The most recent attack by terrorists in a western nation has come to an end with the deaths of the primary killers and, as can be expected in such things, the deaths of many innocents, including hostages. Special Operations forces around the world have a common aphorism: “it sucks to be a hostage” because so often, so many of them are killed, and so it was in the Paris terrorist attacks. Though one terrorist remains at large, possibly headed for Syria, this particular series of attacks appears to be, for the moment, over. However, the issues it raises are not . . .
France, like most European nations, is a gun banner’s utopia. Private ownership of firearms is strictly regulated. There is no such thing as a right to keep and bear arms and Frenchmen have, over the years, developed an entitlement mentality, a reliance on government, in ways repugnant to most Americans. Part of that mentality is reliance on the government to protect them. One might expect the French public to begin to question that reliance after the events of the last week, but that is unlikely.
As many Americans discovered to their amazement and horror, even many French policemen are unarmed and wear no body armor though given sufficient time and provocation, they can activate SWAT teams and special operations forces that are as well-armed and outfitted as any. The consequences for the average French citizen are as predictable as they have proved to be deadly. An almost entirely disarmed populace, combined with a sometimes unarmed police force have not only produced a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism, but provide a nation of soft targets. Targets that are easily exploited as the world came to realize when an Islamic terrorist murdered a wounded and unarmed policeman as he lay, helpless, on a Paris sidewalk, and another killed a female officer going about her duties.
Despite being a nation that almost entirely disarms its citizens, criminals have little trouble obtaining arms, as was the case with the Charlie Hebdo attackers who were reportedly able to obtain fully automatic Kalashnikov rifles.
In France, when seconds counted, the police were minutes away, and when they arrived, they had no choice but to flee, as several police officers on bicycles did when they realized that being unarmed meant they could do nothing but die.
None of this should be a surprise to the French who have welcomed Muslim immigration and declined to require assimilation to French culture, which has produced Islamist-dominated neighborhoods where Sharia is the only law and where French police officers wisely refuse to set foot, as do any reasonable, non-Muslim Frenchmen. Even this is not enough as Muslims often accost women–even American tourists–in parks, demanding they cover themselves.
Making comparisons to the United States and foreign nations is usually an exercise in futility that leads to faulty conclusions and worse policy, as illustrated by this comment by Washington Post columnist and disarmament advocate Eugene Robinson on MSNBC’s January 9, 1015 edition of Andrea Mitchell Reports:
“Just to keep it into perspective, I don’t think we should imagine that the conditions and the threat are exactly the same in the United States as they are in France. They are different. In fact, one thing that is different here is weapons are universally available and so it is actually a very good thing that, that the tensions are not exactly the same because we would expect to have a lot more carnage.”
As gun-banners tend to do, Robinson blames guns rather than criminals and terrorists, and misses the truly definitive point. He suggests that because Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, a similar attack in America would be thereby far more deadly. France and America do have one thing in common: criminals and terrorists will always be willing and able to obtain whatever weapons they choose. How could anyone planning mass murder be deterred by laws providing lesser penalties for the possession of guns? The only true difference is the potential deterrent effect of widespread American ownership of, and skill with, arms and the ability of citizens to rapidly and decisively respond to any criminal or terrorist attack.
In France, terrorists can be certain citizens are disarmed and that virtually the entire nation is a soft target. They can also be certain that relatively few policemen will be armed, and that the police, therefore, provide little or no deterrent effect. Terrorists do not have to plan to martyr themselves. They can plan to kill, escape, and live to kill again, just as the Paris barbarians did.
Do terrorists face the same calculus in America?
Before exploring the facts of American firearm ownership and distribution, we must better understand Americans. Historian Frederick Jackson Turner, at an 1893 Chicago meeting of historians, proposed what has come to be called the Turner Thesis, or The Frontier Thesis. Turner suggested that America and Americans are unique among all nations and peoples, because unlike all other nations, we had to conquer the west. By courage, determination, self-reliance, and hard work, Americans forged a national character that required and appreciated liberty, individualism, mobility, restless energy and optimism. Americans do not expect others to provide for them, to protect them, or to secure their futures. Government, for most, is seen as a potential danger rather than an advantage.
One can certainly argue that some substantial portions of the contemporary American populace seem determined to prove Turner wrong. Reliance on government, relentless pessimism, substituting reliance on self-anointed “experts” for self-reliance, and the substitution of political correctness for courage and common sense go hand in hand with the never-ending impulse to disarm the population, an impulse shared with all terrorists and tyrants.
The unalienable right to keep and bear arms is a necessary condition for the vindication of the Turner Thesis, and for the continuance of liberty. Without that Freedom, America could not have been successfully settled, and America, and the world, would be a very different, and far darker, place.
No other nation has a Second Amendment or the will to have one. According to the NRA, there are more than 300 million privately owned firearms in America, of which approximately 100 million are handguns. While this is essential a firearm for every man, woman and child, there are approximately 100 million firearm owners in America, with something between 40-45% of all households owning firearms. Approximately 14.5 million hunting licenses are sold annually. Forty-two states now have right-to-carry laws, and all allow at least some form of concealed carry, though in states like California and Illinois, that right is still highly restricted and being litigated. Despite the numbers of firearms in private hands increasing at an incredible rate, the national violent crime rate, from 1991 to 2012, declined 49%–a 42-year low–and the murder rate dropped by 52%, a 49-year low. Accidents with firearms have also continued to drop to historically low levels.
According to Fox News, at least 11 million Americans have a concealed carry permit, which is a substantial increase–146%–from 4.5 million in 2007. At the same time, violent crime and murder rates have dropped by approximately 22%. Disarmament advocates often look at such statistics and say: “with crime rates dropping so much, why do people have to buy so many guns?” These are the same people who are upset at increasing prison populations, that can’t figure out why incarceration rates are so high as fewer crimes are being committed.
Dr. John R. Lott succinctly explains:
“When you allow people to carry concealed handguns, you see changes in the behavior of criminals.”
If one gives it a bit of thought, it almost makes sense. More guns do equal less crime, and putting more criminals in jail prevents those criminals from committing crimes, which would seem–to the rational person–to explain declining crime rates.
Statistics don’t tell the whole story. Wyoming, for example, has nearly 28,000 concealed carry licensees, but Wyoming has constitutional carry. No concealed carry license is necessary, but some people obtain them, because without one, neighboring states do not grant reciprocity, and Wyomingites often travel to bordering states.
Will firearm ownership deter terrorist attacks? Will it potentially make attacks less successful and deadly?
There can be little question that the widespread distribution of arms, and the fact that someone will be carrying a concealed weapon virtually anywhere, must be factored into any terrorist’s plans, but it is unlikely that fact alone will be a complete deterrent. Disarmament advocates have been successful in carving out hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of citizen disarmament/gun free zones throughout America, including schools, courthouses, parks, state and national monuments, theaters, sports stadiums, medical facilities, malls and a variety of other public and private venues. Terrorists can be assured that even with universally armed police, an attack on a school, for example, will virtually always allow them more than sufficient time to kill many, even if they do not intend to try to escape. In such victim disarmament zones, unless a citizen is willing to disobey the law, it is unlikely anyone will be armed and in a position to resist an armed attack.
The reality of policing, circa 2015, is also largely in the favor of terrorists. Most are shocked to learn how few police officers of all kinds–city officers, county deputies, state troopers, etc.–are available to respond to any emergency, let alone a terrorist attack, anywhere in America at any time of the day or night. In many cities, and in much of rural America, police response times to emergency calls, when they are available to respond at all, mirror Detroit, which has reluctantly admitted to a 58 minute average response time. The national average is 11 minutes, which should not be reassuring. At the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack, the first local officer did not enter the school until 14 minutes and 47 seconds after the attack began. The killer shot himself nearly five minutes earlier. All killing was completed within 10 minutes; the police had no role in stopping the slaughter. They virtually never do.
I’m not suggesting the police don’t want to save lives. Stopping a terrorist attack would be very near the top of any police officer’s “let me! Let me!” list. But if there are only three or four city officers, two or three deputies, and one highway patrolman 62 miles away available to handle such extraordinary emergencies, we are–as we have always been–on our own.
Even so, Americans are better suited, in terms of character–all that makes Americans American–than the citizens of perhaps any other nation. We are surely more able to be armed than the citizens of virtually any other nation, and even if we are not carrying concealed weapons, many of us have firearms close at hand.
At the same time, I suspect a compelling reason that many Americans are now gun owners is their growing knowledge of disturbing trends in America and the world. Terrorism is on the rise, terrorist cells are surely operating in America and terrorists can wade across our southern border at any time. American leadership has never been so weak or deluded, enabling our enemies and hampering our allies. Many Americans also reasonably fear the tyrannical attitudes and desires of many so-called leaders. President Obama is determined to empty Gitmo, even if he has to release some of the worst terrorist murders in history back to the international battlefield to do it. Their time in Gitmo has surely served to make their ever-present desire for revenge on America burn brighter. The fact that the police cannot protect any individual, and in fact, have no legal duty to do so, is likewise a motivating factor.
For most Americans, being a victim of a terrorist attack remains highly unlikely, but there is nothing preventing such an attack, as Americans across the nation from New York City to Ft. Hood in Texas know. However, it is clear that the fact of wide-spread firearm ownership can have a deterrent effect on criminals and terrorists, particularly outside citizen disarmament zones, and that when an attack occurs, armed and capable citizens have a far better chance of quickly ending the attack, and surviving.
France was not that fortunate, nor are Frenchmen–or the citizens of virtually any other nation–likely to learn that lesson. Perhaps Turner was right about us? Maybe we are unlike the people of any other nation.
Mike’s Home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.
Yes. Yes it is. I’m surprised that it isn’t here already, frankly.
Wait until Hillary starts running. Then something will happen and her line will be “tough on terror” and the 1st woman in office line.
Things don’t happen by accident.
“What difference does it make” if she’s “tough on terror?”
Her solution will be to ban guns of one variety or another, starting with EBRs and other “assault weapons.”
