The current juxtaposition of debates over gun control and how to combat terrorism is very revealing. Since the 9/11 attacks nearly twelve years ago, Homeland Security, the CIA, and the FBI have foiled dozens of terrorist plots against the United States government and its citizens. But now that two religious extremists have detonated bombs in the city of Boston, opportunistic politicians are declaring that our security network is a failure. Their criticisms imply that it should be possible to protect America from all such threats. Anything less than total success is unacceptable, even if it means compromising civil liberties.
Now contrast the terrorism debate with the gun debate. The most ardent opponents of any kind of gun regulation, even closing the gun show loophole on background checks in order to prevent assault weapons from being purchased by terrorists and felons, argue that such legislation will not prevent future gun violence like the Newtown massacre or the Aurora, Colorado, theatre shooting. Since violent people will find a way to circumvent the law, they say, there’s no reason to change the law, especially since doing so might compromise our Second Amendment right to bear arms.
What’s interesting to me is that some of the same members of Congress hold both these positions and don’t seem to be bothered by the glaring inconsistency.
In contrast, the general public by and large looks at both these issues the same way. Most of us take the position that nothing can be done to guarantee an absolute end to all gun violence or terrorist activity, but we (meaning the federal government in our behalf) should do everything we can to reduce both. A recent