At Least They Tried

About a week ago, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik killed or injured thirty-five people during a rampage in San Bernadino, California. They had several pipe bombs with them and additional weapons, ammunition, and bombs at home. It took less than two days for the F.B.I. to conclude that this might be a terrorist act. Quoting his father, the Daily Mail said of Farook that he “was a 'momma's boy' who supported ISIS [and] wanted to see Israel wiped off the map.” His wife had pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook. The President, however, warned Americans not to blame Islam because we should be free of prejudice. It's not the American way.

The President showed admirable restraint and concern about the possibility of Islamophobia, as he had often done in the past. This was consistent with past practices. He opposes the categorization of terrorists, and all other forms of hate speech. When terrorists in Paris had murdered Jews in a kosher supermarket, he properly asserted "It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris." He carefully avoided any hint of bias by calling the Muslim terrorists “vicious zealots.” And to avoid any suggestion that anti-semitism might be involved, he said that those assassinated were shot “randomly.” They were just “a bunch of folks.” It's legitimate to be “concerned.” As long as we go no further. What a relief.

But that doesn't mean that the leader of the free world didn't have potent proposals about the actions we must take. Although he may not have made any suggestions, or announced any policies (nor even the consideration of them) concerning increased security at public sites, better monitoring of potential terrorists, supervision of threats on the social media, visa procedures, or enhanced review of contacts and of travel patterns of those who might be involved in terrorist incidents, the President was emphatic in his demand for stronger actions in gun control. We all know that guns kill people and we needn't be concerned about terrorists. Our greater fear should be of members of the other party who oppose what we propose.

The New York Times concurs. Noting that some countries have strict gun control laws but have killers who “obtained weapons illegally,” the American newspaper of record reminds us that “at least those countries are trying.” The terrorists in those countries had violated the law when they obtained their guns but fortunately those whom they faced, law-abiding citizens, were unarmed. That is certainly reassuring to the families of those killed. And there is no question that strong gun-control measures are obligatory for backward nations (like ours) in which regulations are either absent or not muscular enough.

But gun control is not a universal solution to violence. In some countries violence has different expressions. For example, Sayed Farook “wanted to see Israel wiped off the map” but there the preference is for stones, scissors, knives, bottle bombs, and automobiles, so different laws would be required. Let me suggest the following:

1. Stone control, making it illegal to use stones without a background check. The check would require a minimum age of four, and a determination that the applicant have no history of mental disease. All stones and sling-shots would be photographed and registered.

2. The user of scissors would have to participate in safety training, including the caution against running with scissors. All scissors would have to have rounded tips and safety catches to keep them closed.

3. The purchase of knives would require a license – whether the instrument is intended for kitchen or outdoor use. Background checks on chefs and all women would be instituted. Knives could not be concealed. The individual implements would have to be stored between murders in child-proof closets. If used for kitchen work as well as murder, washing with an anti-bacterial solution between uses is recommended.

4. Bottle-bombs are complex combinations of glass bottles, inflammable substance such as kerosene, and flame. All require controls. The bottles themselves must be approved by organizations supporting BDS to ensure their origin in an acceptable location; the kerosene would be required to have certification by OPEC; it would be necessary to register the flame. While this may be difficult, law-enforcement agencies must be supplied with tools to detect flames and they must be authorized to confiscate illegal combustion. An exception would be made for cigarettes. The banning of matches would require further study.

5. It is noteworthy that automobiles are frequently used in order to kill Jews. While existing motor vehicle regulations are extensive, it may be necessary to outlaw all motorized vehicles since they are potential killers. Camel travel should be explored.

No change would be made in current regulations involving other weapons since that would limit military training and use and, more important, would impose an unfair burden on smugglers.

In the United States, however, the answer to all violence is gun control. It will certainly be comforting to anyone who has been shot to know that his attacker, by carrying a weapon, was doing something illegal and that no one was so unpatriotic as to try to categorize, or use an illegal weapon in opposition to the attacker.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My intent is not to denigrate the importance of reasonable restrictions on the types of weapons available, but to suggest that the willing disregard of important parts of the problem in order to remain politically correct and to promote a political message ensures only the opportunity to blame someone else for your failures, rather than policies that deal with all of the causes of a problem will be likely to solve at least some of them. The desire to assign responsibility is probably the case. But the goal has to be to solve problems rather than fault someone else.