Mark N. got it correct in one. Either actual or flag, that’s the way it would go down.
When you said ‘frankly’, was it a French pun? Jolly good show if it was.
To carry it on, frankly I don’t think it’s physically possible for Hillary to run, but I’m sure she has people to do it for her. She probably has them chase Billy boy, make sure he’s keeping his nose clean:)
The title of the post should be:
Islamic Blasphemy Law Enforcement: Is It On Its Way Here?
Because that’s what the Charlie Hebdo attack was about.
And BTW, almost all main stream media companies have submitted to Islamic Blasphemy Law by not printing the cartoons which were the subject of the murders. Welcome to the partial Islamic State of America!
Heck, most mainstream media outlets aren’t even including the words Islamic, Muslim or even fundamentalist in their reporting. Many don’t even say terrorist, just gunmen.
I’m talking to you, CNN.
If they do hatch some crazy scheme here I hope a concealed carrier is present to crack those bastards before they do any damage. It would certainly send a message.
It’s not all about concealed carry. I would rather someone respond carrying their rifle or shotgun in the vicinity. We do here in Ohio but not often enough, IMHO.
I’m not picking on you specifically but I am beyond fed up with reading comments and articles only referring to concealed carry as the best hope. When a person or group enters a building they aren’t going to instantly see everyone in the building who might be open carrying. Better yet, people with long guns nearby to respond. Where a perpetrator might see one open carrier, they are likely to realize that even more they cannot see might be likewise armed. There is a strong deterrent value to people being visibly armed, especially with long guns. I believe that a good mixture of open and concealed carry works best in society. Those open carrying remind that people are armed and those concealed carrying make it so the perpetrator cannot be sure who is or isn’t armed. That message you want sent is most effective with such a mixture. It might even deter an attack before innocent people get seriously injured or killed.
I actually agree with you. A good mixture of open and concealed carry is for the best but wouldn’t it be great if some young 21 year old woman pulls a .380 out of her purse and kills a terrorist before they are able to do anything? Can you imagine how demoralizing to these screw ups would that be?
Yep. I had to smile when I read it. 🙂
John, I hear you. But the fact is that we will ALWAYS have more people carrying handguns because it is easier! Doesn’t mean that is all they have available. With the current crap happening, I mentioned to the bride just the other day that if we lived in one of the target areas I’d have one of my ARs in each car trunk, fully loaded. Since those target areas, IMHO, will always be in states and cities which are disarmed, I don’t bother. I know, a school zone attack is possible here, too, but I don’t spend my time hanging around schools, either. Right or wrong, my belief is that any attack in TX will be met with armed resistance regardless of GFZ status. I know if I were a teacher in a public school here, I would be armed every day regardless of rules or laws, concealed is concealed. The soldiers at Ft. Hood did not have that option, a perfect target, and nothing since implemented to prevent it happening again.
Nobody’s saying anything, of course, but there re plenty of doctors and teachers who routinely hidden carry in their “gun free” hospitals and schools.
This is an area where AR-15 “Pistols” absolutely SHINE!
By law its a pistol, covered by concealed carry provisions, so it can be kept fully loaded in your trunk. With a $8 mag coupler you can have 60 rounds of grab-and-go firepower on deck – just a key turn away.
Plus, as its a pistol, you can have a 10-12″ barrel that’s better suited to urban situations.
Food for thought… there are more benefits to “Pistol” variants than just having a shorter barrel.
To my thinking, if I’m dealing with a situation where I think my handgun isn’t going to cut it – I’m not going halfseys again. I’ll be proceeding with the best “defensive” tool I can legally carry loaded.
Yes. Next question.
To assume they wont pull this against us (or some internal/already here sympathizers wont) is silly. We are FULL of soft targets waiting to be hit and scare the sheep to death. Hit a mall w/ 2 or 3 semi trained guys. Then… a week later, hit another. Then when everyone is all gunned up for mall security hit one of our schools or a hospital (though there tend to be cops around hospitals, you get the idea).
They’ll hit a bunch of gun free zones and the Gun control nuts will act like the local FFL is the problem.
^ This!
Furthermore, for all intents and purposes there are zero concealed carriers in disarmament utopias like New Jersey, Maryland, and New York where an attacker is all but guaranteed to be the only armed person on premises for several minutes.
If Johnny Jihadi and his buddy/ies do decide on an armed assault, I am almost certain it will happen in New York, New Jersey, or Maryland for the reasons that I cited above. And the number of casualties will be equally horrific as in Paris.
CA and CT would also be soft targets except maybe the gettos with their armed gangs. A large part of the US population live in states that ban firearm carry by non-LEOs and are soft targets ripe for the picking. Yet this is somehow a good thing according to the gun grabbers!
Imagine if the gangbangers were the ones to take them out because all the law-abiding people have been disarmed. Wouldn’t that be a hoot? Welcome to America.
“If Johnny Jihadi and his buddy/ies do decide on an armed assault, I am almost certain it will happen in New York, New Jersey, or Maryland for the reasons that I cited above.”
I would say, yes it would happen there but would posit a different reason. I think they would hit there because those are heavy population concentrations near the seat of American power. When people (foreigners) think of America (particularly cities), they tend to think of big East coast cites and not the “fly-over” country which also happens to have the least restrictive rules w.r.t. weapons.
In other words, that the places likely to be hit would be in the “GFZ utopia” is more cooincidental than calculated. Of course this is merely speculation.
Here is the perfect storm. They hit a small town in a gun free state, and take a few hostages. 30 minutes later, their friends hit another small town a 30 to 45 minute drive from the first. Because nearly every police officer and deputy in the area responded to the first incident, there will be only a token few police officers to respond to the second town, which would bs easily out maneuvered. In this scenario, the response time to the second bloodbath would be no quicker than 30 minutes, and could easily slide into 1 hour or more before the police could muster for an affective counter-attack on the second town. Add more rural cities to the equation, and it could take days. Of course, this only works if the populous is insufficiently armed.
And if the sleeper cells came alive in all 50 states , say 25 terrorist in each state , the police and public would be overcome for some time …that is what happens in the book (world war 3) not how you imagined by James Strait ….. and do not think we are safe LOTS of sleeper cells here right now.
“the police and public would be overcome for some time ”
Well, if you consider 30 minutes to be “for some time”. Austin is the most gun-grabber friendly city in TX, and if the police put out the call, they would have a thousand citizens armed with rifles on scene in 30 minutes. The terrorists would be dead in just 10 minutes, the rest is overkill, and 90 minutes later there would be 10,000 armed men present, from as far as 50 miles away. And a traffic jam.
While I agree with your statement overall, I have to say that having 1000 citizens armed with rifles show up in a given period at the scene of an attack won’t do any good. What is needed (and attainable) is for one or a few citizens carrying concealed handguns to be PRESENT AT THE MOMENT the attack develops. What this kind of attacker depends on is having the advantage of coming on the scene already armed and prepared to kill UNARMED, UNPREPARED people. Strategically / tactically: ONLY pre-armed , pre-prepared citizens who appear to be unarmed have any real chance of stopping such an attack.
I watched as France ground to a stand still and mobilized an estimated 88,000 police and anti terrorism squads in search of just 2 men. Now imagine 200 men, coordinated attacks, across 50 states. A Friday the 13th Knights Templar style event, if you will. 2 simultaneous attacks in every major city, falling on one day. Even if half fail.. the chaos.
I prep for SHtF, I cc every day, everywhere.. but this thought chills me, how easily our country would come apart. Schools and malls, restaurants and banks, movie theatres and high-school football games..
“Now imagine 200 men, coordinated attacks, across 50 states. A Friday the 13th Knights Templar style event, if you will. 2 simultaneous attacks in every major city, falling on one day. Even if half fail.. the chaos.”
This sounds exactly like the “Tet offensive.”
Keep your powder dry and don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes……through your scope at 300 yds.
BEHIND the Tet offensive was a period of planning and preparation carried out in North Viet Nam. Also, the citizens of South Viet Nam were not trained and were not allowed to carry guns to defend themselves. “Defense” was provided remotely by the United States. Today’s situation in the U.S. isn’t even close to being the same as it was in SouthViet Nam in the late Sixties. Projecting cataclysmic success for today’s Islamic terrorists is just fear mongering. We are better off than our French allies. We already have massive gun ownership and the private gun training industry has grown by leaps and bounds just in the last 10 years. 9/11 is over 13 years in the past. The Boston Marathon bombers were not very successful but the news media made them look better than they actually were. Forget the knights templar and Tet Offensive BS, and just settle down to effective thinking and answers.
Looking for a GOOD read? try “Soft Target” by Steven Hunter (of B.L. Swagger fame). Takes place in MN, at
the Mall (of America), full of unarmed sheep. Good stuff…got it at my library!
No not like it was their. We as a country are to heavily armed. Nor do we as a country love our enemy like the french do.
Actually you are totally wrong. We are so afraid of being politically correct that we don’t acknowledge how violent the Muslim community really is.
This is not a region of peace.
At least the French pres had the balls to call out the enemy with …
“…It is a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam…
but then of coarse he continued with the leftist tripe that…..
these terrorists and fanatics have nothing to do with the Muslim religion
Oh jeez.
But it’s still better than our goat-fvcker-in-chief banning the words Islamist and Radical Islam.
The lie that Islamist Jihadists aren’t Islamic is simply “moderate islam’s” way of wiping the blood off their hands and telling the rest of the world that they are unwilling to stand up to the enemies within their ranks. You don’t hear Christians saying that Westborough Baptist aren’t Christians. We say they’re HORRIBLE Christians, but we acknowledge that they believe in Jesus and have very strong (f’ed up) faith. They are part of us and if they get too far out of line, we will have a hand in slapping the 20 of them back down to where they belong.
“Moderate islam” (a lie, they aren’t nearly as moderate as they would have you believe.) doesn’t want to stick their heads up and risk them being chopped off, so they simply deny the problem is one of theirs.
