We are presently in the midst of terrorist attacks on Mumbai, India. Similar attacks were planned in Canada, but fortunately averted, due to apprehension of the conspirators. Escalating incidents of automatic-weapon fuelled piracy on the high seas are now also being reported (see this link for a report of piracy in Somalia). Gun-enabled gang violence is escalating in the urban centres of many of the world's leading nations.
Terrorists and gangsters on land - and pirates on the sea - take advantage of the fact that our world is largely a peaceful place, with the consequence that the general populace is not armed. Obviously the world is changing, and our citizenry must now also change to adapt to the new circumstances.
To be clear - I am not calling for all citizens to carry arms - this must still be a privilege, not a right. But I do wish presently to submit a proposal for how an armed citizenry might defend itself against the emerging reality - that outlaws carry guns and weapons freely, using them to terrorize citizens.
I have long been an advocate of two years of national service for all citizens. I now propose that emergency situation and weapons training be a component of that two years of service, even for those who might volunteer to perform peaceful duties of service, such as work in hospitals or with senior citizens. Those who have completed two years of supervised service (including in-depth crisis intervention and weapons training and field practice, with careful scrutiny of their competencies and with fully positive evaluations) might then be authorized to travel freely as armed citizens, a citizen militia if you will. This would greatly increase the likelihood that when gangsters or terrorists strike, they will encounter citizen adversaries who are in a position to defend themselves and those present against the criminal use of weaponry.
Similarly, the present situation appears to require that there be training and arming of the personnel of merchant ships on the high seas, as well as of persons in positions of responsibility in areas of public transportation - whether trains, buses or airlines.Let's stop making it easy for gangsters and terrorists to ply their trade by allowing them to exploit our society's peaceful citizen environment.
My proposal would thus see a fully qualified, trained and licensed citizen militia backing up our police and military forces.Woe be to the terrorists and gangsters who attempted to dominate citizens by force of arms in such a world. In any public setting, they would surely meet their match, and tragedies such as that in Mumbai today - or that which was narrowly averted in Canada - would no longer dominate our headlines.
Normal checks and balances must apply, and my proposal cannot proceed without careful consideration of multiple safety measures and safeguards, for example, regular reviews of the licenses of armed citizens, ongoing training, clearly spelled-out accountability mechanisms, carefully-defined guidelines for weapons use, and of course speedily-implemented sanctions for misuse of the privilege.
But who can question that advancing weapons technology and the widespread manufacture and availability of armaments has made the modern world a playground for those who practice terrorism and gangsterism? It is now time to make the world unsafe for terrorists, gangsters and pirates. The way ahead is not entirely unclear.
As is the case with all post-liberal reforms, the greatest obstacle to action is perhaps our reflexive aversion to measures which entrust citizens to exercise wise judgement in assuming responsibility for the solution of dilemmas which are apparent to all.
Peaceloving people have armed themselves to fight terrorist and criminal elements before. I regret that we now live in an era where this has again become necessary - but as I see it, bold action is what is now required. I believe that our citizens are smart enough to take on a responsibility of this kind, and that our lawmakers and judges are wise enough to hammer out the checks, balances and tests of efficacy that will assure the success of such a policy.Restoring safety to our world must surely be possible, though as I see it now, only through an effort of rebalancing of forces, such as I have proposed. I see no way through to this goal without provision for professionally qualified and accountable citizen militias.
Let us debate the matter publicly and work out the checks and balances that will be needed, but then let us get on with the business of creating a world that is unsafe for the perpetrators of crime and of terror - because criminals and terrorists will no longer hold a position of unfair advantage over the general citizenry.
Note (3 December 2008): John R. Lott has a proposal much simpler than mine. He advocates that concealed handguns be worn on a discretionary basis for self-defense by citizens who do not have criminal records or a history of mental illness. Mr. Lott marshals extensive statistics in his book, More Guns, Less Crime, to support his argument that this simple practice makes the general population safer. Why? Because criminals are deterred by the prospect of costly consequences of their decision to engage in violence against law-abiding citizens. When their unfair advantage is removed, criminals are less motivated to engage in gun-based crimes. A brief summary of arguments against his view can also be found on the Amazon.com website. I believe my proposal is substantially different than that of Mr. Lott, though I think that his arguments are worthy of further examination.
On to the matter of arming citizens against terrorist attacks. Clearly terrorists take advantage of the fact that their vicious attacks against noncombatants are statistically infrequent and therefore unlikely to involve most citizens at any time. What therefore is the sense of arming the citizenry against low probability events?The statistical answer lies on the other side of the equation.
For the terrorist storming a railroad station, for example, the low probabilities work very much to his or her favour. That is, if there is a low likelihood of encountering armed resistance, then only two gunmen can kill dozens and maim many more, as was recently the case in multiple locations in Mumbai. To increase the likelihood that terrorists will encounter armed opposition in response to one of their low probability attacks, there must be a very high probability of armed opposition in most public places at most times of the day.
That is, the real statistical question does not concern the likelihood that if I carry arms, I will happen to be in a position to repel a terrorist attack. The likelihood is that I will never encounter such a situation. However, the key question has to do with the chances that a terrorist storming a public transportation terminal or a hotel will encounter armed opposition among those citizens present. In order to assure that this will occur, a very significant component of the population should be bearing arms.
The plain fact is that we are living in a world out of balance. I know what it feels like to sit back as an observer in a position of powerlessness while terrorists carry out their heartless attacks against innocents. I do not know what it will feel like when a terrorist raids a school, movie theatre, airport, restaurant or hotel and is shot down - or, better still, disarmed and captured - as he draws and prepares to use his weapon - before harm to innocent civilians can occur.I do know that it will be better still if terrorists can be apprehended before carrying out their planned attacks, as occurred in Toronto in 2006 (though I'm not sure that the general population appreciates fully the seriousness of the attack that was averted in this case).
If we can learn to prevent the conditions that breed new terrorists, that will be yet again more preferable - and the key to this may actually lie in easing the massive flow of funds to unstable Middle Eastern and South Asian countries, as well as, of course, in forming friendships with individuals in such unstable circumstances who are open to alliances with the peoples of the West.
Let me also speak to the general question of the prevention and detection of terrorist action. I am very impressed with the British video surveillance system which has made apprehension of many terrorists possible. Certainly further harm to innocent persons has been prevented due to the use of such measures. We also require more sophisticated systems to prevent suicide bombings and the transportation of explosive materials. This is well beyond my area of knowledge. I'd certainly be happy to have widely dispersed and ideally unobtrusive scanning systems for explosives so as to prevent their further exploitation by terrorist or criminal elements.Until the likelihood of the apprehension of terrorists becomes reasonably high, it is unlikely that terrorists will be dissuaded from plotting harm against civilians around the world. Until the odds of survival and success are in favour of civilians and to the disadvantage of terrorists, we will not truly be inhabiting a world that is unsafe for terrorists. And until we have learned to dissuade young people in vulnerable areas from looking up to terrorists as role models and heroes, the possibility of returning to a way of life free of the intrusion of weapons of violence will not be available to us.
There is much more to consider before our actions in response to this problem are complete.
_
