In France even the Police were not allowed to have guns to protect the citizens!
Can the Gun control fanatics grasp the simple fact that only the criminals wil have guns when a Nation's gun control laws take away law abiding citizen's guns. Can you think at all? Are you so controlled by your fears of guns that you would take away the right's of law abiding people to protect each other?
Twelve innocent people were just murdered in France by terrorists who will always get their guns no matter your idiot gun laws & they will dare to walk into buildings killing everyone, never fearing being kiled by others with guns.
Liberals are giving up centuries of proven self protection with fire arms, and giving up our safety to the evil of the world. WHAT MORONS!
|
3
points
Not just to protect the citizens but tragically themselves too. Let's not forget that two police officers were killed by the gunmen as well. So yes absolutely the officers should of had firearms because the sad fact is, if they did, there may of been a shorter list of casualties. My understanding is that it is at the discretion of the municipality, and that it may be circumstantial. For whatever reason, it does appear that the first responders may have been unarmed in this particular case. Perhaps I am getting misinformation however, and the headline to this debate is misleading. After researching... 1/4 municipal police carry fire arms. Whereas all national police carry one. If they are anything like in Spain the municipal police are the ones that help children cross the road, gives parking tickets, issue files for drinking on the street. They are a lot lower paid and less trained. I guess though to a pro-gun USAian there is no way to argue that 3/4 of municipal police shouldn't carry a firearm (although you've tried!). This was the deadliest terror attack in France since 1961 during the Algerian War. Notably, the United States with its relative proliferation of firearms has experienced significantly more terrorist related deaths than France (source). Notably, France also has significantly lower rates of gun related deaths and specifically of gun related homicides. These inconvenient facts aside, had the French police who arrived on scene been armed they still would not have prevented the deaths of those shot in the attack since they arrived after the fact. 2
points
This was not the argument being advanced by the OP; they are strictly discussing the arming of law enforcement and not the general public. That is why my original comment focused upon that. I have not located nor has anyone ever presented me with evidence to suggest the validity of your argument. For me, the rationale also does not inherently follow; there is a chance, certainly, but not a great one in my estimation. Training in and possession of firearms does not necessarily equate actually being able to use the firearm effectively in an unexpected, high-stress, non-controlled environment. The odds of there being lower fatalities in an open shoot-out also do not seem terribly great. Point in case against your argument: Nidal Hasan killed 13 soldiers during a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009. This was on a military base with one armed assailant where most everyone has firearms... yet fatalities were one higher than for the shooting in France with multiple assailants. Even were there to be lower fatalities in a singular incident, this does not necessarily offset what we might predict to be a higher rate of such incidences due to readier access to firearms (as substantiated by the source I cited in my OP here). The implication being that in seeking to save lives we actually actively endanger and cost more lives in the larger scheme. From your source:How many Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks inside the United States since the September 11, 2001, atrocities? Arguably 16. Egyptian Hesham Mohamed Hadayet killed two Israelis at the El Al ticket counter at the Los Angeles airport on July 4, 2002. On June 1, 2009, Abdulhakim Muhammed killed one soldier at a recruiting center in Little Rock, Arkansas, and Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan killed 13 soldiers during a shooting rampage in at Fort Hood, Texas in November 2009. Thirteen of the sixteen were killed in Fort Hood. As I recall those solders killed where all unarmed. The reporting said that an armed security officer finally arrived and shot the shooter. It seems obvious that thirteen armed solders would have done much better. Do you disagree? The article opens with a low-ball number, because it has a rather overt agenda unfortunately, but ultimately states that the number could be as a high as 30 deaths over the past 10 years. Given the source bias, it is not unreasonable to consider that the rate could actually be higher. It is hard to find comparable data for France right now since every search parameter keeps pulling up news on the recent event instead. But all of this is rather beside the point I was making. I have admittedly forgotten a lot of the details regarding the Fort Hood shooting, and will take your points of clarification on face value. Arguably, had those soldiers been armed they would have stood a better chance than they did unarmed. Yet this still demonstrates my point. The U.S. has far less restrictive firearms laws than France, yet this in no way guarantees that someone will actually be armed when the situation arises... and this was true even on a military base where me might expect it to be even more likely that persons would be armed than in the public generally. And even if there are armed persons present in a situation, I think it still remains to be reasoned or proven that they can generally be relied upon to use their firearms and to do so effectively without further endangering others. Couple the above with the empirical data that France has lower overall gun related deaths and homicides relative to the U.S. (which would include but not be limited to attacks such as these), and I think the stance for less restriction becomes rather undermined. It is possible that our higher rates of gun violence are unrelated to the greater prevalence of firearms in our country, but I personally find that rather improbable. 1
point
1
point
Only naive ignorant people do not know the goal of Gun control fanatics in the Democrat party. It has NOTHING to do with laws preventing criminal or mentally ill people from getting guns. It has EVERYTHING to do with taking guns from every citizen of this nation ONE STEP AT A TIME. Just as England did when they started with their gun control laws one hundred years ago. They finally took the guns from the people. THAT'S THE GOAL! Are you truly that naive or are you just like them & you want to take our guns. I think I know the answer. I have no problem with laws stopping criminals from getting guns. Yours is the same ludicrous type of argument used by Pro abortion people to keep abortions on demand legal. They CONSTANTLY bring up life of mother exceptions for abortions to try & excuse their support for all abortions legal at any stage for any reason. You mention laws to stop criminals from getting guns that very few gun right's advocates oppose. But most intelligent people know the goal is to take all our guns. No Socialist Democrat will admit he's a closet Socialist and no gun control fanatic will ever admit they want to take all our guns. They do it slowly, decade after decade until the people have been successfully indoctrinated to accept the Government control of our lives. Like good little peasants. Do you remember when most Democrats were against Gay marriage? Even Obama said he was against Gay marriage before his first election. CAN YOU SEE HOW IT WORKS? Each and every decade they push and push and push their agendas until the Liberal media has dumb ed down the electorate enough to accept it. They will never admit their true goals until it is not suicide to do so. |