These two attackers in France went to a Mosque in France with lots of other Muslims. Those very people are now saying that they were not part of that community. Where were they when those two were radicalized though? Where were they when those two were planning this? They were silent because although they may not agree with the tatics used, they would rather see fellow Muslims kill innocent people rather than rat out someone of their faith to infidels. Then once the shit starts hitting the fan they deny that they were ever members of their faith at all.
We’re on our own. The 1.5 Billion “moderates” have done their best to wipe the blood from their hands and have told us fairly clearly at this point that we are on our own to police the actions of members of their communities that they are unwilling to do anything about until after it’s too late.
Our Commander in C… Dear Leader is part of this group. It doesn’t matter if he’s Muslim, Christian, or anything else; he has still helped wipe the blood from the hands of the Muslim community for not stopping these young men and women from becomming radicalized and turning a blind eye to the violence they bring. He has chosen to stick his head in the sand and pretend not to see the problem rather than face it head on. Again, we’re on our own here. Dear Leader and his administration are willing to drop bombs on known enemies from safety, but they are completely unwilling to step in and get their hands dirty stopping the problem at it’s source by confronting the Muslim communities and asking for their help in rooting out the bad apples that are teaching that these acts of violence are called for by god.
Personally, I fear that nothing can be done. I honestly believe that this is all part of a larger plan and that it is too late to stop the seven headed beast from rising and devouring the earth. I think all we can do at this point is live as best as we can, fight off the end as long as we can, and meet God with the words “I did my best.”
I know, right? There was a Muslim family shopping at Walmart today just as I was. I barely made it out of there with my life! It’s so bad I’m afraid to go outside with all the Muslims running around killing!
Yeah that is really funny. But in reality you better watch out for all tose peaceful Muslim Islam loving Terrorists. Again your glock and their AK are no match. Paris proves that.
In all seriousness, the problem with the muslim faith is that they actively encourage the faithful to lie and get along with non-muslims so they can get into your circle of trust. While I’m sure there are GENUINELY nice people who are muslims and follow some fruity froo froo version of the faith, they are mainly looking the other way and outsourcing their violence to the terrorists. Ask a “nice muslim” point blank if the terrorism is evil and if they condemn that being carried out in the name of Allah. They’ll get very uncomfortable and try to avoid answering. In reality, I refuse to associate with anyone who is a muslim. If someone wants to think that’s bigoted, let them. Until all “moderate” muslims speak out LOUDLY and actively against terrorism there is just no way to know who is “being nice” just to bide their time to throw you under a bus later. Screw that noise. It’s not worth the drama to associate on any level with a muslim.
I barely make it out of Walmart alive every time I go.
I get your point. There are good people and bad people in every group. I totally get that. But, until 1 million Muslims, a small percentage of the 1 billion Muslims in the world, very publically stand up and march against Muslim extremism and violence, I am skeptical about their claims of benevolence and tolerance. Seriously, if the majority of Muslims made some effort to quash extremism, imagine how fast extremism would fall.
They don’t want it squashed. A good portion of them support what jihadists are doing even if they dont’ want to do the violence themselves. And another even larger portion want the whole world under muslim control and would prefer it to be peaceful but will accept if it isn’t. So toward that end, the jihadists support what they pray for.
Think of the Christian fundamentalists who are almost itching for the end of the world. It’s the same basic principle. Christians can get really weird when they think the end of the world is nigh, like stuff they wouldn’t think was okay is suddenly now part of God’s plan. I don’t know why it’s so hard for so many people to grasp this is the same mentality of a very large percentage of muslims.
Uh, Karl, where in Paris was it that those AKs met a Glock? To my knowledge, it was only during the final two shootouts, where all terrorists died and no police officers were injured. Your Glock will do just fine, if you have it with you! Should have been “your Glock at home against his AK in your face is no match.”
Bigotry, unsupported claims, ignorance, and hyperbole. Also a good lack of critical thinking all present here. But at least you have a boogeyman to be scared of!
Grindstone, believe what you want. If you know anything about the Koran or Islam at all, you know this is hardwired into the program. Islam is not like “every other faith.” IMO all religions are stupid, but Islam is batshit crazy and harmful for the future of society and the human race. Saying “Ideas” are terrible is not the same thing as wanting to harm those who hold them. But make no mistake, those who hold them DO want to kill you because that’s what the ideas ARE… kill the infidel. Almost EVERY muslim believes in and hopes for a worldwide Caliphate. That can only happen through bloody conquest. Because everyone won’t voluntarily convert. So I’m not really sure what reality you are living in, but I hope your naivete doesn’t end up hurting you later. Be careful who you trust if they claim to be Muslim. And don’t say later I didn’t warn you when a “nice muslim friend” turns.
Exactly! The terrorists in France were radicalized by the same Imam that radicalized Maj. Nadal Hassan yet Barry and with-Holder insisted Ft. Hood was work place violence.
Stats problem – “According to Fox News, at least 1.1 million Americans have a concealed carry permit, which is a substantial increase–146%–from 4.5 million in 2007”
What is, “11 million?” Alex.
RF,
That’s certainly an error. 1.1 is not 146% greater than 4.5.
While it is certainly an error, I can believe Fox News reported it. Some real doozies have gotten past their fact-checkers.
:p
Journalists have always had problems with numbers, but of recent, they’re approaching complete and total innumeracy.
Fox is not news. It’s political indoctronization.
Rachel Maddow spent nearly an entire night tearing into Tom Coburn for his final act in Congress, blocking the Clay Hunt SAV Act that would have helped get veterans the mental health care that they were promised before being shipped off to wars that he voted to send them to. He did this as he prepared to retire so that he could spend more time getting medical treatment for prostate cancer. Ironically, he gets that treatment for free through the VA as a former member of congress. He has been spotted getting that treatment at the very VA hospitals that he blocked from getting the funding to help the people that the VA system was set up to help.
Due to the (R) behind his name, Fox News has not mentioned any of this once on any platform. Not on TV (To my knowledge, I cut my cable years ago), not on the internet, not social media, nowhere. For a network that says they support the troops, they have shown that they support a political party more than the men and women who fought and suffered great wounds for this nation.
I have spent the last month innundating them with messages asking them why they refuse to mention this. Every tweet, facebook post, or email blast that ANY of their network or anchors send out gets replied to with that question. Thousands of questions in all. So far they haven’t answered or mentioned the story.
Sorry, IDGAF about them anymore. I’ll take my news from people with more integrity than those who throw an entire generation of veterans under the bus over a retiring senator who spent his last day in congress throwing the men and women he voted to send to war under the bus while taking advantage of free medical care that was intended for those very men and women.
Also, just as he shat all over my brothers and sisters memories with that last action, I have informed him and his family that I intend to attend his funeral once the butt cancer gets him… I’ll be “shatting” all over that man’s grave.
PS: Call your senators and congressmen this week. Tell them that the Clay Hunt Sav Act is being resubmitted and that it is their duty to the men and women who defend this nation to ensure that the promises that were made to those brave soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen (I guess even coasties too while we’re at it.) are kept. 22 of our bravest sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers; on average, are giving up in the face of year+ wait times for mental and physical health care and are taking their own lives. This nation promised to fix the wounds they suffered defending us and it is our duty to see that that promise is kept!
Those states are wrong. Florida alone has 1.3 million active concealed carry licenses.
I think there is a typo in your 1.1 million people have concealed carry statistic. 1.1 million is less than 4.5 million from 2007.
I admit I haven’t looked very hard, but I haven’t found reference to these “no-go zones” where Sharia is the law of the land outside of Fox news, conservative think tanks, or right-wing hate groups. Can you please provide some citation?
How about you take personal responsibility and google “sharia law no go zone France”
Is that too difficult?
Here’s a source:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/7/french-islamist-mini-states-grow-into-problem-out-/
There’s also the inconvenient truth that liberall progressive news sources have a nasty habit of under reporting the threat of Islamic terrorism. Heck, Obama has been calling the incident terrorism, not *Islamic* terrorism. I wouldn’t trust him to lead a Boy Scout troop. Right wingers such as myself are more concerned with being truthful than politically correct.
Thanks, but if you look into the two sources most attributed in that article, one is from the Gladstone Institute, which is a conservative think-tank, and the other is Robert Spencer who runs Jihadwatch.org, and who has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Clinic and the Anti-defamation league as a hate group leader. I’m specifically asking because I’m interested in the truth.
Roy, if you’re interested in the truth, then I suggest you stop giving credit to the Southern Poverty Law Center and instead, read Mr. Spencer’s work and judge it for yourself.
Since the Left equates “hate speech” with truth, I can assure you that is the only version of hate you will find in Robert Spencer’s work.
Great essay, RF!
The SPLC is a hate group. Do you own a gun? Congratulations, your a part of an anti government patriot racial hate group. You need to look to education outside of your brainwashing liberal professors.
The SPLC have been a bunch of left-wing hacks forever. The SPLC’s entire raison d’etre is to enrich themselves by scaring dim-bulb ‘progressives’ into forking over money.
http://www.americanpatrol.com/SPLC/ChurchofMorrisDees001100.html
The SPLC has been full of it since its founding. Morris Dees and I went verbal rounds face to face back in the day. Nothing from the SPLC can be trusted as being unbiased or even remotely accurate. This I know from first hand experience. Better information comes from a Ouija Board or a Magic 8 Ball.
Here we have an example of the Progressive mindset in action: Fear driven denial is the first stage. By George these fellows aren’t real Muslims says the Progressive Great White Father. This eventually turns into identification with the Muslim Extremism. Sort of a large scale Stockholm Syndrome effect. Not many have reached the third stage of acceptance and conversion to Islam. However, if the Progressive movement were to collapse tomorrow you would see a lot of new converts to the Religion of Peace.
There are many reasons why Progressives tend to gravitate to the support support Muslim extremism but I think the underlying cause is that Progressives and radical Muslims share common values. Both see the use of violence to silence their critics as a legitimate course of action. They also share with Islamic radicals the belief that there is a small enlightened class that is the natural leadership of the ignorant masses. Think Jonathan Gruber in a turban.
