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 ...
“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.
>>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.
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...
Yes it did - just like in every other massacre in a “Gun-free” zone.. which by chance is most of the time.... funny that.
He asks the question because liberals really are stupid enough to believe that laws prevent crime.
So stupid, he probably has someone count cadence so he’ll remember to breath...
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.
Great post!!!!
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.
Get back to us when you figure it out, Wa Poo.
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.
“ 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?
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.
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.
Duhhh...’cause criminals don’t OBEY laws?
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.
They’re not too bright.
Why don’t strict drug laws stop drugs, or Prohibition stop alcohol sales? Or War on Poverty stop poverty? Duh.
Howard Dean and Bill Maher making absolute sense, and within days of each other, too.
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.
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.