Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WashPost Asks, With Straight Face: Why Didn't Strict Gun Laws Stop Charlie Hebdo Massacre?
Newsbusters ^ | January 9, 2015 | Tim Graham

Posted on 01/09/2015 1:12:52 PM PST by HammerT

The next time newspaper reporters start making fun of how stupid some politicians are, they could always discuss Adam Taylor. The Washington Post foreign affairs writer was dim enough to ask “France has strict gun laws. Why didn’t that save Charlie Hebdo victims?

It never sinks in, that trusty old maxim about if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. Taylor not only asked a dim-witted question, he mocked Donald Trump for asking it, and then he asked it in all sincerity:

Trump, a perennial attention seeker, was likely attempting to score political points and insult liberals with his tweet. But behind the disingenuity, there is is a genuinely troubling question: Why didn't France's gun laws save the Charlie Hebdo victims?

In other words, “liberals are being mocked as morons, but seriously, why is it?” Conservative readers can keep laughing as Taylor tries to puzzle this out:

How did the attackers get the guns?

Almost certainly illegally. Bloomberg reports that weapons designed for military use, such as the Kalashnikov AK series, have been illegally flooding France over the past few years, with state bodies recording double digit increases....

Could more relaxed gun laws have changed the situation?

...Some, such as the National Review’s Jim Geraghty, have pondered how the event would go down in the United States, where more gun ownership could have prompted an “armed response from ordinary citizens.” Such an alternative reality scenario is hard to guess at, though it's worth noting that the evidence from the United States is far from clear, especially in shootings involving automatic weapons.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: banglist; charliehebdo; deathtoislam; france; guns; paris; paristerrorattack; washingtoncompost; washingtonpost
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
To: Jewbacca

“If this was pulled off in Tel Aviv, the shooters would have been Swiss cheese, not photographed shooting cops.”

And speaking of Swiss Cheese, someone needs to forward Switzerland’s crime stats to this moron. Everyone has a gun, no one is getting killed.
If the people killed in this attack had had guns with them, the death toll would have been dramatically reduced and the perps would have been dead at the scene.


21 posted on 01/09/2015 1:36:50 PM PST by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HammerT

>>Why Didn’t Strict Gun Laws Stop Charlie Hebdo Massacre?<<

.
Duh — strict gun laws transfers the affected area into a soft target e.g. schools, hospitals, assisted living facilities, voting places, etc.

Areas with strict gun laws are a terrorist’s paradise.


22 posted on 01/09/2015 1:42:22 PM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

So that means criminals, terrorists and even government don’t care about gun control and it only disarms people you don’t have to worry about...


23 posted on 01/09/2015 1:47:15 PM PST by HammerT (The Right to keep and bear arms: A Commonsense Civil Right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck

Yes it did - just like in every other massacre in a “Gun-free” zone.. which by chance is most of the time.... funny that.


24 posted on 01/09/2015 1:48:20 PM PST by HammerT (The Right to keep and bear arms: A Commonsense Civil Right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HammerT

He asks the question because liberals really are stupid enough to believe that laws prevent crime.


25 posted on 01/09/2015 1:57:40 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Good Muslims, like good Nazis or good liberals, are terrible human beings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HammerT

So stupid, he probably has someone count cadence so he’ll remember to breath...


26 posted on 01/09/2015 1:58:54 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HammerT

Also Eugene Robinson told Andrea Mitchell today that it was fortunate this did not happen here where guns are so accessible that the carnage wrought by the terrorists would have been so much worse. Of course he seemed not to know that these jihadis were armed not just with AK47s, but the fully automatic variety which is outlawed in the US without a special federal license. And these guys hijacked a vehicle threatening the driver with an RPG. Boy lucky it didn’t happen here, Eugene.


27 posted on 01/09/2015 2:00:21 PM PST by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: molson209

Great post!!!!


28 posted on 01/09/2015 2:01:26 PM PST by MarMema (Run Ted Run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HammerT

The entire “religion” of Islam is one huge cult, retaining its members by either turning them into zealots, or destroying all aspects of freedom of thought by really harsh methods of enforcement.

Part of that enforcement included obtaining instruments of death, and using them with some kind of specious “authority” granted by a madman who was totally lacking in the least bit of human empathy.