So here is the question I have for Roy. Do you unconditionally support Charlie Hebdo’s publishing of the offensive cartoons. It is an easy yes or no answer.
Post script: No problem with Muslims in Europe. Guess again:
http://pamelageller.com/2014/11/uk-ten-police-officers-investigated-for-cover-up-of-muslim-rape-gang-activity-in-rotherham.html/
It is just work place violence, not terrorism. Let us be PC.
If the only source you consider to be legitimate is the MSM, you’ve got a problem. The MSM has ignored and actively tried to (and I’m sure, has succeeded) blackout things that don’t fit with their agenda. Operation Fast and Furious being one of the most recent and prominent examples of this. Right-wing websites, news sources and conservative think-tanks are derided as invalid news sources.. by the MSM and the political elites.
See a pattern?
So it’s some kind of conspiracy? Please explain.
Oh, most of the liberal mainstream media toes the Bolshevik party line when it comes to Socialism and the Religion of Peace.
Your confusing conspiracy theory with simple politics. Of the major networks, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS all are left leaning news sites. Not because of some vast conspiracy, but because their owners or parent corporations wish it to be so, for a variety of reasons. But mainly it’s because of money. All news organizations have one main common goal. Bring in the cash. These particular companies lean to the left because it brings them more money, if you look at their histories, you can see that a few sway from left to right, with the political flavor of the country in an effort to make the most money while others remain staunchly one sided.
From someone who’s been to Europe, yes, they are there. In more places than just France. Don’t believe me? Go there and see for yourself.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To wit: put up or shut up.
I think they had a report on this subject on CBN. About 751 urban sensitive zones and counting.
Allot of talk comming from someone who’s openly stated “I haven’t researched the subject in depth”… Like I said, don’t believe me? Take a trip and see for yourself. You already will discount anything said here because as you said, you are willfully ignorant. Book a plane ticket, fly to France, and find the Muslim ghettos in Paris, and then see how your treated, and possibly beaten and killed. There are places like this in America too, just not with Muslims. Or have you just never left your moms basement? Perhaps you need to experience more of the world than your clic of progressive friends in your mainly white mid sized city, while you read huffpo.
Can you please give me some adresse to go? Because I lived in France for few decades already, and I haven’t find them yet… I know some bad neighbourhoods you don’t want to hang out, but nothing more than anything you could find in any big cities in the US.
But if you have some real concret place names, please let us know…
I don’t know the area well enough to translate them into addresses, but you sound like you do, so… A map of Paris has been shown on several networks with 8 or 10 of these zones outlined in red, right in the city. Turn on the TV (or Google) and see where they are, then translate that into addresses for the rest of the unbelievers.
@LarryTX: Stop drinking the kool-aid from some medias… LOL!
This is not something to believe or not; it’s a matter of facts. We, gun owners should stand to facts and nothing else. And facts say there’s no “No Go Zones” in France, none that I’m aware of and I know those areas quite well. Areas where plenty of non-muslims people live pretty safely, and not under any sharia law. Stop spreading lies and fear:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adavMcwoc68
This is from Sweden, which has the highest rate of Middle East/North Africa/Muslim immigrants per capita, but this is a great blog on the negative effects of political corruption, corporate greed & political correctness.
http://swedishsurveyor.com/2015/01/06/swedish-police-targeted-by-gangs/
This is the official police document of 55 areas that are “hostile” to Swedish law enforcement & are official no-go zones where neighborhoods are run by Muslim gangs very similar to Italian-American mafia engages in racketeering/protection as well as the strictly Islamic idea of enforcing Sharia Law through “policing” & holding “court” proceedings to settle differences & dole out “justice”.
The reason this is covered by the mainstream media is it doesn’t fit with their agenda (currently). Those in power – the ultra wealthy (who control the world’s biggest banks, who in turn control the Federal Reserve & biggest corporations, including all major media outlets) & the politicians who act in their interest have one major function to maintain their control & wealth & whenever possible to increase that control & wealth. Mainly through the age old maxims of “divide & conquer”, distraction of the public (bread & circuses) & by controlling what the public thinks by controlling the flow of information as much as possible & by limiting their level of knowledge (through indoctrination in schools where they set curriculum & by distractions, roadblocks or rabbit holes for those who seek to learn on their own). Belief that these types of things don’t or could never exist proves that they have succeeded & how easy it is for them to meet these goals.
Ahem: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/world/europe/fox-news-apologizes-for-false-claims-of-muslim-only-areas-in-england-and-france.html?_r=0
It will be here soon. We will start to see things like what happened in France. With the Middle East boiling and nothing over there to stop it, it will continue to grow. Nature abhors a vacuum, and Islamic extremism is filling that vacuum. If the US and our allies decided to “exert influence” again over there, that may delay it for a while, and unless we occupied the region, there is no reasonable way to control it.
The second most recent attack by terrorists in a western nation occurred on Tuesday with the bombing of the NAACP office in Colorado Springs.
Why no worry? Are non-Muslims simply O.K. irrespective to their actions?
There are domestic threats as well as foreign, and they merit just as much concern.
But they will not get just as much attention, they will get much more attention, other than by the media. Someone will attempt to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators, instead of making up PC excuses for them.
” at least 1.1 million Americans have a concealed carry permit, which is a substantial increase–146%–from 4.5 million in 2007. ”
I think you mean 11.1 million CCP holders.
Look, the terrorists ain’t stupid. Like the coffee shop in Australia, Boston bombers, Times Square, etc et al,…they will look at a map and say; ” Texas, or Conneticut.” ( insert disarmed gun free zone states here ). It will happen here, and it will occur in a state with highly restrictive gun laws. Because a blue collar pipe fitter, with alimony and a child support obligation in Alabama, would simply pull out his .357 snub and double tap to the face a Muslim clown making demands and scaring goats.
Terrorists will attack wherever they want. I am a Texan, CHL holder, combatives FoF trainer, and feel no “safety” by being in Texas for its own sake.
A bunch of guys with rifles and body armor suck in any state. Period.
I am with Amok! on this one.
Unfortunately, few people carry openly or concealed even in shall-issue states … something on the order of 1 in 24 adults could be armed at any given location. (Remember, not all people with concealed carry licenses carry every day.) That isn’t a significant risk factor to a suicidal attacker. And when you consider that many of those 1 in 24 armed adults have poor skills, tactics, and/or firearms for dealing with multiple suicidal attackers with long guns, the idea of armed citizens being a deterrent becomes at most a minor consideration to a terrorist cell and more likely nothing more than a speed bump.
If something like 1 in 6 adults would be armed in public with full size handguns in 9mm and larger calibers, that would throw a much more significant monkey wrench in the works for terrorists. However, that is not the case at this time.
” feel no “safety” by being in Texas for its own sake.”
Boy, I sure do! In today’s environment of threats, if I lived in NYC or, to a lesser extent, DC, MD, NJ, etc, I would MOVE to TX due to the lower threat level I perceive. Doesn’t mean I don’t carry in TX (as of course I could not in those others), but I doubt they will be coming here before they conquer NYC, for example.
I think the terrorists will hit the restrictive gun control cities and states more than any other place. Bos- Wash corridor and the LA- SA basins would be prime. The terrorist attacks in the USA has more often been gun free zones more than not. Fort Hood was in Texas, but that was a “gun free” zone.
Let’s be real your glock is no match for an ak47
If it’s what you got, it’s what you got.
This is true. But if you are close enough to get cellphone video, you are close enough for a Glock to be pretty damn useful.
And being disarmed is somehow better? ROTFLMAO!
You seemed to be making a good case for everyday rifle carry. That’s something I support.
So, if a maniac is standing in front of me, 10 feet away, shooting random people with an AK, I should draw my Glock and throw it away? Is that your point? Because your statement is silly.
Re: “So, if a maniac is standing in front of me, 10 feet away, shooting random people with an AK, I should draw my Glock and throw it away?” Exactly, I agree completely. It’s also common to see the comment which says armed citizens will only get themselves killed – which is a false premise. From what I hear, stats on armed citizens indicate they survive 50% of the time even in face to face shootouts. Given that there’s a booming gun training industry, I think that survival rate will rise. And besides, if given a 50% chance of surviving, I’ll takethat chance rather then let any Democrat non-shooter deny me any chance at all.
“According to Fox News, at least 1.1 million Americans have a concealed carry permit”
Funny, that. There are about 400k permit holders in Tennessee and about 540k in Texas. I don’t really think the other 48 states account for only 160k carry permits.
You are correct – that Fox statement probably came out of a misprint because the latest figure is 11 MILLION not 1.1 MILLION. Furthermore, I know that the CPL number in Michigan has risen from under 50K in 2001 to over 450 K today. The national rate has steadily increased for 20 years now. Since 1995, the number of states with Shall Issue concealed carry laws has risen from 26 to 42. More states, faster rates of issuance brings us to big increases, far more than those who don’t know about these factors think or believe. Even some pro-gun people do not know these factors, nor do they see the potential in having 100 million Americans owning a gun. When 40-45% of the adult population “votes with their wallets” – you can be sure that translates to real votes at some point.
On a separate point from my last comment:
If terrorists really want to kill a BUNCH of Americans and we really want to STOP them from doing it, then we need to encourage armed self-defense at public works, especially water plants.
That and the electrical substations only guarded by a simple fence.
One can shut most of Manhatten down with an old bolt action in Yonkers. I’m not worried, as I’m sure DHS, DOJ, already know this. It was well known on 9/12/2001.
Simple really, we are not prepared when they get froggy. Let alone water supplies. As Darth Vader stated;
All Too Easy.
This. I work in substation construction and this is my concern. Our power grid is an incredibly soft target. All the smart guys I know in my field have the same concerns.
There is no warehouse filled with replacement substation x-formers…
Reminds me of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalf_sniper_attack
Not really publicized, but definite portends ill if someone can do something this effectively and not get caught.
Several years ago somebody got into one of those concrete conduit thingies down by San Jose in the south bay. Don’t remember the exact town.
