« Another Bloomberg Mayor goes down | Main | Instapunk on Plaxico case »
John Lott's latest
Over at the Fox Forum.
"In India, victims watched as armed police cowered and didn’t fire back at the terrorists. A photographer at the scene described his frustration: “There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything. At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, ‘Shoot them, they’re sitting ducks!’ but they just didn’t shoot back.”
Meanwhile, according to the hotel company’s chairman, P.R.S. Oberoi, security at “the hotel had metal detectors, but none of its security personnel carried weapons because of the difficulties in obtaining gun permits from the Indian government.”
India has extremely strict gun control laws, but who did it succeed in disarming?
.....
The attack also illustrates what Israelis learned decades ago. — Putting more soldiers or police on the street didn’t stop terrorist’s machine gun attacks. Terrorists would either wait for the armed soldiers or police to leave the area or kill them first. Likewise, in India, the Muslim terrorists’ first targets were those in uniform (whether police or security guards).
Terrorists only stopped using machine guns to attack Israelis once citizens were allowed to carry concealed handguns. In large public gatherings, a significant number of citizens will be able to shoot at terrorists during an attack — and the terrorists don’t know who has them."
Hat tip to reader Bret Gallo!
5 Comments | Leave a comment
Of course, these are just "commonsense", "reasonable" gun laws.
Garbage. There are no "commonsense", "reasonable" gun laws. There are laws that punish for using a firearms irresponsibly but laws that pretend to give one a right already granted by the Creator are simply bogus. Concealed carry is one of these. It is not the government's place to "allow" one to have a firearm and it is not the government's place to "allow" you to carry concealed. Provide one "commonsense", "reasonable" reason for governmental control over a God given Right. Once the government takes over doling out rights, they are no longer rights, they are privileges. Why is it commonsensical, more like nonsensical? Ipse dixit!
Dominus providebit!
Maybe this is another one of the reasons that the left hates Israel. They trust their citizens. They put up walls to keep the crazies out.
"In India, victims watched as armed police cowered and didn’t fire back at the terrorists..."
Anyone want to bet on how many of those "armed police" actually had ammo?
Would not be the first time LEO's or the military had empty firearms.
This is a great article folks, and leave it to the Jews to show us how to get ready for the onslaught. You see Israel has had to deal with these bastards for quite a while, and if the rest of the world would just learn from what works for them, we might benefit on this. I see the authorities at the Boston Airport have learned and now patrol with MP5's and in groups. I'm sure there other things we could learn from Israel about how to defer damage from these animals.
"India has extremely strict gun control laws, but who did it succeed in disarming?"
EXACTLY!! I was raised on the principal that if you outlaw something, the outlaws are the ones who benefit. This makes absolute sense, and all the data backs it up (just look at Chicago...there are so many laws that EVERYONE is a criminal). The liberal media and the politicians conveniently ignore any facts that don't meet their agenda, which I hope everyone reading this already knew; but this begs the question: why does ANYONE trust the government?