After the carnage of 9/11, the international community turned its local and joint efforts to the struggle against terrorism and prevention of terroristic activities. Antiterrorism initiatives have been run by various international organizations, particularly by the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee, and by the United States government, which applies its resources to combat terroristic activities on a domestic scale and in countries overwhelmed by terroristic groups.
As Chalk notes, “the coordinated terrorist strikes of 9/11 galvanized a [] response by the United States government to increase the country’s physical and financial security in the face of potential future attacks” (Chalk, 2007, p. 768). While the US turned out to be poorly prepared to respond to and prevent terroristic activities in 2001, the subsequent governmental efforts have been aimed at comprehensive antiterrorism policies including prevention of immediate threats, disruption of funding “that makes terrorism possible” (Weintraub, 2002, p. 53), changes in immigration policies, border security regulations (MacPherson et al., 2006) and other measures.
At the same time, US efforts to counter terrorism have been focused on military aid for countries that have problems with terroristic groups (Bapat, 2011); however, the research shows that these efforts prove to be not as effective as they should be. Moreover, the Department of Homeland Security together with other federal agencies implemented security policies aimed at credit card monitoring, extra airport checks for people of Middle-Eastern origins, continuous ID checks and other similar initiatives that are claimed to raise civil liberties and privacy concerns.
However, the present situation in the countries hints that the efforts made by the government (especially the emphasis on military aid sent abroad) are not 100% effective. Even more, the key fault of the existing system lies in lack of attention to local and community levels and the problem of gun control. Indicators of the failure can be easily found in news: Roseburg shooting, mass shooting in San Bernandino committed by an immigrant couple and many other instances (Wheeler, 2016).
As Obama mentioned in relation to the latter shooting case, there were only three thousand death in terrorist attacks between 2011 and 2014, while the number of gun death reached 150,000 (Wheeler, 2016). This might justify the proposition for greater focus on gun crimes. Among the US criminal justice agencies, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) should make gun control, firearms trafficking and prevention of violent crimes the primary purposes that would make up a foundation for more efficient antiterrorism policies.
Of course, greater control over firearms, explosives and gun purchase policies cannot be achieved by ATF alone, but the agency might be the law enforcement body capable of preventing mass shootings and firearms flows among radicalized citizens and immigrants. A special problem to be solved here is the fact that American lacks a legislation prescribing greater background checks for those willing to purchase firearms and explosives, which creates multiple loopholes in the control system.
Therefore, ATF should cooperate with the Congress in the matters of gun control, providing relevant statistical data on firearms and explosives purchase, faults of background and security checks and other aspects. At the same time, the agency needs to involve FBI and local law enforcement bodies in order to track and prevent stranger-to-stranger firearms purchases, for it would eliminate the loophole allowing potentially dangerous individuals to buy guns in cash (which cannot be tracked as credit card transactions) and avoid background checks.
Implementation of new antiterrorism measures would, of course, require significant resources. First of all, these are human resources, i.e. the bureau’s agents dispersed across the nation and working to prevent uncontrolled explosives and firearms flows. It is quite obvious that tracking stranger-to-stranger deals and cash purchases at gun shows requires extensions of the agency’s staff and involvement of human and material resources both from ATF and from other related agencies such as FBI, the Department of Justice etc., while management needs to be organized on the federal level. At the same time, additional funding might be required in case of expansion of background check procedures.
Additional funding flows can be ensured through implementation of a stricter administrative liability framework and penalty increase for gun owners who borrow or give their licensed guns to the third parties (especially if unlicensed). Yet, this measure is to be a subject of legislative review at the federal level. Finally, involvement of local law enforcement agencies, e.g., police departments, is desirable in cases of immigrant background checks and checks of potentially radicalized individuals. In other words, ATF might retrieve information from other law enforcement agencies in order to eliminate an opportunity of gun purchase for those on the no-fly list or any other potentially dangerous categories of citizens.
Although extensions of security and ATF’s scope of operation lead to restructuration of funding and needs for legislative amendments, this will enable American government to keep potentially dangerous individuals away from explosives and firearms. Keeping firearms and explosives under stricter control, in turn, is likely to contribute to the struggle against terrorism at least at the national level, for the national level is the starting point for solving this challenge for homeland security.
Reference List
Bapat, N. (2011). Transnational terrorism, US military aid, and the incentive to misrepresent. Journal of Peace Research, 48(3), 303-318. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23035429
Chalk, P. (2007). Trends in Transnational Terrorism and Implications for U.S. National Security and U.S. Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. Studies In Conflict & Terrorism, 30(9), 767-776.
MacPherson, A. D., McConnell, J. E., Vance, A., & Vanchan, V. (2006). The Impact of U.S. Government Antiterrorism Policies on Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Commerce: An Exploratory Study from Western New York and Southern Ontario. Professional Geographer, 58(3), 266-277. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9272.2006.00567.x
Weintraub, S. (2002). Disrupting the Financing of Terrorism. Washington Quarterly, 25(1), 53-60. doi:10.1162/016366002753358311
Wheeler, M. (2016). How We Can Fight Terrorism Better in 2016. Vice. Retrieved January 21, 2017 from https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/how-we-can-better-combat-terrorism-in-2016
