Police and intelligence agencies have an enormously difficult job because radicalization pathways to violence are not always straightforward. Sometimes an individual on the periphery of an investigation, who is assessed as low risk, rapidly becomes a threat. Similarly, an individual considered very dangerous may never act or may disengage from extremism. As the 2009 investigation of al Qaeda operative and New Yorker Najibullah Zazi demonstrated, the manpower needed for physical surveillance of even a single individual requires dozens of agents and hundreds of man-hours, and that doesn’t include the analytic team required to evaluate electronic communications such as email, chat, tweets and phone data.
In the past, Western intelligence organizations intercepted communications that allowed security agencies to move against al Qaeda or ISIS operatives, often before they could strike. Now end-to-end encrypted communications apps like “Telegram” have become standard operating procedure among terrorists. So intercepting and deciphering communications is far more difficult, even for organizations as sophisticated as the National Security Agency or the FBI.
There is no doubt that al Qaeda and its remnants as well as Islamic State have the intention and capability to strike the United States using Western operatives. What happened in Paris can happen here. A false sense of security will be deadly. The U.S. must mobilize at home and lead abroad to defeat this increasing threat.
Surely it would then make sense to restrict access to guns? Your homicide rate is far greater per capita than almost any other country. According to the BBC:
So many people die annually from gunfire in the US that the death toll between 1968 and 2011 eclipses all wars ever fought by the country. According to research by Politifact, there were about 1.4 million firearm deaths in that period, compared with 1.2 million US deaths in every conflict from the Revolutionary War to Iraq.
See:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604
But alas, you will say that we do not understand you, that you have a constitutional right to bear arms, etc. I love the United States. I have many friends there. I am grateful for your coming to our rescue in two world wars and let it be said more recently in the Balkans. But I have to say, sorrowfully, that the obsession with guns seems like some kind of demonic possession. As your own president says, how much sense does it make if people on the no-fly list are still able to go into shops and buy a lethal weapon? Why is it that the NRA opposes just about every reform? Does it oppose this one? Does it oppose background checks? Does it oppose restrictions on purchase of armour-piercing bullets? On ordnance? And if the answer to these questions is yes, will you Christians who are NRA members bring your pressure to bear?
Terry Tee, the large majority of those homicides are drug and gang-related, in our inner cities. The guns used in San Bernardino were legally purchased in California, which has gun control laws among the strictest in the nation. The president’s comment about the no-fly list is a complete non-sequitur, since neither suspect was on such a list. Further, on the particular point, the no-fly list is notoriously inaccurate and involves no due process.
What you are suggesting is the logical equivalent of saying that since tens of thousands die in automobile accidents annually, we should get rid of automobiles, or we should prohibit the alcohol which is behind so many fatal accidents, or we should prohibit cell phones, ditto. We’ve tried the alcohol prohibition, with poor results.
There is a very serious problem with gang crimes. The victims are killed by other gang members or drug dealers, most often young men killed by other young men who resemble them racially or ethnically, along with quite a number of innocent bystanders. Applying a blanket nationwide “solution” to areas in which the homicide rate has been declining for years doesn’t make sense to most of us.
See [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw]this link from the Washington Post[/url] news pages (not a right-wing site):[blockquote]In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 — a total of 11,208 firearm homicides. The number of victims of crimes involving guns that did not result in death (such as robberies) declined even more precipitously, from 725 per 100,000 people in 1993 to 175 in 2013.[/blockquote]
Law enforcement officials are beginning to endorse every lawful citizen being armed, because the reason those with guns now prey on others is that they are armed and their victims aren’t. Gun violence is most prevalent in those areas where gun rights are restricted and there is heavy gun control. Creating an armed, trained and vigilant population that will defend themselves and other citizens will do more than anything to end gun violence.
Gun control and terrorism … http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/san-bernardino-was-terrorism-and-gun-control-wont-stop-it/ar-AAfZslX?li=BBnb7Kz
Amazing how so many believe the best way to deal with crime, terrorism, any violence against society is to disarm the law abiding folks of that society.
In violent confrontations the cardinal rule is that “seconds count when the police are only minutes away.”
I have never had a liberal be able to look me in the eye and proclaim that if they were laying on the floor as a mad man/woman was targeting them, that they would not want a fully loaded semi-automatic pistol in their hands to try and defend themselves.
Fr Tee, as an Australian, I have no particularly sympathy for the gun-carrying culture in the US. But as a matter of logic, what does it have to do with a Paris-style attack (which is what the article refers to)?
I don’t think gun ownership has much to do with this – on the one hand, terrorists can always find ways to get hold of illegal firearms in any country – I don’t think the ones in Paris bought AKMs over the counter. On the other hand, gun ownership does virtually nothing to prevent attacks either – mass killings are almost always stopped by professionals, i.e. the police or protection services.
