Home » Blogs » Quote of the Day: Why Didn’t We Think of That?

Quote of the Day: Why Didn’t We Think of That?

Dan Zimmerman - comments No comments

“Ask yourself: If (the Nairobi mall siege happened in) Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly? 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.” – Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble, After Westgate, Interpol Chief Ponders ‘Armed Citizenry’ [at abcnews.go.com]

0 thoughts on “Quote of the Day: Why Didn’t We Think of That?”

  1. Those look really pricey.

    If they get much pricier, it will be cheaper, by a longshot (pun intended) to go to the local grocery story and buy a GD turkey that’s already dressed.

    John

    Reply
  2. Interpol boss was tired of his job? Making statements questioning gun control in the international venue is a good way to get fired.

    Reply
  3. He had better carry a gun (and a shield to deflect drone strikes) now that the UN and the White House have elevated him to international public enemy #1.

    Reply
  4. Woohoo! My first contribution.

    Reading that article made me wonder if some people may finally come to their senses with arming the citizenry…

    Reply
  5. ‘Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?’

    Buh, but, but… the constitution is outdated! We don’t have to fight off bears and Indians with our muskets anymore. And the founding fathers never imagined scary black automatic assault weapons with thousand round clip thingies.

    Reply
  6. You can literally see the light bulb appearing over this guy’s head.

    I think a better example is the 2008 terrorist attack on Mumbai. India has bred a hoplophobic culture for decades and it came back to bite them. The siege lasted for three days, killing 164 and wounding 308. Did I mention that the attacks were carried out by only 10 terrorists?

    Reply
  7. Yeah, he gets it.

    More and more citizenry are getting it here in the good old U.S. of A. as well. One of my friends figured it out all by himself immediately following the Aurora movie theater shooting. And a neighbor figured it out all by herself after the Newtown Connecticut school shooting. People are waking up. It just takes time — on the order of one to two years unfortunately — for them to get passionate enough to start learning and voting accordingly.

    That is why we have momentum everywhere in the U.S. except for California, the Chicago Megalopolis, and the Boston – Washington D.C. Megalopolis. I know the situation is discouraging in those three regions. Everywhere else rights are expanding. If you live in any of those regions, you really should take a vacation to some place in the rest of the country to see, first hand, how different things really are.

    Reply
  8. No word on what exactly “law enforcement use only” ammunition consists of.

    1. Never misses a dog
    2. if it misses the perp, its progress is halted in the nearest innocent bystander.

    Reply
  9. I disagree. We have the statistics that these types of shooting by youths are the exceptions… NOT the rule. if they were the rule, we’d have a lot more problems on our hands. Does that mean there shouldn’t be strong parenting to lock up a firearm until your children are well versed in firearm safety and posses the maturity and emotional stability to be responsible around an unlocked firearm for home protection? Sure, but teens were growing up around unlocked firearms for decades in this country and weren’t running around shooting people that they didn’t like. The problem is not locking up guns, that’s an extension of the banning guns mind-set. Because that logic follows to why should we rely on a dangerous item being locked when the problem would be much more preventable if we just banned guns completely. Nuts! The problem is morals and consequences and the lack there-of.

    Reply
  10. “Drink this glass of our urine and then you may look at some of our guns. Was ist das? No, of course you can’t buy them, because you suck and we hate you.”

    Wait, this isn’t a photo caption contest is it?

    See, this is why I can never win.

    On to drinking and guns:

    It’s entirely about personal responsibility. If you know that having a couple tends to lead you to more don’t drink and carry. If you know that even a couple tend to alter your thinking, don’t drink and carry. If you just plan to drink much don’t carry, but please folks, lets not make a couple of beers (or a cocktail or a glass of wine) such a major issue. Driving a car is far harder than shooting a gun so the same sort of rules ought to apply. There really is room for nuanced thinking here.

    Reply
  11. There are two competitive but not mutually exclusive theories.

    The two reasons are complementary, not competitive. I’m sure that the ATF and the other alphabet agencies all had major wood at the very thought of arming the Sinaloas while simultaneously disarming Americans. The guys who thought up the plan were probably regarded as a geniuses.

    Reply
  12. F&F was no “SNAFU”, no “fustercluck”, and no “botched sting operation”. It was a calculated plan to advance the anti-2 A. agenda of the Obama Administration.

    Reply
  13. I’m a libertarian AND a police officer, and I can tell you that given what happened at the Boston Marathon, police MUST take a more vigilant approach whenever there are such massive gatherings of people. Keene PD did that very discreetly. There were police in civilian attire – NOT police SWAT uniforms on the rooftops, and guns weren’t conspicuously displayed on the rooftops. Now, it’s time for immature, Free State imbecile-anarchists to pull their heads from their collective arses and GET REAL! Local police are NOT your enemy!

    Reply
  14. This ‘tirade’ from Mr. Barrett seems entirely out of place on this blog…seems like it would be a better fit for the MAIG site. There are many, many factors that the author either assumes or neglects entirely, throughout his poorly thought out prose. It is just not feasible for all gun owners to own a 500 lb. safe. It just isn’t. To claim otherwise is ignorant. The kind of ignorance we try to put down on this site. To follow the logic here, the author seems to think that if you can’t own a safe, then you shouldn’t be a gun owner. That’s B.S. How ’bout instead, we start teaching each other and our children about something called personal responsibility and the value of life? How ’bout we start seriously dealing with criminals who break and enter, or invade your home? Uggh. There’s so much wrong with this article that at some point, I’m left speechless and dumbfounded that this was found suitable for publication here.

    Reply
  15. What the hell does this mean: “The FBI’s Behavioral Threat Assessment Center works with local law enforcement to assess individuals who susceptible to committing acts of violence. Since 2011, the Center has reported hundreds of successful disruptions — including an anticipated 150 this year.”

    Are they somehow intervening before a crime is being committed? That’s what it seems to say. What is the nature of this ‘intervention?’ Does anyone know???

    Reply
  16. Since the article is so good about coming to premature concclusions based on incomplete facts, I’ll offer another one:
    3. Your adolescent boy will commit a violent act if they are entering or are in puberty and have had their mind altered with prescription drugs prescribed by a pediatrician.

    How about that?

    Reply
  17. As a deputy sheriff, I’ll chime in. Armed citizens are indeed the tip of the spear when it comes public shootings. You won’t find a more pro 2nd amendment cop than me but in reality we should want law enforcement to be prepared and equipped for the task they are assigned. If police did not prepare and equip themselves to handle these situations they would get criticized for that as well. “Why were they police unprepared? What didn’t they stop him?” Circa 1999 Columbine High School. I live in a free state where the right to carry and defend yourself is highly regarded but think about the states like New York where the likely hood of an armed citizen being present is slim. When law enforcement gets involved patrol officers need to be trained and equipped to handle to situation. This is why you see the “militarization” of patrol. Obviously, some agencies/officers go overboard and think they are God. However, for those like Holder who think the police will get there on time to save everyone….I’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona I’ll sell you.

    Reply
  18. The rifles are cool and I wouldn’t mind owning one. The article was a great job.

    However, even in 1865, it should be noted that the US military doesn’t always pick the best equipment for its troops.

    Reply

Leave a Comment