strived so hard to prevent will recur: terror will again strike the American homeland.
Klarevas is a professor at New York University's Center for Global Affairs, where he teaches the graduate seminar on transnational terrorism.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...a_tool_of.html
Yet America's strategy for keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists is lax beyond belief. It's so lax, in fact, that today, people on the federal terrorist watch list are not prohibited from purchasing guns. Just think - a person on the watch list can be barred from getting on a plane, but he or she cannot be prevented from buying some weapons.
For that matter, unlicensed dealers are, under some circumstances, permitted to sell guns without a background check. Want to buy a gun without drawing attention? Just go to a gun show.
And at a time when Osama Bin Laden and his associates are encouraging "homegrowns" to rise up and heed the call of jihad, this kind of willful blindness could be deadly.
Overseas, small arms already account for most terrorist violence. According to the National Counter-Terrorism Center, armed attacks accounted for nearly half of all terrorist fatalities worldwide last year.
And here at home, we've seen the damage ordinary weapons can do in the wrong hands. More American civilians died in the Virginia Tech gun rampage than were killed by terrorists worldwide in the entire year of 2006.
If a foreign national with serious mental health issues can readily obtain guns in the U.S., imagine how much easier it would be for a resident self-starter to get his or her hands on weapons.
Not likely, you say? A 2005 Government Accountability Office study found that in one five-month period, 35 suspected terrorists purchased guns in the U.S.
The National Rifle Association and its supporters are quick to retort that the most recent high-casualty attacks in the U.S. involved truck bombs and hijacked planes that were commandeered using sharp cutting devices, not guns.
But in the post-Sept. 11 era, given the new precautions now in place and the hyper-vigilance of law enforcement, such complex attacks are far less likely. For the savvy terrorist, ordinary guns could very easily come back in vogue.
The anti-gun control position also glosses over the use of firearms in the last 15 years by terrorists like Mir Aimal Kansi, who shot CIA employees on their way to work; Rashid Baz, who shot Yeshiva students crossing the Brooklyn Bridge; Ali Abu Kamal, who shot visitors at the Empire State Building; Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, who shot travelers checking-in at the El Al ticket counter at LAX Airport; and Naveed Afzal Haq, who shot six people at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle.
The death toll in those cases never reached the double-digits. But as the Virginia Tech case illustrates, all one needs is an abundant amount of reload ammunition, a densely populated soft target, and the will to kill to produce dozens of deaths in just minutes.
We've got to put the safety on gun sales to potential terrorists - now. A bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) would start giving the federal government the tools to deny the sale of guns to anyone associated with terrorism.
Unfortunately, it's sitting idly in committee.
And that's only one sign of how out of touch the federal government is on the issue. The White House has recently updated its National Strategy for Homeland Security - and conspicuously absent from the report is any serious discussion of gun control as a means of preventing terrorism.
If our leaders don't act soon, terrorists will capitalize on the opportunity our current gun laws provide. And when that happens, the one thing we have strived so hard to prevent will recur: terror will again strike the American homeland.
Klarevas is a professor at New York University's Center for Global Affairs, where he teaches the graduate seminar on transnational terrorism.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...a_tool_of.html
0
-
terrorists! terrorists! Please take away my rights before they kill us all!!!
Ben0 -
I can shoot my own terrorists just fine, thank you. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Gunners762
[
More American civilians died in the Virginia Tech gun rampage than were killed by terrorists worldwide in the entire year of 2006.
I'm sure the folks over in Iraq would disagree0 -
quote:Originally posted by thunderbolt
I can shoot my own terrorists just fine, thank you.
My thoughts exactly! You think terrorists are going to worry about gun laws?0 -
Perhaps the terrorist have not yet heard about this law? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Gunners762
But as the Virginia Tech case illustrates, all one needs is an abundant amount of reload ammunition, a densely populated soft target, and the will to kill to produce dozens of deaths in just minutes.