The keys to preventing a Paris-style attack are: (i) first and foremost, good intelligence; and (ii) well-armed and trained security forces with the powers and capability to respond quickly.
The first factor (intelligence) is by far the most important.
#7, As an Australian, you live in a country where you gave up your rights to self-defense, so no, I doubt you know much about it.
The reason why gun ownership does not appear to matter much in non-gang-related mass shootings [which are the majority by the way] is because the rest of the mass shootings occur in GUN FREE ZONES, where by definition, the only people with guns are the CRIMINALS.
Gun violence in American is on a 30 year downward trend, except in liberal inspired GUN FREE ZONES.
It is laughable and illogical to decree that trained security forces will save the day. The cardinal rule in any gun related event is that “seconds count when the police are only minutes away.”
How many of the 130 killed in Paris and the 14 killed in San Bernardino would have said to an angel, “oh no, I don’t want to have a gun, I’ll wait for the trained authorities.”
To emphasize #8’s point, [url=http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-gun-debate-in-two-charts.php]this link[/url] shows gun ownership vs. gun homicide over the past two decades. The numbers of guns and the number of guns per capita are inversely related to gun homicides.
#8 (I won’t dignify you with a name), if you are going to make adverse comments about other nations, I suggest you attempt to cure your own lack of education first. We in Australia did not “give up our rights to self defence”. I can’t say more because of the vague nature of this ignorant proposition.
“It is laughable and illogical to decree that trained security forces will save the day.”
Your comment is laughable and illogical. Apart from anything else, I did not suggest that “trained security forces will save the day”. Kindly read comments before responding in future.
And please spare me your attempts to manipulate statistics – many mass shootings have occurred in gun owning states, and I note that you don’t put forward a single instance where private gun ownership prevented a mass shooting.
“How many of the 130 killed in Paris and the 14 killed in San Bernardino would have said to an angel, “oh no, I don’t want to have a gun, I’ll wait for the trained authorities”.â€
Far less than would have said: “I wish that a high level of police intelligence and trained authorities had been available”, since you ask.
Respectfully, Katherine at #9, I don’t think that you are emphasizing #8’s point. Let’s look at his post:
* Firstly, he decided to make a crass and uneducated comment about Australia – the statistics you cite have absolutely nothing to do with that.
* Secondly, I am very glad to see that gun violence in the USA per capita is declining. But what does it have to do with my point which #8 objected to – that “mass killing are almost always stopped by professionals”? If #8 had wanted to refute that point, he needed to show instances where mass killings were stopped by private gun owners, which he did not attempt to do.
* Thirdly, neither he nor you deal with the intelligence point. Here in Australia we have had a number of attacks stopped before they happened; these are not just propaganda – charges have been laid in open court, and convictions and jail terms imposed on those who planned them. I don’t see anything in your statistics that relate to that (no doubt because they essentially cover homicides in general, whereas I thought this discussion was about Paris-style attacks).
My comment, MichaelA, was directed at the point that the numbers of guns here are inversely related to the numbers of homicides, and not to to conditions in Australia at all, about which I know little.
We also have had many jihadi attacks thwarted by good intelligence. And with respect to shootings by non-jihadis, in the US many situations which might have been mass shootings have been stopped by the presence of an armed citizen or an armed guard before police could arrive. This is not unusual. They don’t get reported internationally because they aren’t mass shootings.
With respect to trained and armed police, I was alarmed to read a comparison of France and the UK. France was able to deliver large numbers of armed police and military on short notice while the Paris events were underway. Police in the UK, that comparison claimed, are not armed and it would take longer to deliver armed security personnel. I hope that’s not accurate.
In 1996 Australians allowed their guns to be registered by serial number to the Government which means that confiscation is a very real threat, easily carried out at the whim of the Government. Therefore, Australians have compromised their self-defense rights. PM Howard at the time said on radio, ” “We will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns… ordinary citizens should not have weapons.”
In the United States, government authorities have no doubt disrupted plots to cause terrorist events. But they have by no means stopped them all despite massive expenditures of money and compromises of basic liberties. Last week in San Bernardino we saw the latest result of such failures. At first the President thought surely work-place violence was the problem; we are finding that the couple involved were a sophisticated terrorist team, well funded, well equipped, not on any no-fly list, and entered the US using incorrect data on visa applications.
This is one couple. And yet our government swears that it can successfully and properly vet thousands of refugees from the Middle East where it has been demonstrated the refugee streams are embedded by Islamic terrorists.
For these reasons and many others, a large number of citizens in the US do not trust their government. They do not depend on the government for their daily safety because they know their fundamental rights to be safe in the persons are guaranteed by our Constitution and they take the steps that seem prudent to them to protect themselves.