With a pair of bolt cutters he cut a couple of cables. No internet, no phones, no alarms…..you get the picture. people were told if they needed emergency help to run into the street and flag down a cop. Complete chaos and all with a set of bolt cutters.
Ban bolt cutters!!! 😉
I actually work at the water plant, and it’s so old that our filters are grandfathered in past the “Your Filters Must Be Covered” regulations. Hell, our ground water is a spring and it’s only guarded by a simple fence on one of the two ways to approach. On foot.
Repugnant is putting it nicely, so much for Liberte.
I am honestly entertained how much Warren vs. D.C. comes up lately, at least more people are finally realizing that “protect and serve” are mostly just words stuck on the side of a car.
There are far too many GFZs in America. If a private business makes their establishment a GFZ then they don’t give a damn about your safety nor that of their employees. If a person makes their private property a GFZ (as I’ve seen some commentators here and in forums state) then they don’t give a damn about your safety either.
Only when someone is in the legitimate custody of another is it appropriate for that individual to be perhaps be disarmed. Everywhere else… be armed, always. Sadly, I foresee the number of “Gun Free Zones” increasing in the US after Paris style attacks here. Perhaps even more sadly, I foresee Americans going along with it.
The terrorist are already here. They have 35 Muslim compounds with some being run by known leaders associated with terrorism.
They have website CAIR, (Council of American Islamic Relations). Part of that website contains info on how to report hate crimes or discrimination.
They are playing the “Religion Card”. I am Muslim so you don’t like me. That puts others back on their heels , employers, education, fear discrimination suits.
The FBI can’t raid the compounds because they consider them not associated with terrorism.
The French Connection has been here for quite a while. Greg
If we can take away anything from this, it’s the old Norse proverb: “Never walk
away from home
ahead of your axe and sword.
You can’t feel a battle
in your bones
or foresee a fight.”
Aye! Wise words to live by.
Only problem is America has disarmed zones, which might as well be France, and most permit holder won’t “illegally” carry in these zone.
I hear all the time, including on here, about people not willing to carry at this disarmed place or that disarmed place. And those are places the terrorist are likely to strike.
They’re radical, not stupid.
True. I used to be one who would rarely carry against the signs. I hoped that if the trend of not going in a business or not going armed would impact enough people that there might be change. Of course, I didn’t see that trend. Primarily, I will stay out of a place that is posted. However, if I must go in, I will ignore the sign if the cost and risk of getting caught are low enough.
1. Metal detector + armed security + sign = Can’t carry.
2. No metal detector + no armed security + sign = Not allowed to carry.
3. Concealed = kept secret, hidden, unseen.
It might be simple, but that’s the way I sees me the world.
I’m actually coming around to that view myself. So much so that I’ve started saving pennies for something like a Kahr Arms CW9. I still will avoid spending money at establishments that choose to disarm patrons. But, with something very concealable, I can ditch my larger EDC in the motorcycle lock box and carry through with the smaller handgun if necessary.
The only real problem locally is that practically everyone knows I’m armed all of the time. At the local school, I noticed the superintendent looking down every now and again at my holster printing (empty). He never said a word in years so I figured that he assumed I was armed. Similar has happened in government buildings here. One time I did slip back my jacket and to show the holster was empty and I got a chuckle and told “We don’t care if you do.”
The problem is not just gun free zones. The problem is that only a tiny fraction of gun owners carry every fay.
That is a HUGE problem. There may be 11 million (give or take a decimal 🙂 ) permit holders in the US but I’d be surprised if more than one million of them actually carry routinely.
Steve, I think you missed the point. Your response concerns CC licensees, etc, while he was referring to gunowners. If there are 100 million gunowners in America and only 11 million licenses, that is a tiny percentage all by itself (11%). Why is that not 50% or more?
+1
Less than 10 % of permitted people carry more than 90% of the time, based on my experience.
When the convo makes its way to guns, I usually throw out a “gun check.”
“Oh, you like 1911s, so what are you packing? Kimber? STI? Let me check it out…”
“It’s in the truck… The truck ain’t your holster, my friend.”
That’s usually how the convo goes, even when you’re “allowed” to carry.
My friends and I do that too. After a couple of times, it usually works in getting others to actually carry. For those that consistently don’t have their sidearm with them, I half jokingly state something like, “I hope you aren’t expecting me to save your ass. You need to haul your own water.”
I have always thought if I get caught in a situation where I have time to take cover and think, and I happen to have a “gun control” advocate alongside me, I would send him or her out to negotiate a peaceful solution first.
“Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month’s deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – AND SUGGESTED AN ANSWER COULD BE IN ARMING CIVILIANS.” (Emphasis mine)
As the Paris attack news played out, I couldn’t help thinking about what might happen here in Texas. With our southern border dramatically underpoliced, if it’s easy for 12 year-olds to travel unimpeded from Laredo to Austin, it would be laughably easy for a group of trained terrorists to cross into Texas and go to work. I don’t take the Border Patrol’s unofficial comments that they’re already here lightly. The problem Ronald Noble was trying to point out is that it is the entire modern world—most of which is wedded to some form of civilian disarmament—that is under threat and, in that context, the terrorists have the battlefield initiative. In the minds of terrorists it’s plainly obvious that we’re a favorite target. Texas, because of its location and reputation, is a favorite target.
I couldn’t help thinking about this as I watched events unfold in Paris. Say what you will about their magazine, but those journalists were damn brave people who faced their threat with great courage. If only they had been armed. What if they’d been in Texas? What if, like the businessman in Oklahoma who killed the jihadi who attacked his office workers, a couple of them had been armed? We can only speculate what a journalist armed with a .380 might have done against two attackers armed with AK’s, but if they were a good enough shot and seized the moment they might well have saved themselves. That kind of event, ugly as it is to contemplate, hasn’t happened yet, although I have few doubts that it will happen sooner rather than later.
But I don’t think that’s what the head of Interpol was talking about. It’s something we talk about because Texas is traditionally a well armed society. But what Ronald Noble was talking about is a little different, something more starkly real even than armed Texans facing armed terrorists. What he was talking about is giving people in unarmed societies a fighting chance to survive. A fighting chance. That’s something the terrorists who attacked the magazine knew those journalists didn’t have.
Well said!
Lots of arrant ignorance on display here.
The right to keep and bear arms is implicitly recognized in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, pursuant to the rejection by the Committee of Five of its explicit statement proposed by Mirabeau, on the grounds of its self-evidence by its nature, as “one of the main guarantors of political and civil liberty that no other institution can replace”. In other words, the French fundamental law is aligned in this matter with the American Constitution, with all respective differences in the degree of infringement being due to the local political contingencies.
Also, all French policemen are armed. Moreover, Charlie Hebdo was subject to special police protection. The smug armed citizenry rushing to attribute its failure to presumptive flaw in the French national character would do well to assess the chances of their own survival in the face of a coordinated assault by a trained militia.
I could go on, but why bother.
“The smug armed citizenry rushing to attribute its failure to presumptive flaw in the French national character would do well to assess the chances of their own survival in the face of a coordinated assault by a trained militia.”
Well, said. But can French citizens regularly carry firearms for personal protection if they chose to do so?
Not at this time. Neither could most Americans three decades ago. Things change.
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/shallissue.htm
“Shall issue” generally refers specifically to concealed carry, not carry in general. Even when most states weren’t shall issue on that, many of those same states allowed to open carry without any license at all, and open carry works just as well for self-defense purposes. So no, France today is not like USA 30 years ago.
You haven’t read Clayton Cramer’s article, have you?
@int19h: Yes. In Ohio we carried concealed for generations before the licensing law in 2005. Before about 2000, it wasn’t commonly experienced as a primary charge and open carry wasn’t something most people did. From my conversations with people over years, everyone was generally relying on a “prudent man” defense. I often kept large amounts of cash with me which would’ve been a bolster to that defense. I never needed to invoke it as officers always just handed my firearm back or never asked about it on a stop. However, the fact remained that many of us were indeed armed and there probably aren’t any reliable statistics about that fact. People basing estimates on “shall issue” law in Ohio would be woefully under estimating just how many Ohioans were armed over the generations before, IMHO.
By the same token, France has been awash in privately held, unregistered guns since 1914. With no wars on American soil in the past century, our experience cannot begin to compare.
@Michael Zeleny: I don’t fully understand what you are trying to assert with that last statement.
True. And if the French are as adroit at avoiding the reach of bureaucrats as are the Italians and Spanish, then even state socialism is blunted by passive avoidance on a massive scale. Flumoxing bureaucrats is an art form in many parts of Y’urp.
French politics is nowhere near as stable as American. The provinces differ from Paris. The suburbs are at odds with Paris. The fundamental law of both countries recognizes the right to keep and bear arms as a matter of popular sovereignty. The chickens are coming home to roost. Connect the dots.
So why did the police assigned to protect the newspaper fail?
Why did the police show up on bicycle unarmed?
You make no sense
Reportedly, they did have police protection—one cop on duty at the time. That was something, at any rate. But what if two or three of the dead journalists had been armed. Hell, what if they’d all been armed? What if the whole damned office had been carrying? If there’s going to be an attack somewhere, I want the scumbags to be completely outgunned. If that happens a few times, the Jihadis will have to start rethinking their battle tactics. Getting blown away by armed secretaries won’t fit their jihad-is-ascendent narrative.
In a country like France, I cannot believe that every journalist in an office publishing cartoons about mommadad would not be armed every day, if it were possible. Myself, in addition to my EDC, I would have a loaded, suppressed AR at my desk and encourage my coworkers to do the same. Why were all of them unarmed, if the country allows it? Clearly, the country does NOT allow it, regardless of some silliness posted here.
Yes why bother? Obviously no one pays any attention to your precious French freedoms. Give away another 750 Muslim neighborhoods. Perception is reality…
Why bother.
Because you are wrong. The police were not armed. How do you protect anyone without proper arms.
“Also, all French policemen are armed. Moreover, Charlie Hebdo was subject to special police protection. The smug armed citizenry rushing to attribute its failure to presumptive flaw in the French national character would do well to assess the chances of their own survival in the face of a coordinated assault by a trained militia.”
