Right: Twenty-seven wooden angel figures are seen placed in a wooded area beside a road near the Sandy Hook Elementary School for the victims of a school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut December 16, 2012. Twelve girls, eight boys and six adult women were killed in the shooting on Friday at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown..
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of suspected terrorists being banned from buying guns
1. It is dangerous to arm those who are considered a national security risk
Those who support banning suspected terrorists from buying firearms argue that this is merely common sense and that the United States already prevents a large group of people who have yet to commit a crime from purchasing firearms because they are considered a risk to public safety.
Timothy Edgar, a visiting fellow at Brown University, has stated, 'Our laws prevent many dangerous people from buying firearms or explosives - even if they have never been arrested or convicted of a crime. We bar habitual drug users, people under restraining orders for stalking and domestic violence, and dishonourably discharged veterans.'
Edgar argues that it is illogical and inconsistent to then allow suspected terrorists to purchase firearms. Edgar contends, 'That makes no sense. When law enforcement and intelligence agencies say they have specific and credible information that a prospective gun buyer may be a terrorist, we should listen to them and block the sale. National security often requires hard choices. This is not one of them.'
Mr Edgar has further noted that terrorists have publically stated their intention to use the United States' easy access to guns in order to mount terrorist attacks. Edgar has observed, 'Today's terrorists have shifted from planning spectacular attacks involving airplanes. They prefer to radicalize followers on the Internet, encouraging easily planned carnage. We knew of this trend long before San Bernardino and Orlando. In a video in 2011, an American-born spokesman for Al Qaeda put it bluntly. "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. ... So what are you waiting for?"'
On December 3, 2015, CNN published an opinion piece by David Wheeler, a freelance writer and journalism professor at the University of Tampa, in which he argued, '[W]e need every tool possible to fight gun violence, especially in an era when mass shootings have become a regular occurrence and when terrorists use guns as their weapon of choice.'
Wheeler cited an alarming statistic: 'The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office recently released a report showing that from 2004 to 2014, people on terrorism watch lists successfully purchased guns no fewer than 2,043 times.'
After the Orlando nightclub massacre of June 12, 2016, in which a man declaring allegiance to ISIL killed 49 people and injured 53 others, President Barack Obama stated, 'This massacre is...a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or a house of worship, or a movie theatre, or a nightclub. And we have to decide if that's the kind of country that we want to be.'
On June 1, 2016, eleven days prior to the Orlando massacre, President Obama had explained his opposition to people on terrorist watch lists being allowed to purchase firearms.
President Obama stated, 'I've got people who we know have been on ISIL websites, living here in the United States, US citizens, and we're allowed to put them on the "No fly" list when it comes to airlines. But because of the National Rifle Association, I cannot prohibit those people from buying a gun.
This is somebody who is a known ISIL sympathiser. And if he wants to walk into a gun store or gun show right now and buy as many weapons and [as much] ammo as he can, nothing's prohibiting him from doing that, even though the FBI knows who that person is.'
2. The suspected terrorist lists are carefully constructed and allow people a right of appeal
It has been claimed that the accusations made about the unreliability of the lists naming suspected terrorists are exaggerated.
Timothy Edgar, a visiting fellow at Brown University, has stated, 'At the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, analysts vet the intelligence to see if it is specific enough to meet a standard of "reasonable suspicion." If so, the suspect goes on the list. If there is a threat the suspect will carry out a violent attack, he is placed on the smaller no-fly list, a subset of the TSDB [Terrorist Screening Database]. The list is then shared with agency systems that screen travellers and with the FBI's information system for state and local law enforcement.'
On June 27, 2016, South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham declared his faith in the no-fly list. Senator Graham stated, 'To get on the no fly-list, the intelligence community, the CIA, NSA, all of the intelligence people, nominate people to be on the no-fly list. The FBI puts you on it and I believe there's a better chance of winning the lottery than getting on this list if you did nothing wrong.'
The probability that a law-abiding United States gun buyer would be mistakenly prevented from buying a gun has been said to be very low. It has been claimed that there is roughly a 1-in-89,000 chance a background check conducted since 2013 would see someone flagged in the terror watch list.
Senator Graham also noted that those who believe they had been placed on the list inappropriately were able to challenge this. The Senator stated, 'If you find yourself on the list, and you're denied buying a gun because you're on this list, within 14 days you can file a petition in District Court anywhere in the country, and within 14 days the judge has to decide. The burden of proof is on the Government, the proof that you should be on the list based on credible evidence and if the Government loses it has to pay your attorney fees. So within two weeks of filing a petition, you'll have your rights restored if you're on the list wrongfully.'
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a redress process for those who believe their travel within the United States or across the national border has been unjustly impeded.
The DHS Internet site states, 'The Department of Homeland Security Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP) is a single point of contact for individuals who have inquiries or seek resolution regarding difficulties they experienced during their travel screening at transportation hubs-like airports and train stations-or crossing U.S. borders. This includes:
watch list issues; screening problems at ports of entry; situations where travelers believe they have been unfairly or incorrectly delayed, denied boarding or identified for additional screening at...transportation hubs.'
3. The right to bear arms is a dangerous anachronism
Critics of the United States' citizens' supposed Constitutional right to bear arms argue that the circumstances that may have legitimised such a right no longer apply. Further, they argue, circumstances are now such that this disputed right may in fact put United States' citizens at even greater risk.