The data on “mass shootings” has been demonstrated to be fallacious because it includes so many gang land shootings [eg, Chicago] where the gangs have vast weapons caches because authorities refuse to enforce the gun laws already on the books. Another reason not to trust government.
[blockquote] “In 1996 Australians allowed their guns to be registered by serial number to the Government which means that confiscation is a very real threat, easily carried out at the whim of the Government.” [/blockquote]
Rubbish. Confiscation in fact would be very difficult to carry out. It would require the co-operation of various organs of State as well as Federal governments. And since your argument is based on hypothetical speculation, it seems more likely that any group intent on suborning our democratic system would be happier with unrestricted gun ownership – they could raise their own private militias and suborn existing ones to support their takeover.
[blockquote] “Therefore, Australians have compromised their self-defense rights.” [/blockquote]
I see you have modified your position now from your earlier assertion that Australians “gave up” their self defence rights – that is a start. But lets stop using euphemisms – what you are talking about are not “self defence rights” but the capacity to conduct armed insurrection against the state. This is just a pipe-dream, since there is no reason to think that “gun-owners” would be united in any political crisis.
And in any case, you don’t know what you are talking about: the 1996 laws did not have nearly the effect that you think, and Australians have never seen gun ownership as a matter of “self defence” in the sense you are talking about. That is different to defence – the Australian military have always encouraged membership of rifle clubs, in order to keep the pool of people with weapons skills up. But even before WWII when my father was in a rifle club the weapons were kept locked away.
[blockquote] “But they have by no means stopped them all despite massive expenditures of money and compromises of basic liberties.” [/blockquote]
So what? Whether you like it or not, the overriding factor in stopping these attacks is good intelligence. So if you want to stop spending on that because some attacks get through, then by all means “cut off your nose to spite your face” as we say over here.
[blockquote] “They do not depend on the government for their daily safety because they know their fundamental rights to be safe in the persons are guaranteed by our Constitution and they take the steps that seem prudent to them to protect themselves.” [/blockquote]
Do they now? Good for them. And in the meantime I note that you cannot cite a single instance where private ownership of firearms has prevented a terrorist or terrorist-type attack. But whatever, I am not concerned with your gun laws, I am concerned with your uninformed comments about the situation in Australia.
[blockquote] “The data on “mass shootings†has been demonstrated to be fallacious because it includes so many gang land shootings [eg, Chicago] where the gangs have vast weapons caches because authorities refuse to enforce the gun laws already on the books. Another reason not to trust government.” [/blockquote]
What is the relevance of this? You are bringing this up to support your argument in #8 that: “It is laughable and illogical to decree that trained security forces will save the day” in the context of terrorist attacks. So your argument amounts to: “There are well-armed gangs in Los Angeles, therefore we should not rely on trained security forces as a defence against terrorist attacks”. Yep, that’s really logical…
And you conclude with: “Another reason not to trust government”. What does this actually mean, in the context of our current discussion – that the failure of your State governments to deal with gang-related violence in Los Angeles or Chicago is a reason not to have trained security forces?
[blockquote] “At first the President thought surely work-place violence was the problem; we are finding that the couple involved were a sophisticated terrorist team, well funded, well equipped, not on any no-fly list, and entered the US using incorrect data on visa applications.” [/blockquote]
I hope that educated people in the USA on’t think that counter-terrorist intelligence consists of creating a “no fly list” and checking visa applications.
“Whether you like it or not, the overriding factor in stopping these attacks is good intelligence. “,,,,,,actually you seem enamored of this point and what I am trying to point out is that at least in the US, we are not so impressed with our “intelligence or counter-intelligence”.
Two reasons why: it is often everyday citizens who see something or take action to stop something [the infamous shoe bomber on the Delta flight several years ago] and secondly they don’t seem to stop that much; 9-11, Boston Marathon bombers, recruiting station assassin, Chattanooga recruiting office killers, and now San Bernardino.
And actually educated people in the US think the “no fly” list is an absolute joke and the visa immigration process is a joke which is why many are suggesting shutting the whole thing down.
The other point you seem fixated on is “And in the meantime I note that you cannot cite a single instance where private ownership of firearms has prevented a terrorist or terrorist-type attack. ”
Actually we don’t know how many have been stopped; no telling how many criminals-terrorists have been stopped by an armed citizen, which means they didn’t get to unleash their terror to be reported in the news. In terms of stopping an incident underway, well as was pointed out these tend to take place in “gun free” zones where the law abiding citizen has been disarmed. Can’t shoot what you don’t have.
What is patently illogical is to think “the authorities” are going to be everywhere to protect everyone. What most folks don’t realize in the US is that the authorities bear no burden to protect anyone. As our Supreme Court has decreed the authorities are charged with keeping the law and order and peace…….personal protection of citizens is just something we hope they can do in addition to their delegated duties. People who do know about this understand why we are all ultimately responsible for our own protection.