If we’re defining “police” as “Police National” then yes they’re all armed. Police Municipale? Throughout France it varies widely, and no, they are not all permanently armed. The Gendarmerie is actually military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_Police_%28France%29
Charlie Hebdo’s “special police protection”? Nope, that was merely the editor Stephane Charbonnier – the magazine itself was under no special protection. Oh, and they knew all about Charb’s bodyguard, he and Charb were the first executed.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/charlie-hebdos-slain-editor-charb-long-defended-provocative-material-n281371
As to the French national character, they readily accept the status quo of entrusting their personal safety to others who are “allowed”. No rational gun owner is suggesting that they would single-handedly dispatch a “trained militia” attack. Of course, this was not a “militia attack”. Three US 12 year-olds could have successfully executed the attack carried out in Charlie Hebdo’s office. The “security” of the building was a lethal joke – single-door with keycard access – no verification before a buzz-in, no sally port, nothing.
I’d run down the list of logical fallacies in the rest of your ‘argument’, but it’s too much effort with no reward.
Arrant ignorance indeed.
Police Municipale are gussied-up traffic wardens. As to the offensive potential of three US 12 year-olds, I stipulate that it trumps online ejaculations of keyboard commandos.
Methinks you are sounding like the expert in that!
I am not the one touting my fearsome warcraft, grasshopper.
Apparently you have lived in an urban environment all your life, have never hunted nor played paintball, nor have you any knowledge of what we call “child soldiers” have done throughout history. For recent examples, see “Africa”. 12 year olds are perfect for this kind of stuff as they can be physically able to use the weapons, and (when properly indoctrinated) able to do it without flinching.
Perhaps you should expand your reading material to include things called ‘world news’ and ‘history’.
Apparently you have a problem parsing plain English prose. Perhaps you should grab a grade school grammar textbook to comprehend that my statement credited the offensive potential of US 12 year olds at the expense of keyboard commandos such as yourself.
Thanks, I comprehend very well. You missed the meta, but that’s not terribly surprising given the level of your ‘analysis’. Do enlighten me on how I’m fitting into the actual definition of ‘keyboard commando’, I’m certain it will be as bemusing as the rest of your maudlin tripe posts.
16V: “Apparently you have lived in an urban environment all your life, have never hunted nor played paintball, nor have you any knowledge of what we call ‘child soldiers’ have done throughout history.” Apparently you live in a hardscrabble environment all your life, hunted and play paintball, and are intimately familiar with child soldiers. Absent an ability to parse actual news reports, kindly allow me to remain unmoved by these protestations of rugged armed individualism.
16V you are wrong about the 3 U.S. 12-year-olds. At least one would have to be old enough to drive.
Larry, not sure where you are in TX, but everybody I knew in a rural environment knew how to drive by the time they were 10 at the latest. By the age of 12, you can legally operate a 5 ton combine on public roads, no license required in many states. A few decades back you could get a hardship license at 13, if the parents died. (It’s now 15 most places…)
I know the world has gone nuts, but even in the upper-middle suburbia I now inhabit, every guy I know has his 12+ year-old son/daughter able to shoot and drive.
“Shall issue” generally refers specifically to concealed carry, not carry in general. Even when most states weren’t shall issue on that, many of those same states allowed to open carry without any license at all, and open carry works just as well for self-defense purposes. So no, France today is not like USA 30 years ago.
All French policemen are certainly NOT armed, no matter what you claim. Two unarmed policemen were killed in that attack, and at least two other unarmed policemen arrived on bicycles and left before they could be killed. Now, with that very recent and unpleasant news, you arrive with the propaganda that “all French policemen are armed.”? How stupid do you think people are? Pardon me if I doubt the veracity of the remainder of your post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Police_(France)
Refer to recent worldwide news sources, pick any day, any channel, any language for the last 2 weeks, I don’t care what your “source” claims, I say again, no, all French police are NOT armed, regardless of what you claim. If they were, those attacks would likely have failed.
RTFM.
The facts do not align with Michael’s fantasy, so he chooses to ignore them.
Your aspersions would be better applied at home. As another poster explained, the Police Municipale answer to the mayor, whereas the Police Nationale and the Gendarmerie answer to the Ministère de l’Intérieur and the Ministère de la Défense. In other words, only the Police Nationale functions as a counterpart to the American constabulary. The Gendarmerie is a paramilitary force, the likes of which are banned in the U.S. under the Posse Comitatus Act.
“A” for effort of misdirection. “F” for actually accomplishing your goal of misdirection.
Simply put, you asserted that all French police are armed (among other factually discredited assertions). Those who have actually read a paper (or been there) know this is not an absolute truth. So please, go sell your schlock to the other faux-intellectuals at HuffyPo. They’re as poorly informed as you are, and just might be ignorant enough to be baffled with your bull excrement.
Good ol’ gun control…stopping motivated murders from committing mayhem through inconvience since…never.
How is it so few understand “root cause”?
From what I have heard, the laws vary state to state but I carry, yes, here in gun restrictive California, almost everywhere except the courthouse, buildings or places of business that house Federal employees. I have carried at my kids high school, banks, bars (not while drinking), etc. And here in California, a “no guns allowed” sign posted at a business carries no penalty or legal weight although if the business owner or manager makes that I am carrying, I do have to leave the premises if asked or face trespassing charges.
As far as Gun Free zones, they don’t exist for me other than the ones legally mandated. Luckily I am not a sports fan so I don’t have to worry about not carrying at Dodger Stadium (which to me is a prime area to be assaulted or shot, not necessarily just from terrorists either) and my kids are grown so I don’t have to worry about not being able to carry past the metal detectors at Disneyland.
I do agree with RockOnHellChild that most of the places where Americans cannot carry are prime soft target areas. I am sure that if the recent Peruta ruling here becomes uncontested, as it currently mired in a legal morass, the evil overlords in Sacramento will initiate a raft of new laws for places where carry is prohibited for law abiding CCW holders.
Warning to America, cover your back or backdoor gun control …sample the UN gun control is now LAW, and it will hurt us in ways we still do not think….A book that every American needs to read is World War 3 , not how you think by James Strait….long story short ,,,the main battle field is on the streets of USA…sleeper terrorist from North Korea and they are here now the Manchuria sleepers….and Islam and sleepers are waiting for the right time….
I used to think that this was paranoid thinking but lately, not so much.
9/11 showed that we are all responsible for our own security. The only terrorist attack that was stopped on 9/11 was not stopped by law enforcement, the military, or our government. It was stopped by individuals that took the nation’s security into their own hands.
We the people are responsible for our own security.
The French people should take these words to heart.
I’m not at all concerned by French terrorism…
For all those saying my Glock would be a poor weapon against an AK, true, but it’s better than nothing so I’ll take it for what it’s worth. The truth is that terrorists will pick soft targets, so if you live in a conservative rural area, where probably 1 out of every 5 people are carrying on a daily basis like I do, the chances of you being attacked are slim to nil. Good luck New Yawkers!
It was not my intent to dismiss our right to protect ourselves but to state that the government is oblivious to the fact that these peaceful. Muslims have access to weapons that we the law abinding citizens do not.
I originally misunderstood your point as well. If I understand it now, then I agree. Our government is supposed to be restrained by shall not be infringed but it is infringing all while these groups can acquire more capable fire power. The individual is unconstitutionally faced with breaking the law or being undergunned (and in some cases completely disarmed).
Yes. I think the Jihadis will “practice” on France, Britain, and other European Countries first. These are softer targets than the U.S. and have well established Muslim enclaves. Despite their strict gun control, the French Jihadi’s had no trouble getting fully Automatic AK-47’s and Ammo into Paris. Imagine that!
Given the Jihadist’s skillful use of the Internet, ferreting-out soft targets in the U.S. is the proverbial “piece of cake”…for example, just read the comments on this post in TTAG and take a few notes. Enough ideas posted here to keep ’em busy for a few years.
The Tsarnaev brothers had no trouble building bombs by buying Fireworks and using the black powder in them to attack the Boston Marathon.
Knowing how widespread firearms are in the U.S. the idea of gun-involved attacks may be put aside in favor of other types of attacks, as listed in various posts above.
Inevitably, they must attack “The Great Satan”. It may be sooner or later, but it will happen. Maybe Armed American Citizens will intervene in some attacks, or deter others, and I would not discount our effect on the situation, but, neither would I dismiss many other possibilities that circumvent the proliferation of small Arms in the U.S..
They can’t possibly have missed the results of Boko Haram’s bombings and armed attack in Nigeria: 2K dead.
Good point! Agreed! It is too easy to overlook Africa, and it has proven to be a very soft target.
I saw exactly ONE clip about that attack, while the world weeps and wails about 17 dead in France for weeks. Two THOUSAND, in one attack? And nobody seems to even care? We are some screwed up people.
No, you’re more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist.
Good point.
That may be true today but you better watch out for tomorrow.
Tonight I was so concerned about France that during dinner I chased my Freedom Fries with a nice glass of California Chablis.
Definitely my decision to arm myself was influenced by seeing the direction the world was going in… crime may be lower, but it becomes more randomized and more often happening in nice upper middle class neighborhoods (so socioeconomic status won’t protect you), increasing random terrorism, decreasing parenting and with it an increase in young kids taught morality via video game and TV (i.e. not really fully grasping the humanity of others which leads to things such as “the knockout game”), etc.
It weirdly started with me wanting to hunt, though. I saw increasing issues with the feasibility of the economy over the long haul, and wanted to be able to hunt and grow. So I went from the hunting side to personal self defense side instead of the other, but all those things were certainly a factor in my increasing gun-friendliness. (Though I was never anti-gun.)
Your question is OBE. Ever hear of Fort Hood?
