Mumbai and the Horror of Gun Control

The Future of Freedom Foundation ^ | December 1, 2008 | Jacob Hornberger

[neverdem]

In the wake of the terrorist attack in Mumbai, I can already hear the U.S. gun-control crowd calling for new gun-control measures here in the United States. There will be several big problems with their pleas.

One, as an article in the International Herald Tribune points out, India has strict gun-control laws. Those laws did not prevent the terrorist attack at the Oberoi and Taj Mahal Palace and Tower hotel. As libertarians have long been pointing out, terrorists and murderers have no reservations about disobeying gun-control laws. The long-held assumption among the gun-control crowd that murderers and terrorists will respect and obey gun-control laws, even while having no reservations about violating laws against murder and terrorism, is ridiculous, as the Mumbai killings once again demonstrate.

Two, another long-held assumption of the gun-controllers is that gun control will keep guns out of the hands of murderers and terrorists. Not so in Mumbai. The attackers simply brought their weapons with them when they landed on shore.

Third, gun-control laws are successful in disarming peaceful and law-abiding people, preventing them from defending themselves from murderers and terrorists, as the Mumbai killing once again demonstrate. There is no indication that any of the hotel guests fired back at their attackers. The reason had to be that the guests were complying with India’s gun-control laws by not having a gun in their possession.

Without gun control laws, everyone is safer, even those who don’t carry a gun. The reason is demonstrated by what happened in Mumbai. Let’s say that 5 percent of the hotel guests carried a weapon. There were 10 attackers. The guests who were carrying guns could have done some major damage because the attackers would not have known who was carrying guns and who wasn’t. When the attackers are certain that no one is carrying guns, they can move about with ease, shooting everyone they encounter, much as the shooter at Virginia Tech did.

Moreover, the likelihood that at least some people in a building are armed serves as a deterrent to murderers and terrorists. For example, how often do you hear about robberies, murders, and terrorist attacks taking place at U.S. gun shows?

Fourth, the gun-control crowd says that disarmed people can nonetheless rely on the police to protect them from murderers and terrorists. Not so in Mumbai, however, where some 200 innocent people have been killed. One reason was provided by Sebastian D’Souza, a photographer at the scene, who told the Belfast Telegraph: “There were armed policemen hiding all around the station and none of them did anything. At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, ‘Shoot them, they’re sitting ducks!’ but they just didn’t shoot back.”

As the Mumbia horror once again reminds us, gun-control laws are a disaster. They have no effect on murderers and terrorists. They do not prevent murderers and terrorists from acquiring weapons. They succeed in disarming innocent people, thereby preventing them from defending themselves from murderers and terrorists. And by the time the police get around to ending the threat, lots of innocent people have already died.

[JamesP81]

A few good men with rifles could’ve conceivably put an end to this before it got so far out of hand. But that’s illegal in India.

[samtheman]

As the Mumbia horror once again reminds us, gun-control laws are a disaster. They have no effect on murderers and terrorists. They do not prevent murderers and terrorists from acquiring weapons. They succeed in disarming innocent people, thereby preventing them from defending themselves from murderers and terrorists. And by the time the police get around to ending the threat, lots of innocent people have already died.

Trusting the police to protect you is a short-cut to an early grave.

[MarkL]

Over and over again, we hear about terrorist attacks in Israel that are stopped by nearby bystanders who happen to be armed. With automatic weapons.

Israel is safer than Philadelphia, New Orleans, Washington DC.

Mark

[Twotone]

“Trusting the police to protect you is a short-cut to an early grave.”

The Indian police weren’t even firing back! I wonder how much training they get. Probably none at all - they’re just supposed to stand there & look dangerous to the rest of the unarmed populace.

[smokingfrog]

Found this interesting website today.

Indians for Guns

[ctdonath2]

Oh, I’m sure they got training.

Thing is, under stress you revert to your training.

Apparently fussing about accounting for every act right down to picking up each piece of brass, presumably coupled with shooting only and exactly what & how told to by superiors, led to inaction based precisely on not having been ordered to act, and the obnoxous hassles of dealing with acting. So ... they resorted to their training: do nothing.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link.

[Dick Bachert]

BUT, ACCORDING TO DIANE FINESWINE, BABS BOXER, CHUCKY SCHUMER, ET AL – OOOOO – GUNS ARE SOOOO DANGEROUS!! In what may be a perverse form of population control, these MORONS – many of whom are themselves armed or have armed people around them -- would prefer us to have to call 911 – and DIE while the cops are en-route.

These murderous muzzies are HERE and the more of us who CARRY CONCEALED, the more of them we can “off” BEFORE they kill on the scale of their recent activities in Mumbai.

WHY THEY WANT OUR GUNS!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j73SsNFgBO4

[Condor51]

For example, how often do you hear about robberies, murders, and terrorist attacks taking place at U.S. gun shows?

Not to mention, when was the last time anyone read or heard about an Armed Robbery at a ... gun store₍₁₎. The answer is, never.

Even in gun unfriendly IL, at the gun store I go to (Mega Sports, Plainfield IL) all the sales personal openly wear a sidearm.

(1) and I mean 'Gun Store'. Not a Pawn Shop where guns may be sold along with saxophones and watches.