Now if this mindset does not fit the average worldview in Australia, great. The article was about terrorist attacks in the US.
[blockquote] “,,,,,,actually you seem enamored of this point” [/blockquote]
Since I wrote in my first post: “The first factor (intelligence) is by far the most important”, you should have realised that immediately.
[blockquote] “at least in the US, we are not so impressed with our “intelligence or counter-intelligenceâ€.” [/blockquote]
I don’t know how you are entitled to speak for “the US”, but if that is indeed a general attitude, then you will continue to suffer attacks, at least some of which could have been prevented. And for what – your personal ego?
[blockquote] “Two reasons why: it is often everyday citizens who see something or take action to stop something …” [/blockquote]
How does that assist your argument? One of a number of significant components in good intelligence is co-opting everyday citizens, and integrating their reports into the intelligence effort. It is difficult to travel very far in Australia without seeing a poster or other reminder asking ordinary citizens to be alert, encouraging them to report anything suspicious, and telling them who to contact.
[blockquote] “And actually educated people in the US think the “no fly†list is an absolute joke and the visa immigration process is a joke…” [/blockquote]
Again, I am not sure what gives you the right to speak on behalf of educated people in the USA, particularly when making yet another sweeping and unsupported assertion. I did not suggest that these things were a joke, or that they should not be implemented in some form, but that they should not *alone* be viewed as a counter-intelligence effort.
[blockquote] “Actually we don’t know how many have been stopped; no telling how many criminals-terrorists have been stopped by an armed citizen, which means they didn’t get to unleash their terror to be reported in the news.” [/blockquote]
The idea that it would not be widely reported if someone had formed a plan to carry out mass murder but were shot first, is difficult to take seriously. You are trying to make an argument out of nothing.
[blockquote] “well as was pointed out these tend to take place in “gun free†zones” [/blockquote]
“Tend to”? So you can’t even say that they all were. And the fact remains that you are entirely speculating – you cannot point to a single case where private ownership of weapons prevented a massacre, yet you demand that gun-ownership be spread everywhere (including Australia) because you speculate that it might prevent a massacre, even though it never has.
[blockquote] “What is patently illogical is to think “the authorities†are going to be everywhere to protect everyone.”[/blockquote]
Since no-one has suggested they are, why are you wasting our time attacking “straw men”?
[blockquote] “What most folks don’t realize in the US is that the authorities bear no burden to protect anyone. As our Supreme Court has decreed the authorities are charged with keeping the law and order and peace…….personal protection of citizens is just something we hope they can do in addition to their delegated duties.”[/blockquote]
Pity the poor people in the US who do not have your divine understanding. Perhaps try coming up with rational arguments – you may do better at convincing them.
[blockquote] “The article was about terrorist attacks in the US.”[/blockquote]
Correct – YOU chose to bring Australia into this by making disparaging remarks about another country, which you then proved quite incapable of backing up with rational argument.
On the other hand, this seems like a very sensible basis for an armed citizenry: http://www.guns.com/2015/12/11/this-country-uses-the-second-amendment-as-a-first-line-of-defense-videos/
One nice thing about the 2nd Amendment to our US Constitution is that our rights are not dependent on what anyone thinks and is likely to stay that way as long as we don’t give into registration of our firearms with any government agency.
I don’t feel too alone when I state that many of my fellow countrymen/women are not too impressed by “intelligence” when it comes to stopping terrorists. For one thing, our current President and his ilk refuse to acknowledge a problem in the global Muslim community with terrorism despite the fact that:
The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The Underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U.S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims
We defend the 2nd Amendment for a couple of reasons; our God-given right to defend ourselves and our Constitutional right to live as free men not under the thumb of a tyrannical government. As one wag put it, “without guns, we’d still be British!”
But of course, along the way we have to contend with those who claim that, “a citizen with a gun never stopped a bad guy”, but as the NRA publishes monthly, they do and as this link demonstrates, they do;
http://buzzpo.com/still-dont-think-guns-save-lives-heres-18-times-they-did/
And after Paris and San Bernardino, we hear the old saw, “but lawful guns never stop mass shootings”, but as this link demonstrates, they do;
http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/
Now, it is forgivable that no one would be aware of these incidents which put gun ownership in a good light, because it does not fit the media narrative about guns, rights, and citizens, so the stories regularly don’t see the light of day. After all, global climate change is so much more a serious matter.
So, I still agree with the WSJ, we could see a Paris style attack here, particularly in liberal-inspired gun free zones. But as a good friend of mine once observed, a large number of Americans would rather go down in a pile of spent brass than cower unarmed on a floor before a terrorist or bad guy.