In another era, it was swords, spears, and long knives, but as technology improved, it spread to the use of projectile weapons and chemical agents like poison gas of various kinds. Semi-automatic and fully automatic sidearms were the “gift from Allah” to expedite the dispatch of those with non-conforming opinions from this world.

Therefore, whether legal or not, great effort is expended to obtain these instruments of death, and to apply their use as widely as possible.

The lack of any organized resistance, armed with the means to repel or stop these rampaging bearded men with burning eyes, means the perpetrators of this violence can slice through the local population wile a hot knife through butter. The excessively harsh gun control laws of France assured there would be NO simple way to stop these berserk madmen short of confronting them with a military presence.

And the army is just not that easy or quick to deploy. A firearm snatched off the wall and aimed at the passing marauders becomes the first line of defense, especially if the local police are not allowed to carry arms.


29 posted on 01/09/2015 2:02:05 PM PST by alloysteel (Je suis Charlie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HammerT

Get back to us when you figure it out, Wa Poo.


30 posted on 01/09/2015 2:02:47 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HammerT

The sad irony is, if the Washington Comm. Post article or Howard Dean’s moment of confusion had been published in Charlie Hebdo they would have been considered great satire.


31 posted on 01/09/2015 2:05:11 PM PST by InABunkerUnderSF (Wash your hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HammerT

“ Such an alternative reality scenario is hard to guess at, though it’s worth noting that the evidence from the United States is far from clear, especially in shootings involving automatic weapons.”

When was the last time we had a shooting with an automatic weapon?


32 posted on 01/09/2015 2:08:36 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HammerT
Similar to another NY Slimes idiot Fox Butterworth who asked some years ago since crime was down, why were so many people in prison? Sometimes you just have to laugh at the naivete of liberals.

Yes, France's strict gun control laws didn't stop criminal Mozzies from getting automatic weapons. Gee whiz, maybe the Charlie Hebdo office building should have had a "no guns allowed" sign hanging outside.

33 posted on 01/09/2015 2:14:28 PM PST by driftless2 (For long term happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Last year on a thread about violence against women, I posted that maybe women getting divorces or separations from violent husbands should get firearms. Some female Freeper responded in rage that I would have allowed a gun in a house with a violent male.

I responded back that with a gun, at least a female (who is almost always much weaker than a male) at least has a chance. Men don't need guns to kill defenseless women. Size alone can accomplish an evil deed. Certainly, when both have been living in separate quarters, the female should get a gun.

34 posted on 01/09/2015 2:21:05 PM PST by driftless2 (For long term happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HammerT

Duhhh...’cause criminals don’t OBEY laws?


35 posted on 01/09/2015 2:22:25 PM PST by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
France has LAWS against murder! Why didn’t that stop the Charlie Hebdo massacre?!

Maybe liberals should write the all inclusive law: No one is allowed to be mean... that would cover murder, terrorism, pointing a gun, saying something 'hurtful'... etc.

If that doesn't work a law saying, "no one is allowed to be mean ever, ever, ever..." That might work better.

36 posted on 01/09/2015 2:22:36 PM PST by GOPJ ("I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. "Charb Charbonnier-Publisher Charlie Hebdo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HammerT

They’re not too bright.


37 posted on 01/09/2015 2:22:46 PM PST by Ray76 (al Qaeda is in the Oval Office (and John Boehner is their craven servant))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HammerT

Why don’t strict drug laws stop drugs, or Prohibition stop alcohol sales? Or War on Poverty stop poverty? Duh.


38 posted on 01/09/2015 2:24:01 PM PST by Lizavetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HammerT
But I do not think we should accord them any particular religious respect, because I don't think, whatever they're claiming their motivation is, is clearly a twisted, cultish mind.

Howard Dean and Bill Maher making absolute sense, and within days of each other, too.

39 posted on 01/09/2015 2:26:55 PM PST by Lizavetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65
"Robinson"

I suppose Mitchell neglected to ask the great genius Robinson how the terrorists could possibly have been better armed for the evil task they accomplished. They had automatic rifles and an RPG.

Yeah, here in America I can run down to the convenience store and pick those things up no problem. Sometimes you have to wonder how liberals manage to dress themselves and operate vehicles.

40 posted on 01/09/2015 2:28:59 PM PST by driftless2 (For long term happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson