 |
 |
 |
|
Logically flawed
As always, my personal views expressed here. While I personally believe that Eric is correct to say that an armed society is a more free society, I don't think this issue really applies here. Certainly armed citizens might have prevented this particular incident, but I think the fundamental assumptions of the essay don't hold up. First, arming a population to defend itself is not the same thing as decentralizing all forms of weaponry into the hands of individuals. Technology continually increases the number of people that can be threatened by one insane (or incompetent) person who wields that technology. In fact, terrorism relies on this very fact. Would arming every citizen with a truck bomb help prevent truck bombings? Would arming every citizen with a handgun prevent truck bombings? How about nuclear weapons? This to me is the story of Babel. Second, the essay sets up a few strawman arguments to "prove" that this incident could not have possibly been prevented by any centralized effort. That point is far from being proven. We have known for at least a decade about the existence of thriving camps and terrorist cells which have been working towards the exclusive goal of terrorizing America. This event occurs at the end of a ten-year period where these camps were permitted to thrive with very little centralized effort to hamper their operations. One can speculate that the necessary recruitments, training, planning, and funding could have taken place even in a less permisive environment; but I doubt this will prove to be the case. Third, this essay seems to imply that the centralized and decentralized are binary either-or instead of complimentary approaches. Both are normally necessary. And finally, I (personally) think the rhetoric so far has been consistent with the idea that our primary reason for taking action is to prevent America from becoming a police state. Between the two poles of either (A) turning America into a defensively closed police state or (B) turning certain terrorist-friendly areas of the world into police states, I think it is fairly clear which direction on the continuum we are swinging. Yes vigilance is prudent, and we should be wary of attempts to swing toward pole A. But I am not too worried. There are responses to this message:
|