But to answer you basic question. There are two cultural factors that will drive any organized terrorist attack to the use of IEDs and not firearms. Whether true or not many Muslims extremist believe that theUS civil population is armed to the teeth and would respond quickly to interfere with the attack and hold the fort until the SWAT teams showed up. The second reason is that they have observed that US periodically has a mass shooting incident. The French may be rattled by a dozen or so people shot in single incident but not Americans. We have those every few years. It takes significantly more casualties to shock Americans and that cannot normally be done with firearms alone. The terrorists know explosions and fire are much more likely to kill and main large numbers of people. Look what simple pressure cooker bombs did in Boston and Imagine that happening in an enclosed space like a theater, bus or crowded train platform.
Where armed citizens may provide a possible deterrent effect or at least a damage limitation capability is a self motivated Johnny Jihad lone wolf kind of guy. However, thee are enough gun free locations that he will have his pick of targets where he doesn’t have to worry about an armed citizen interfering with his quest for 72 Virgins. Funny thing is in a place like Virginia where the no gun sign doesn’t have the force of law there is a possibility that Johnny will have an encounter with 72 Virginians before he gets to score high enough to get the 72 Virgins. Nobody I know who carries pays attention to the sign at the local malls.
The history of the French Muslim community is a lot more torturous than most Americans know. People forget that the French once had a vast colonial empire, and a brutal occupation of Algeria that began in 1830 (some estimated that violence and disease killed as much as a third of the population). French Muslims are an estimated 4-5% of the French population, but they are far less integrated in French society than American Muslims. I’m not blaming the victim for the attack, but there’s certainly conditions in French society that cause radicalization to happen easier.
Not to scream ‘MURICA too hard, but we’re much better at integrating and “Americanizing” people than folks think. Unfortunately for our French allies, these attacks have exposed a terrible weakness in France (*cough* no guns *cough*) and you can count on future atrocities happening.
When you see a woman in hijab, they haven’t been “integrated”. At all.
Sorry, but multiculturalism doesn’t work, and never has. If someone wishes to actually believe the nonsense of any Semitic religion Jew/Christian/Mulism, they are going to be 100% at odds with US culture and values.
At which point they are out to destroy this Great Nation, and replace it with their own. This is how civilizations fall. I shall not be party to giving up on what we founded and built. They will assimilate, or the issue will have to be addressed.
“If someone wishes to actually believe the nonsense of any Semitic religion Jew/Christian/Mulism, they are going to be 100% at odds with US culture and values.”
This is one of the most ignorant statement I have ever seen on TTAG pr any other blog. The Founding Fathers and the vast majority of the peoples who settled who settled the United States believed in all the Judeo-Christian nonsense. You obviously have absorbed the mulitculturalists mindset 100%. Without those values there would be no United States.
“The Founding Fathers and the vast majority of the peoples who settled who settled the United States believed in all the Judeo-Christian nonsense”- You rewriting history tdiinva? The term and concept of “Judeo-Christian” wasn’t used until the late 1800’s, and didn’t gain traction until after WWII and only then for political reasons, not religious reasons.
This is one of the most ignorant statement I have ever seen on TTAG pr any other blog. The Founding Fathers and the vast majority of the peoples who settled who settled the United States believed in all the Judeo-Christian nonsense. You obviously have absorbed the mulitculturalists mindset 100%. Without those values there would be no United States.
Ignorant? How the hell did you make it through 8th grade civics with that “Christian Nation” propaganda garbage? The FFs were at most generous deists. They believed in a “god” who granted our inherent human rights, as a tool for selling the unwashed masses. The only FF who was a “Christian” was John Jay. They tolerated to hated religion, and if you actually knew a damned basic thing about our Great Nation, this would not be news to you. I want nothing to do with “Christian morals”, they allow for the selling of your daughter as a sex slave, beating people to death for all sorts of minor offenses, and a deity created by primitive goatherders so effed-up he does stuff like this…
“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24)
“Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
Here’s a neato condensed page that features many more… http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
As to your comment on multiculturalism, I’m not sure where you get that either. As I have noted dozens of times, multiculturalism does not work. We can have different sandcults, foods, styles of dress, hair, and whatever sexuality with adults that floats your boat. That’s all part of American culture. When religious nutters whether Christian or Muslim try to limit those freedoms, that’s when they’re not part of American culture.
@16V, “I want nothing to do with “Christian morals”, they allow for the selling of your daughter as a sex slave, ” I cannot comment on the validity of this statement, but then you must have problems with the Talmud’s condoning pedophilia? Let’s keep it honest.
@PG2:
It is better to be vaguely right the precisely wrong. You are precisely wrong. Your absolutely correct the term Judeo-Christian is a modern term but it is more description a moral order based on the Old and New Testaments than merely Christian. The Founding Fathers would just have said Christian.
@16V. **This is not a flame it is merely an accurate description** If you think that the Founding Fathers did not see their values underpinned by Christian teachings you are moron. If you think that people who settled this country were for most part not guided by the Christian religion you are moron. Since you believe that the Founding Fathers and the people who settled this country had no connection to Christian teachings you are definitely a moron. QED.
@tdviina, your opinion is noted, but is does not make your history revisionism correct no matter what semantics you try to decorate it with.
@VAVW, You’re so right, the Founders did recognize “Christian Values”. For what they really are…
Inquisition? Christian Values.
Killing scientists for a thousand years? Christian Values.
Banning anyone in conflict with dogma from teaching? Christian Values.
The Earth is flat? Christian Values.
Burning “witches”? Christian Values.
Indulgences? Christian Values.
Massive Vatican orgies and stables of concubines? Christian Values. (Which I’d support except they didn’t want anyone else doing it Which is pathetic and hypocritical.)
Please learn the history of the US, it’s not what they taught you at the billy-joe-jim-bob-cousin-impregnator Baptist Church.
@pg2, Here’s the quote. I did a few years of Catholic school, so I’m quite familiar with the text.
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.” (Exodus 21:7-11)
“When you see a woman in hijab, they haven’t been “integrated”. At all. . . Sorry, but multiculturalism doesn’t work, and never has . . .”
This part you got right, at least mostly. It’s easy to confuse culture with religion which you seem to be doing. They aren’t the same, of course. Multiculturalism does work, has worked in history, but only when the people in contact have modern attitudes. People who have traditional attitudes, which include a tendency for ethnocentrism—viewing anyone different as suspicious or immoral—cannot play well with others and, in fact, are further alienated by contact with people different from themselves. That’s the problem with the Muslim world today. Most Muslims’ come from decidedly non-modern cultures.
Modern thinking Muslim’s get along just fine associating with Europeans and Asians. As we are seeing in France, traditional Muslims are in deep trouble. For the past few decades a special kind of social movement, called a “revitalization movement’, has swept across the Muslim world. It’s purpose is to re-institutionalize traditional cultural values. This is profoundly a reactionary cultural response to the impact of modernity. Islam is simply the metaphor that ties it all together. In the minds of traditional Muslims, modern thinking Muslims are only one step removed from infidels.
Garrison, I’m not always easy to grasp, especially in small chunks read quickly. One of my limitations. I was not conflating “religion” with “culture” insofar as the US context goes – in this way…
I have many friends who are self-identified “Christian”, “Muslim”, “Jewish”. They are all very nice people, wouldn’t ever hurt another human save for self-defense, they help those less fortunate, and are great fun to be around. Not a single one of them actually follows the nonsense their “religion” lays out as “law” in their “Books”. They are very different from the “True Believers”.
Read those religious tomes. Anyone following even a portion of what they peddle as “rules” is a complete psychopath in the modern West. As I’ve said many times before, they can all believe as they wish, as long as it has no effect on my life. But “Christian Values” have been beyond obscene from a humanist perspective for about 2000 years.
It’s not revisionism. It is fact.
The first thing that the settlers in Jamestown did was hold an Anglican service of Thanksgiving. Virginia was the last state to disestablish a State Church in 1833.
Massachusetts Bay Colony was established by Calvinist religious dissenters.
Rhode Island was established as welcoming all Christian and Jewish colonists by Roger Williams — a Unitarian.
Pennsylvania was established as Quacker Colony.
Maryland was the Catholic Colony
New Amsterdam, later known as New York, was established hand-in-hand with the Dutch Reformed Church.
The rest of the Colonies were tied to the Church of England.,
To quibble of the use of a modern term is simply an attempt to deny the obvious. The United States was founded by people whose principles were underpinned by the biblical teaching. Even Thomas Jefferson stood by those principles. His revision to the Gospels omitted the miracles but kept the moral teachings intact.
I don’t disagree with that, I disagree with your using mythological terms like Judeo-Christian, and your assuming to know what the founding fathers thought is a bit of a credibility stretch.
Colonies were not the founders of the US – they were frakkin’ English colonists. How hard is that to grasp? Desperate grab old chap.
What they did had sweet FA to do with The Founders, or the establishment of the United States. Talk about moron logic. What my predecessors did when they arrived in 1542 means jack squat to what their offspring did during The Revolution. The 3%er who was my pile-of-greats-grandfather didn’t have anything to do with your insane sandcults. Nor does what he fought for.
In my decidedly nonexpert opinion, but based on past patterns of Islamic extremism, I think the most likely target will be politically significant or a market/mall of some type and the select method of attack will be a suicide bomber. That has been the usual pattern throughout the middle east and Asia. Paris was a targeted attack–an assassination/ “punishment” rather than a terror attack.
1. American police are outnumbered by about 700 to 1 by the general population. They can never “cover” every possible area of vulnerability even from “the usual” violent criminal, let alone a somewhat trained, well armed terrorist or three. It remains to have a “fill the gap” strategy and that’s in place because a larger portion of the general population is now self armed and self trained for “contingencies.”
2. We are still under threat because the right to bear arms is under threat. PBS “Frontline” just presented a concerted attempt to paint the NRA as the biggest,. baddest imaginable Boogey Man. (See: “Gunned Down – The Power of the NRA”).
3. It’s sickening to see French people and French law enforcement being killed like pigs in a slaughter house at the whim of psychotic killers. No need to make any reference to religion OR use terms like “terrorists” – these psychotic killers are just using those things as window dressing, pretending they are something “better” than psychotic killers. Meanwhile I suggest we launch an all-out attack on the notion that it’s “good” to go around helpless and without the means to defend human life from psychotic killers we are now so familiar with.
