Domestic Gun Control is Not the Correct Response to Acts of Terrorism

Syed Rizwan Farook, ISIS sympathizer

Once again, the Democratic leadership is immediately latching onto the cowardly San Bernardino shooting as a justification for increased gun control. In fact, at the time their statements were read, it was not yet clear if this was a workplace shooting or an act of terrorism, which bears significance in terms of its implications for gun control.

A workplace shooting, by a disturbed or disgruntled employee, is something completely different from an act of terrorism. A workplace shooting is most commonly a spur-of-the-moment action in which the shooter reaches a certain point and decides that "enough is enough". An act of terrorism is usually something that is planned well in advance, often with the support of associates foreign and domestic, by individuals who are driven by ideology and hell bent on destruction.

The workplace shooter will typically make use of whatever weapons he happens to own, with whatever ammunition he happens to possess at the time. The terrorist will carefully select their weapons and will amass a cache of ammunition. The terrorist will get the weapons by whatever means necessary, and will not think twice about buying guns on the black market if that is the only route open to them. Or, finding it difficult to obtain weapons, the terrorist will plan to commit acts of terrorism by other means, such as with explosives, with unpredictable consequences.

For example, in France it is completely illegal for private citizens to own fully-automatic Kalashnikov rifles of the type used in the Paris assaults. However, that is exactly what the attackers used. And, since concealed carry permits are not available to Parisians, the victims had to wait for the authorities to arrive to repel the attackers. That extra time resulted in over 130 dead.

Therefore, more stringent gun laws will not stop the determined terrorist, and this is something the Democratic leadership should have considered before they went public with their responses to the San Bernardino shooting.

What will help minimize casualties are more weapons in the hands of those trained and able to use them, be they private citizens or law enforcement officials. Gun laws that make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain weapons of self-defense will leave us all vulnerable.

It is no coincidence that the attackers selected a "soft target" such as a community center for the handicapped and disabled as the site of the attack -- they knew that they would be unlikely to face armed resistance there.

By the time the police entered the San Bernardino community center the shooters had already fled. What might have happened if several of the employees had been armed that day? Could they have held the shooters at bay, buying valuable time? Could they have stopped them? I can envision a future in which law enforcement trains and deputizes tens of thousands of regular citizens nationwide so that they can be equipped to intervene and stop acts of terrorism and violence in time to save lives.