“The issue which has energized me to get into this race is the recent attempt by certain Republican legislators to repeal New Jersey’s ban on assault weapons. In today’s society, no one needs a semi-automatic assault weapon.” That’s what current New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said way back in April 14, 1993, according to the New Jersey Star-Ledger. Which is a magazine full of not good for the Republican presidential hopeful. Christie faced the anti-gun rights music in the conservative media, as huffingtpost.com reports . . .
A few days ago Cathy Lanier, the police chief of Washington, D.C., admitted that the police would not arrive in time to save lives in the event of a “Paris-style terrorist attack.” She advised that the best way to save lives is to for the victims defend themselves. In response, a few news agencies asked D.C.’s mayor, Muriel Bowser, whether, in light of the top cop’s advice, she would be changing her stance on forbidding her residents to defend themselves with firearms. One might expect a thoughtful, rational response from an elected official asked for her take on her Chief’s advice. Instead, what Washingtonians got was a politician spouting the usual big city Democrat stance . . .
The President of the United States would like the American people to talk about gun control around the Thanksgiving table this week. Not the abject failure of his Middle East policy or the State Department’s worldwide terror alert (be afraid, be somewhat afraid). Fair enough! Let’s talk turkey about gun control over turkey. You have two options . . .
“From a human security perspective, civilian possession of SALW [Small Arms and Light Weapons] poses a threat to individuals’ human rights. There is a strong correlation between levels of firearms ownership and death rates, and vulnerable parts of the population, such as the poor, children and women, are often victims of firearms, and this not only in conflict situations. SALW proliferation can also become a significant obstacle to development as it usually strongly disrupts economic, political and economic situations, such as health care resources. It is also crucial to stress the harmful influence of pre-existing or emerging cultures of violence in societies, which are both a cause and an effect of firearms availability.” – Regulation of Civilian Possession of Small Arms and Light Weapons [via smallarmssurvey.org, sponsored by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]
None of the gun laws detailed in TTAG’s post on French gun control prevented the recent terrorist attacks in Paris. The legislation failed to deter the Islamic extremists and helped create a large pool of defenseless citizens upon which the terrorists could prey. As in slaughter. Bottom line: the prevalence of “assault rifles” amongst French bad guys is no longer a secret. And if the Paris attacks weren’t enough to expose this grim reality, here’s a post-Paris story [via dailymail.co.uk] that makes that point perfectly clear . . .
People who seek to degrade Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms love to play silly buggers with stats. They cherry pick data to make the argument that civilian ownership of firearms is a bad, bad thing. The key principle to keep in mind: correlation does not equal causation. When they assert that “states with lax gun laws have a higher rate of firearms-related homicide” (or a similar statistical fallacy), remind them of that. By sending them here. That is all.
The question that arises every time there’s a terrorist attack or mass shooting is one of how to stop it from happening again or minimize the casualties. The common response from gun control activists and the media is always to ban guns and further restrict the rights of law abiding citizens, relying purely on a emotional response and lacking any scientific evidence. One study out of Purdue University is seeking to put some actual science behind the question of whether concealed carry or any armed defense would reduce the impact of a terrorist attack like the one in Paris. Their results: yes, guns would save lives.
There has been a lot of chatter in the last couple days about individuals on the “Terrorist Screening Database” (or simply “Terrorist Watchlist”) being able to purchase firearms in the United States. The usual suspects from Senator Harry Reid to activist news organizations have begun a campaign for banning individuals on this list from being able to own firearms, and while there seems to be support for that idea from the usual gun control activists the reality of the situation is that it is an amazingly dangerous precedent to set using a hilariously awful and unreliable database.
“The state of emergency, it’s true, justifies certain temporary restrictions on liberties,” French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, pronounced on Thursday, as the National Assembly voted 551 to 6 to extend a national state of emergency for three months. “But resorting to this, it’s to give us every chance to fully restore these liberties.” Bến Tre much? In Belgium, the government shuttered the public transit system, even as it looks to extend police hold on a suspect from 24 to 72 hours. The closer you look at the European reaction, the scarier it looks. Check this [via nytimes.com] . .
The common refrain from gun loving people here in the United States following the terrorist attacks in Paris is that more good guys with guns on the scene would have saved lives. After all, if we can save just one life with concealed carry it will be worth it, right? There are some news reports circulating from foreign media sites which indicate that a couple people in that Paris restaurant were indeed armed and did in fact return fire, killing the terrorists and saving lives. There’s just one problem: they were reportedly drug traffickers.
Donald Trump doesn’t read TTAG. If the aspiring Commander-in-Chief read our post Here’s Why People on the “No Fly List” Should Be Able to Buy Guns, for example, he could’ve defended firearms freedom against the latest “common sense” assault on our gun rights. Then again, who am I kidding? Donald Trump is a populist. While he talks a good game on gun rights – now – his command of the facts on this or any other issue is tenuous. Actually, it’s worse than that. Check out this answer to George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week. . . .