Based on my discussion yesterday about the direct
personal risk of terrorism, I want to continue today and discuss the
the wider societal risk. In addition to the direct risk of you or your
friends or family being killed by terrorists
or criminals there is a wider toll that is paid across our country.
There is a psychological weight caused by the risk
of death that influences almost every aspect of our lives, no matter how
far removed from murder we are. Because of the real risks of terrorism
and violent crime we feel deeply compelled
to do something. To take decisive action in order to minimize that
risk. Our ability to function as individuals and as a society is
dependent upon how well we feel we are doing to address the risk of
violence.
That brings us to assumptions 4 and 6 which represents the role of the government and police to keep us safe.
Assumption 4: The police's job is to protect us.
Assumption 6: The government can be trusted to protect us.
It is clearly intended in the constitution that
the government, both state and federal is tasked with protecting us from
foreign enemies as well as from crime and violence. I believe the
government must play a significant role in this.
Without getting into a lot of detail, because this
is another set of large topics, the government needs to keep foreign bad
guys out of the country, and keep bad guys inside the country
appropriately away from everyone else. We have border
security and a judicial and prison system that are supposed to do those
things.
However, there are certain types of violence that
the government and the police as the governments agents cannot protect
us against. The government can try to foil terrorist and criminal plots
and they seem to be doing a decent job of it
overall. However, most murders and terrorist attacks do not have the
scale or scope such that law enforcement can very easily detect and stop
them before the attack takes place.
For these kinds of "small" violence that involves
only a handful of people at most on-site security is the only way to
prevent serious damage. When a guy with a gun walks into a movie theater
to shoot people there needs to be a guy with
a gun to stop him. It's that simple.
Up to this point I suspect there is almost
universal agreement. The next part is where it gets messy. Who is the
guy with the gun?
A natural answer that goes back to the first
assumption above is the police. They are trained and armed and already
tasked with protecting the community. A major problem with this though
is that there are WAAAYYY more potential targets
than police. We as a society can't afford enough police to protect
every school, theater, grocery store, bank, etc. that could very well be
a target. Even more broadly a lot of crime and violence happens outside
of those places. Homes, streets, parks. There's
the old saying, "when seconds count, the cops are just minutes away."
That isn't a criticism of the police, it is a statement of practical
fact.
Private security are another option. They are
expensive though and therefore are primarily going to be used in high
value locations leaving most places unguarded.
There is one type of guy though that is everywhere.
That is your everyday person. People, by definition, are where people
are. So if a person wants to increase their security they can have a
gun. Then no matter where they go that gun is
there to protect them.
This is the not brand new concept of personal
carry. As I said before, this is the messy bit. Who is the guy with the
gun? Who do we let carry a gun around in public? Where can they carry
it? What kind of gun can they carry?
These are all important questions that really make or break our ability as a society to deal with violence.
And I'll talk about them next time. :D
No comments:
Post a Comment