Could you change that to "densely populated unarmed target" please.0 -
"But as the Virginia Tech case illustrates, all one needs is an abundant amount of reload ammunition, a densely populated soft target, and the will to kill to produce dozens of deaths in just minutes."
Oh dear....what happens if your "densely populated soft target" were to SHOOT BACK???
Sahagan0 -
quote:But as the Virginia Tech case illustrates, all one needs is an abundant amount of reload ammunition, a densely populated soft target, and the will to kill to produce dozens of deaths in just minutes."
I think most of us would have inserted "a gun-free zone" or "a flock of sheep" or maybe "a whole bunch of gun-shy hippies."0 -
I hate to be labeled as paranoid...
But I seriously feel that there are those in powerful positions that allow this type of information to go out in the hopes (or possibly even helping) that it will occur so they can step up and say "SEE!!! I told you it would happen. We have to implement my bill right now!!!"
The base word in terrorism is TERROR. The anti-gun groups weild that skill of instilling terror in the populace quite well. Personally I think the rest of the world and its terrorists should view the USA like Japan did during WWII...they didnt want to invade because they said that behind every blade of grass was a rifle.
PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER...make the terrorists fear that they will die not being successful and therefore be a failure in the eyes of allah.0 -
The number one reason the Japs did not invade Hawaii after Pearl Harbor was the extensive well armed civilian population.
People on the terrorist list need to be rounded up.
Law abiding civilians do not need their rights taken away.
Virginia Tech shows why gun free zones are ridiculous and should be abolished. Had their been armed people and the killer known he faced it that would have been very different.
Your suggesting the government exercise more power over the population is absurd.
Instead mandating everyone be trained and posses a gun would make more sense. Say Hi to Hillary for us
Wulfmann0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by Gunners762
[
More American civilians died in the Virginia Tech gun rampage than were killed by terrorists worldwide in the entire year of 2006.
I'm sure the folks over in Iraq would disagree
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/24/egypt.blasts/index.html
There were more in other places, like, for instance, massacres of Christians in Indo and Malaysia, but who cares about those evil Christians anyways.0 -
So......terrorists can't be stopped by laws against mass murder of civilians, but can be stopped by an anti-gun law? If laws against gun ownership work so well, why not cut to the chase and just pass a law against anyone becoming a terrorist? 0 -
Gunner762 you're not going to gain much support on this forum. Try peta or brady 0 -
Oh great now they are going to redo the 4473 again, just think of the added question, it will be 11 J: Are you a Terrorist or are you on the terrorist watchlist? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Gunners762
Yes Folks another fine gun story and with elections coming get used to seeing some of the worst anti-gun dribal hit print...
quote:Originally posted by woodmaster9
Gunner762 you're not going to gain much support on this forum. Try peta or brady
[?]0 -
Quote: "The number one reason Japan did not invade the US after Pearl Harbor was the extensive, well armed civilian population."
No, the reason they didn't invade is that they never intended to. Their sole intent was to strike the base at Pearl so as to guarantee that they could invade the Phillipines without danger from the Pacific fleet. They hit and high-tailed it back to Japan, only pausing to attack Wake Island, which failed at that time. Had they invaded the US at that time they would have had to cross one desert and two high mountain ranges, and support a 7000 mile supply line.
They were not in the least afraid of the civilians in California.0 -
wulfmann: Your quote: " The number one reason the Japs did not invade Hawaii after Pearl Harbor was the extensive well armed civilian population.".. I really doubt this statement, in fact I laugh at it. A
Military is well trained and equipted to handle most civilian attempts as they have no control center for one thing and no battle experience.
Yes they can "annoy" them a little but that is all. I saw the same thing in Germany in WW 2 with the Volkstrum (peoples army) who were better trained but still didnt do one hell of a lot against U.S. forces.0 -
I think the point is that since terrorists prefer box cutters to handguns; we should outlaw handguns before the elections in order to appease that biggest terrorist of them all-HILLARY!
Then maybe the terrorists will take notice as she(?) symbolically gives away an illegal alien at a raffle.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
18 comments