
The enormous problems with using the war on terror as the basis for gun control - samsolomon
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/11953254/guns-terror-watch-list
======
jimmywanger
I think the main takeaway is "due process".

If you're on the terror list, or the no fly list, there is no trial, you're
simply deprived of some rights you used to have, with no recourse. I've had to
deal with the DMV, and you get sent to many confusing places and have to spend
many hours trying to extricate yourself from them.

With gun control, it's the same thing. "The list is a state secret". They
won't tell you how you got on it, and won't tell you how to get off, and
there's no due process where you can plead your case in court.

The fact that you have to fight a Kafka-esque bureau to acquit yourself of
something you've never been convicted of should raise the hackles of everybody
involved.

------
ccvannorman
From the article: "The reason is simple: If you give the government more power
to ban terrorists from having guns, you’re reinforcing the power it has to
define who counts as a terrorist.

That power is something of which both many liberals and many conservatives are
deeply skeptical."

I for one am happy that the discussion is including this attitude. While
obviously mass shootings are a tragedy we should address, I'm also conscious
that U.S. has made a few steps towards a totalitarian/police state that are
pretty scary. There may not be any easy solutions to gun violence, but
"rushing to give government more anti-terror laws" seems like the cure is
worse than the disease, by a _lot_, and it seems like at least some
politicians agree..

------
gozur88
It's perfectly reasonable for the security services of any country to identify
potential bad guys. It's reasonable for the potential bad guys to face extra
scrutiny. It's perfectly fine for the NSA or FBI or whoever to say
(internally) "Here's a list of people we think are behaving suspiciously.
Let's keep an eye on them."

But it is not reasonable to deny someone rights, _any_ rights, because they've
been identified as subjects of extra scrutiny. We already have a system
through which people are denied rights based on things they've done. It's not
perfect, but it's a hell of a lot more perfect than a list which a) isn't
public knowledge, b) has no official procedure for adding people and c) has no
procedure for appealing your inclusion.

Beyond that, this particular list is a list of _names_ , not a list of
identities. Lord help you if you share a name with somebody who is behaving a
little suspiciously. There must be many thousands of people named, for
example, Mohammed al-Masri, or John Smith, or Pablo Gonzalez, or Amit Patel.
Supposedly Ted Kennedy ended up on the list because he shared a name with
someone they were watching.

------
madengr
Funny how the republicans handed the democrats two gun control measures, and
they turned them down.

------
known
"The greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less
they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects;
In the most diverse communities, neighbours trust one another about half as
much as they do in the most homogeneous settings."

[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...](http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)

