I've spent the last few months watching the BBC's 1973 mini-series titled, "The World at War" about World War II.  It's a fantastic study of the war.  It doesn't demonize the Axis; it doesn't revere the Allies.  It recognizes that the vast majority of participants were just everyday people trying to live their lives as best they could in unbearable circumstances.  It would be great to have a production of this quality done today with all of the information we know from after the fall of the Soviet Union and the declassification of many documents.

I bring this up because one of the important threads from WWII was the persecution of minority groups and how the general population was led from (often) having some underlying negative feelings towards these groups in general to willingly rounding them up and shipping them off to their slaughter.

With these lessons fresh in my mind some of the rhetoric I'm seeing in the news as it relates to Muslims is concerning.  Do I think the U.S. is on the verge of rounding up Muslims in to concentrations camps like we did U.S. citizens of Japanese descent during WWII?  Not today.  I hope not ever.

Nevertheless, rhetoric that riles up emotions of anger, mistrust, and fear will inevitably escalate to calls-to-action.  Fearful members of the public will lash out in their own simple-minded ways.  Activities like these people attempting to intimidate Muslims by standing outside their mosque with firearms and following around people who come and go will increase.  Without some calming influence I fear it's only a matter of time before one of these people murders a Muslim and believes they are "protecting America."

I am heartened, however, by the counter-protesters who are calling out this dangerous activity.  So long as counter-protesters keep showing up and are willing to defend those targeted by anger then I believe we can avoid national disgrace--and unmitigated bloodshed.

Last year, as part of obtaining a graduate certificate in national security affairs, I took a graduate course on the history of terrorism and counter-terrorism.  One thing Americans seem to be playing directly in to is one of the recruiting tactics used by Islam-based terrorist organizations.  The recruiting message is that the West is at war with Islam and that God (Allah) is calling them to fight.  Anything we do as a country and as a people that provides evidence that this is true amplifies their message.

We need to be the calming influence that prevents these events from spiraling out of control.  We need to show that we understand the difference between religion and violence that uses religion as an excuse.

Terrorism is a parasite that, throughout history, has infected one ideology after another.  The current ideology that it infects is extremist Islam.  It will eventually move on to find another host.  When it does, how are we going to view ourselves and how we handled it?

It seems that about 40% of the country is convinced that the best possible response to gun violence is for more untrained people to carry around firearms on a regular basis.  Another 40% of the country wants "stronger gun control laws" but what that means depends on who you ask.  And probably about 20% of the country either isn't sure what the best response is or doesn't care.

I don't claim to know what the appropriate response is, but I have some relevant observations.

I've known about the ban on using federal research money to study gun violence for a long time.  It's always been stupid.  If we want to make policy decisions based on anything but emotion then we need data.  Banning federal research money from being used to study one of today's most prominent policy debates it's absurd.  This is something everyone should support.  If you think more people having guns will reduce gun deaths then the data gathered in legitimate research should support you.  Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, currently we have very little data from which to draw any conclusions.

One accusation from we-need-more-guns advocates is that anyone who wants to modify the process of obtaining firearms is a "Constitution shredder" as if the Constitution is a holy document handed down by God himself.  Here's a clue for that group: if the Constitution hadn't been "shredded" in the first place there wouldn't be a 2nd Amendment to worship.  If the Constitution hadn't been "shredded" slavery would still be legal and women wouldn't be allowed to vote.

The Constitution is what "the people" want it to be.  Personally, I'm surprised that given the absolute refusal from the we-need-more-guns groups to enter into rational dialog on how to reduce gun deaths there isn't more call for simply repealing the 2nd Amendment and ending the "Constitution shredder" argument entirely.

The discussion should be focused on concepts like:

• What does society gain by allowing easy access to firearms?
• What does society lose by allowing easy access to firearms?
• Is that trade-off worth it?
  • Other countries seem to get along just fine without widespread gun ownership.
• Why does the U.S. seem to uniquely, among industrialized nations, have this problem of gun violence?
• What might be reasonable restrictions on firearm access?
  • Many, maybe even most or all, Constitutional rights are tempered with reasonable restrictions for the public good.  Saying no restrictions should be applied just makes you look ignorant.
• Does requiring secure storage of firearms help reduce deaths?
• Should firearm owners undergo mental health assessments?
• How about anger management classes?
• Should safe-handling courses be required for firearm ownership?
• Would any of these changes substantively alter what society loses by allowing easy access to firearms?
  • Does it change whether the trade-off is worth it?

Is anyone with a loud mouth actually trying to discuss and consider these questions?  Or has the public dialog been entirely reduced to "guns are the problem" -- "Nuh-uh, guns are the solution!"?