Critics have noted that the circumstances which gave rise to the Second Amendment that 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' no longer pertain.
It has been argued that the 'right' was given as a means of enabling the states to establish citizen militia in order to quell civil unrest. On January 9, 2013, Rick Nagin wrote, 'The new nation in 1787 had no standing army and the propertied gentlemen who wrote the Bill of Rights feared the uprisings of citizens, such as had occurred in the Shays' Rebellion the previous year, and wished to give the states power to mobilize citizens to crush them.'
Nagin went on to explain, 'That's why the amendment reads: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."'
As an example of the operation of the Amendment toward the quelling of civil unrest, Nagin states, 'Under his presidency in 1794 Washington used the combined militia of several states to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania.'
It has also been suggested that the newly formed United States, a confederacy of formerly independent states, was wary of a centralised government's power and wanted to give the states a means of defending themselves against possible future tyranny. Thus it allowed states to form citizen militias to protect their rights (at least in part against an over-reaching future federal government).
Wendy Kaminer, a contributing editor of The Atlantic and a public-policy fellow at Radcliffe College, has explained this position in this manner, 'There is little dispute that one purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people would be able to resist a central government should it ever devolve into despotism.'
Critics maintain that these conditions no longer apply. The United States has armed forces as well as police forces to defend its citizenry from external attack and from civil unrest. Further the federation is now well-established and there is no longer the same fear (other than among a lunatic fringe) that a centralised government might strip citizens of their freedom.
It has also been argued that the development of high-powered automatic and semi-automatic weapons and the advent of terrorist threats have made the Second Amendment 'right' a danger rather than a protection.
On June 27, 2016, following the Orlando massacre, Meredith Bennett-Smith, one of the editors of Quartz, wrote, 'The Constitution is supposed to protect Americans' right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But right now, the Second Amendment ensures that killers have the right to end the lives of innocents in movie theaters, shopping malls, elementary schools and now gay bars.'
4. Gun ownership prohibitions on those on watch lists would be imposed with care
Some of the proposals put to Congress to deny guns to terrorist suspects deliberately ensure that these prohibitions would only occur after appropriate consideration.
The most prominent of these has been put by Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. Feinstein's measure would have allowed the attorney general to use the Terrorist Screening Database to deny gun sales to a suspected or known terrorist, if there is 'a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.'
Feinstein's bill would alert authorities when anyone who had been on a watch list in the past five years tried to buy a weapon, but would not automatically bar the sale.
This is a significant extension on merely barring those on a watch list as it would include a wider group of people of potential terrorist significance. However, it is not an automatic block as the decision as to whether an individual should be prohibited from buying a weapon would ultimately be taken by the attorney general's department on a case by case basis.
A somewhat similar proposal has been put by Republican Senator from Texas, John Cornyn. Cornyn stressed that his proposal kept the presumption of innocence. His measure would let the government delay a gun sale to a suspected terrorist for 72 hours. Within this time, prosecutors would need to go to court and convince a judge there was probable cause in order to permanently block the sale.
Senator Cornyn stated, 'The role of the courts is to be an independent third party and evaluate those so the government doesn't abuse its authority.' (Democrats have argued that 72 hours is too short and does not give the Justice Department enough time to block the sale.)
In the event, on Monday 20, 2016, four gun control bills (including Feinstein's and Cornyn's) were voted down in the United States Senate.
5. Even harsher restrictions should be placed on gun ownership than bans on potential terrorists
Defenders of United States' citizens' right to bear arms have argued that the perpetrator of the recent Orlando massacre would not have been prevented from buying weapons even if the law had been changed, as he was not on a terrorist watch list. The shooter, Omar Mateen, had had his name removed from the government's watch list after a 2014 inquiry. As a result, the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force would not have been alerted when he sought to buy the weapons he later used and any changed law denying gun ownership to those on a watch list would not have affected him. It has similarly been claimed that the shooter in the 2015 San Bernardino massacre would not have been impeded by a prohibition against gun ownership for those on a watch list.
However, those who would have the law changed argue that what is more concerning is that currently even those on the list can buy powerful weapons. As an instance of this, the parents of the perpetrator of the 2015 San Bernardino massacre which resulted in 14 people dead and 23 injured are able to buy firearms. The husband and wife pledged allegiance to ISIS on Facebook together after their son had committed the mass murder. They were then placed on the FBI's terrorist watch list. Critics of current gun laws are concerned that despite this they are still legally able to buy guns.
It has further been suggested that if proposed law reforms would not have stopped either the San Bernardino or the Orlando perpetrator, then perhaps even stricter reforms are needed.
An analysis by Aamer Madhani and Kevin Johnson published in USA Today on June 14, 2016, stated, 'There isn't anything in state or U.S. law that would have prevented the Orlando shooter from legally purchasing the weapons that authorities said he bought just days before he set out to conduct the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.'
There are those who argue that, though a step in the right direction, merely banning those on the terrorist watch lists from buying high-powered weapons is insufficient.
On June 27, 2016, following the Orlando massacre, Meredith Bennett-Smith, one of the editors of Quartz, wrote, 'The fact is that we need fewer guns in the United States. We need to stop selling assault rifles. And if there is no way to do this in a way that satisfies constitutional scholars, we need to change the Second Amendment.'