4. It should be noted that, in a straight up armed confrontation, the armed defender has just 50% chance of survival. (omitting the advantages of being prepared and aware of signs of trouble). So is 50% chance of survival better than ZERO PERCENT CHANCE OF SURVIVAL? I know the answer for many of us is, YES. We have to drive home that point or else the “it’s hopeless, we’re all just -potential victims to be honored and mourned” narrative will take and hold people’s thinking enslaved.
I want my 50% chance of surviving an armed attack. I want to either die fighting or to have dead psychotic killers at my feet!!
Now, THAT I can agree with without exception.
Re: “Disarmament advocates have been successful in carving out hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of citizen disarmament/gun free zones throughout America,…” I submit that this may be the most important statement made by Mike McDaniel. I also submit that our reaction should focus on that. By which I mean: we must remain energized to pressuring our legislators to kill the gun free zone concept and laws. We should also be working on our legislators to establish national reciprocity for concealed carry licenses. Drivers licenses from one state are recognized in all 50 states and this equally essential licensing should be given equal representation everywhere- especially in hold out states like Kalifornia.
I believe this because having a significant number of citizens armed “invisibly” is a key strategic advantage whether the threat comes from political /religious extremists or from conventional armed criminals. That and skill at arms are the most essential pillars in defending lives in today’s environment. I am as concerned with having to stop threats from criminals who are present here 24/7/365 as I am about the occasional “easy target picker” terrorist. I think there’s more than a little over emphasis on Islamic terrorists when you consider how much closer to our daily lives violent criminals are. It does little good to pick apart the flaws in a country like France when all we really care about is our own lives and those of our families and fellow Americans.
Remember: our domestic gun haters and gun phobics really hate it when we pressure Congress and our own state legislators & governors to continue the trend toward American gun rights. Every time you contact our elected officials, the gun haters grind their teeth a little harder. Lets pound gun freedom down their throats this year.
Magic ID’s found in cars to identify perps….right on cue with the propaganda piece TTAG, nicely done.
Esqueeze me? WTF is that supposed to mean?
Exactly what it says. What part of it are you having a hard time understanding?
Then again i want to say that the two first Police Officer were armed, i ‘m all for citizen being able to protect themself but i’m sick to see the bullshit about this VTT policeman not being armed used to push some political view.
The police woman was sadly not armed because she was still in training.
If i remember right, she was in her second weeks of training, it was not enough for her to pass the weapon qualification.
To make things clear:
Gendarmerie is armed.
Police National is armed.
Police Municipal is armed if the town require it.
In the case of Police Municipal, the officers aren’t armed if the most dangerous thing that you will face in the town is a drunkard walking naked.
But if the city is dangerous, then yes, weapons will be issued.
Even in my town, the Police Municipal is armed just because we’re near a big city and a Airport, but nothing happen here.
And yes, French vision about armed citizen will not change only with this.
My range is where Police from about 10 little town come for training, we train Security Guards transporting Money, we host an International police shooting event attended by countries from all around Europe (and what they learn here is so different from the regular training that they always book a spot for the next year event at the end of the current event) and a Military Unit want to come here for training.
But guess what, even with all this, the mayor want to kick us out, see what political bullshit is.
Sorry for broken english.
“Sorry for broken english.”
Not a problem. Your views are welcome. Besides we’re all accustomed to reading Digler. 🙂
To make things clear:
Gendarmerie is armed.
Police National is armed.
Police Municipal is armed if the town require it.
IOW, *all* French police are NOT armed.
Right, but the Municipale feels more like security guards, peoples who want to protect their hometown.
They are under the Mayor order and he is the one who choose to give them weapons or not.
Nationale and Gendarmerie are under Ministère de la Defense or Ministère de l’Intérieur orders.
If the numbers are right there’s around 18000 Police Municipale Officers, 75% of them have police night sticks and sprays, and 40% have firearms.
It makes that from all the Police in France, only something like 7200 officers from the Municipale don’t have firearms and they are stationed in towns in the middle of nowhere where a squirrels may be the most dangerous things around.
Before all this, Policemens didn’t felt the need to take their service weapons homes, but right now, Police’s armory feels quite empty…
The fact that the Foreign Legion got deployed to defend Marseille makes no one feel secure…
Well said.
And yet despite all your bluster, the fact remains that the “first responders” were unarmed.
@16V
In which freaking language do i have to say it for you to understand?
Do i have to say it in french? Do your brain only filter what you want to read?
The first responders where armed!
3 Gun Fights took place!
Ahmed Merabet was from the VTT squad, He was from the two guys who arrived on bicycle and engaged in the second fight, he still fought and finally died in the third gun fight!
Yes they got owned, yes they got overpowered, but no, they weren’t cowards and they fought with only their SP2022 and a single Mag.
Unplug your denial filter and go back to read my first post please.
Even if i share the general vision about citizen being able to defend themself, i can’t leave this shit “mom demand action” kind of fact denials.
@Wei, Yup, and if you keep screaming it like the Downs’ victim that you apparently are, the Moon really is made of green cheese… Or not…
EVERY report has shown the first police to arrive retreated as they were not armed.
http://www.examiner.com/article/french-terrorist-bloodbath-first-responder-police-arrived-unarmed-fled
http://forums.abcnews.go.com/discussions/Politics/Politics_Board/Charlie_Hebdo_puts_Mohammed_on_its_new_cover/ABCPolitics/447883.15?nav=messages
You’re waaayyy out of your depth. You know when the guy in the movie offers that the idiot bad guy quit now? That’s where this post kinda is. But do feel free if you have the huevos.
Brilliant research. Your reference to examiner.com refers back to another post on The Truth About Guns. Your other reference is to the sound and fury of the ABC News discussion forum.
How about some actual news sources and official statements?
“L’homme de 42 ans, originaire de Tunisie et habitant en Seine-Saint-Denis, d’après «Tuniscope», [Ahmed Merabet] appartenait à la brigade VTT du commissariat central du XIe arrondissement de Paris.”
http://www.police-nationale.interieur.gouv.fr/
http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/Societe/Attentat-contre-Charlie-Hebdo-Le-souvenir-d-Ahmed-un-policier-passionne-685544
http://csp25tbb.informe.com/v-t-t-vn-lo-tout-terrain-dt11.html
http://www.essai-armes.fr/2014/06/30/sig-sauer-sp-2022-9-para/
tl;dr: VTT is a unit of Police Nationale, uniformly armed with SIG SP2022 in 9mm Para.
Alright, so between my report from France against a topic in a forum and a news report from journalist not even close, you trust the second… Murica….
Every report my ass, one of your retarded shit writter just made a completely fantasy report and everyone else follow it for there own convenience.
Sigh, sorry for wasting your precious time, you win, you can stay in your imaginary world, whatever if you or other trust my futur report or not.
And yes, i made an effort to not consider you just like a troll, but eh… whatever now…
Once again, out of your depth. Every validated news source and eye witness shows the two unarmed cops first to arrive retreating, but hey, you have a fantasy you wish to fulfill..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11331902/Charlie-Hebdo-attack-Frances-worst-terrorist-attack-in-a-generation-leaves-12-dead.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/charlie-hebdo-paris-shooting-live-4933848
http://weaselzippers.us/210898-new-video-shows-french-police-desperately-fleeing-scene-of-charlie-hebdo-slaughter-after-terrorists-open-fire-on-them/
http://www.inquisitr.com/1736467/charlie-hebdo-isis-muslim-terrorist-attack-donald-trump-talks-gun-control-due-to-unarmed-police/
I earned a double-ruby from the NFL by the end of 10th for this. You’re really not even close to an argument.
Pat, pat, don’t worry troll, your french bashing will even earn you a medale one day.
From time to time, I reflect on walking through life as a great, shambling clanging and defensively armed American.
But then, I’m not paid to defend anything. It’s purely a choice. But unarmed police? Who would sign up for that?
mom used to tell me that muslims consider europe the one that got away.
i saw a lot of mosques in spain that remain.
if i was printing images of mohammed performing fellatio i would expect to have to defend myself.
here in the us we are a federation of cultures. some assimilate sooner and more nicely than others.
ever read farrakhan’s newspaper?
you can’t take it off if you don’t have it on.
Look again at the picture accompanying this TTAG post. Who holds a gun and is pointing it at the unarmed policeman who is lying on the pavement? What is wrong with this picture? LOL!
“You make cartoons we do not like. THEREFORE I KEELYOU!”
“You don’t stop your military from sending Tomahawk missiles at our villages where our weapons are stored. THEREFORE I KEEL YOU!”
“You do not belong to the same religion as we do. THEREFORE I KEEL YOU!”
“You happen to be where I am and are unarmed and unprepared. THEREFORE I KEEL YOU!”
“You do not recognize my mullah is an all-knowing Holy Man. THEREFORE I KEEL YOU!”
“You live in a country where you are not allowed to own guns. THEREFORE I KEEL YOU!”
“You live in a country where nothing is done to stop me from coming to keel you. THEREFORE I KEEL YOU!”
Now who can’t love that kind of logic?
(And who can’t love the U.S. Democrat “leaders” who continue to promote this logic?)
Yes, it will be here soon. Fortunately for most of us, these jihadi’s are only insane, not stupid. They will go after someplace like New York, Chicago, DC or Boston (again) where the citizenry is largely disarmed. They are interested in easy, soft targets. Places where people can and will fight back doesn’t serve their purpose.
All you idiotic – American, ””’natch – gun-lovers.
NOT everyone on this planet thinks as stupidly as you, and your assertion, that ‘if only’ they had the ‘right’ to cry guns, this could’ve been avoided, is utter, UTTER BULLSHIT.
If the lessons of history didn’t prove the foolishness of your claim, you might have an agument. However, you might want to use your intellect rather than emotion before you call one of the 5 great civilizations of human history “stupid.” You might also consider that both your Swiss and Austrian brethren either hold or are adopting a somewhat more “American” view of arms.
Comments are closed.