1919 A4 Forums banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors? It cannot.”
― Tiffany Madison
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,355 Posts
The head of the world’s international police agency (Interpol) – which is very active in counter-terror efforts – said last October that arming citizens might be the best way to stop terrorism.
From www.zerohedge.com: http://tinyurl.com/mj52ldk
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...-citizens-should-be-armed-stop-terror-attacks

ABC News reported: 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 the deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.
In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called “soft targets” are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves. “Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.” The secretary general, an American who previously headed up all law enforcement for the U.S. Treasury Department, told reporters during a brief news conference that the Westgate mall attack marks what has long been seen as “an evolution in terrorism.” Instead of targets like the Pentagon and World Trade Center that now have far more security since 9/11, attackers are focusing on sites with little security that attract large numbers of people. “Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?” Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. “What I’m saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, ‘Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?‘ This is something that has to be discussed. For me it’s a profound question,” he continued. “People are quick to say ‘gun control, people shouldn’t be armed,’ etc., etc. I think they have to ask themselves: ‘Where would you have wanted to be? In a city where there was gun control and no citizens armed if you’re in a Westgate mall, or in a place like Denver or Texas?'”

If you are for gun control, you may want to note that a top liberal Constitutional law scholar, Ghandi and the Dalai Lama are all for the right of citizens to bear arms. Perhaps more importantly, look at the alternatives … Would you rather let the government keep on waging its virtually endless, counter-productive , freedom-destroying and ruinously expensive War On Terror? Or would you rather arm yourselves and take your chances?

I know a 'native' American man who has a bumper sticker on his truck which reads: "Open Hunting Season on Terrorists" (I'm not sure whether he includes those of European descent), but I think he’s got the right attitude. For those who think that guns are “unhealthful” or “disgusting”, please note that Freud disagreed. Specifically, he argued that when men give up the primal drive to protect themselves,their families and their communities – and that power is transferred to standing armies – it dis-empowers them and makes them weak psychologically.



French police say: "Gun control isn't working for us." www.breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/o6nkklk
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/19/french-police-gun-control-isnt-working-for-us/ January 19, 2015

Following the deaths of two French police officers during the January 7 Charlie Hebdo attack and another officer death during an attack the following day, French police are demanding more guns and guns that are more powerful.

The situation during the Charlie Hebdo attack was very lopsided–in favor of the terrorists–because of current policing and arms policy. Breitbart News reported that “unarmed Paris police officers” were forced to flee when confronted with the armed attackers. UK’s Independent reported that “three policemen arrived [at the scene of the attack] on bikes but had to leave because [the attackers] were armed.” A policeman assigned to the duty of body guard to Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier was killed, and an officer on a mountain bike was gunned down. The Associated Press reports French police unions met with Interior Ministry officials on January 19, seeking to take the advantage away from terrorists and other attackers. The unions demanded “more” guns and “heavier” guns, as well as “protective gear, better training for first-responders, and more legal tools to guard against terrorists.”

The violence and death French police endured over a two-day period because of gun control is a perfect microcosm of the violence and death gun control has caused on larger scale in other European countries, like England. On September 24 Breitbart News reported that gun control had made England “the most violent country in Europe.” In 2009, twelve years after England’s most stringent gun controls were enacted, the Daily Mail reported “the UK [had] a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and South Africa.”



Do Guns In America Keep People Safe?
From www.gunsamerica.com: http://tinyurl.com/krq7z4x
http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/american-gun-laws-keep-terrorists-check/


To the extent which the high rate of gun ownership in this country, about 90 guns per 100 people, acts as a crime deterrent remains a hotly-debated issue. Recently, investigative reporter Emily Miller raised this subject while debating Democratic strategist Brian Benjamin over the impact that France’s restrictive gun laws had on the recent terrorist attacks. “I think, as far as French gun laws, it’s basically a gun-free zone,” Miller told Fox News host Anna Kooiman. “As we’ve seen in the United States, gun-free zones lure evil and crazy people like terrorists there because no one fights back.” “So, gun-free zones like France, which unfortunately even the poor police aren’t carrying guns, is just very attractive to somebody who is going to go in with a gun.” In other words, terrorists actively seek out soft targets in order to avoid armed resistance, thereby maximizing the lethality of their assault.

Yet Benjamin countered, claiming that America’s permissive gun laws makes it easier for terrorists to obtain firearms, which puts U.S. citizens in greater danger than their European friends. “It’s the polar opposite,” Miller fired back. “Foreigners know we have guns… Like the guy — the camera phone at this horrible crime, this policeman in Paris was shot in the head begging for mercy. The person who was taking that video, if they had been a concealed carry owner — or like me, a gun owner — they could have shot the man, maybe put him on defense. But instead, they just watched and took a video.”

Benjamin said that the terrorists in France who attacked the printing offices of Charlie Hebdo had to obtain their guns on the black market whereas in the U.S. they’d be able to purchase them at a gun show. Miller acknowledged that if the terrorists had no criminal history, then they would be able to purchase a firearm in the U.S., “But the fact is, is there’s a lot more people who can shoot back at them.” Miller went on to say, “In this history of this country — and you can tell me if I’m wrong if you have another example — there has never been a gun control law that has reduced crime. I can’t think of any gun control law that prevents terrorists. Because, you know what? If they’re murderers, they don’t care what the laws are already.”

I don’t think that pro-gunners have to argue that an armed society is a polite society, i.e. high levels of gun ownership deter crime and specifically terrorists. Sure, in theory, criminals and terrorists prefer soft targets. But even if all targets were “hard” do we really believe they’d stop killing innocents? Doubtful. The real point to make is that bad people will continue to do bad things, the only question is whether one would rather live in a society that protects one’s right to defend oneself or a society that goes out of its way to leave one defenseless in the face an attack from an evildoer. It’s better to have and not need than to need and not have.

In any event, what are your thoughts? Do American gun laws keep terrorists in check?


Carry On!
Gary
><>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,250 Posts
Very strong arguement...

It remains for the vast minority of anti-gunners to wake up and realize that life is only kind to those who are able to defend it. Someone, somewhere, has said this in a better venue than I can. Or...freedom must be fought for every day....or it will be lost and never regained.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,467 Posts
Every organism has a right to defend itself. Amoeba, humans whatever. The police only police us because we let them. The only authority over us is what we have given them, its not theirs, its ours.

In the event of a mass attack in some large city the cockroaches will run, and they will run on the interstate highways. You will have 1 hour to get ready. The cops have families, and like in
the case of New Orleans and Katrina some will cut and run. In any event there is not enough of them.

I believe I am ready, but you never know.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top