Will Gun Control prevent terrorism? Au Contraire, Gun Control aids and abets terrorism.
Anyone remember the Sept. 1-4, 2004 30-terrorist attack on the Russian school in Beslan, in a country where gun control is highly restrictive? A mere 1,200 citizens taken hostage by Moslem terrs before government police and soldiers could react and reach the site. Eventually, 330+ murdered (186 of them children) in cold blood, 700+ wounded. Would the local citizens be willing to stand guard with guns as the school opening ceremonies were performed? Probably, and the response time to the attack would have been instantaneous, rather than waiting a day and a half for the government personnel to arrive. This area was a dangerous area, so the attack should not have come as a complete surprise, which would have allowed the locals to prepare.. Yet the terrs were able to arm a platoon sized attack force with guns and explosives. . France has 100x more restrictive gun control than the U.S., yet they have been hit several times by terrorists, including the Nov. 2015 Paris attacks on the Bataclan concert hall and other pre-planned targets. How did that work out? An entire country that is essentially a "gun free zone"! Very restrictive gun control for law-abiding citizens, but somehow the bad guys got enough guns to kill 130 (!) people and wound 368 (!). Good thing the gun control laws kept the casualty list down to a bare minimum! Of course, everyone knows that terrorists and drug gang members in the U.S. would not be as capable of getting guns as the Euro terrorists, right? Unless some department (such as the Dept. of "Justice" perhaps) in the U.S. were in the very unlikely business of giving criminals/thugs/gangs as many "assault weapons" as they wanted....but of course, Fast and Furious never happened and there were not dozens of murders....dream on…… Why didn't India's "tough" gun control regime prevent the Nov. 26, 2008 Moslem terrorist attack on Mumbai, India? 10 terrs got enough firearms and explosives to kill a mere 166 people, while wounding another 600+. Thank God for the life-saving effects of good gun control! I sure hope that stricter gun control in the U.S. "successfully" limits our losses to the 166-330 dead and 350-600+ wounded or so that died or were wounded in these other incidents. Not that we have ever lost that many to guns and infantry-type attacks before. The lack of armed citizens prevented not terrorism, but defense against terrorism. The Indian officials didn't get an ARMED organized defense force going until the terrs had been running rampant and slaughtering citizens and tourists for 2.5 days. In most cities and counties in the U.S., it would be possible to put together a huge armed citizen militia in less than a day, as has occurred in the various riots and natural disasters we have had. In my city alone (pop. 150,000), it would be easy to come up with an armed militia of at least 5,000 citizens who are skilled and armed with AR's or other military rifle descendants. And look at the shining success of the strict gun control laws of Kenya, which held the Westgate Mall terrorist attack down to 67 dead and 175 wounded over a 2 day attack. Only 4 terrs were required to inflict those casualties. Uiyureong, S. Korea, where they have total gun ban, 56 dead, 35 wounded Zhaodong, China (which bans all guns for citizens), 1995, 32 dead, 16 wounded. Beijing, China (total gun ban), 1994, 23 dead, 30 wounded Hungerford, England, 1987, 16 dead, 15 wounded, due to slow police response, murderer ran rampant through a rural village for 6 hours and 20 minutes before being surrounded by police in a school, where he eventually committed suicide. Anyone think he would have lasted 6 1/2 hours in most American rural towns, where most people are armed? Not likely. Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia which had more restrictive Gun Control than the U.S. at that time, 1996, 18 hour rampage killed 35, wounded 23. Dunblane, England, which had very restrictive gun control compared to U.S., murderer killed 17, wounded 15. Utoya, Norway, which has much more restrictive gun control than U.S., murderer killed 75, wounded 319. Mekenskaya, Russia with strict gun control, 1999, murdered 34-41, wounded 20+ Daegu, South Korea, strict gun control so the murderer set fire to a subway, murdered 198, wounded 147. Gun control saved lots of lives....or not. Happyland Social Club, NYC, U.S., strict gun control so the murderer used 2 gallons of gas to commit arson, murdering 87, $3 of gas killed more people than a $1,500 "semi-auto assault rifle" San Juan, Puerto Rico, tough gun control so murderer used arson, murdered 98, wounded 140. Good thing he didn't have a gun. Incidentally, there have been 4 different nationwide studies of all the gun control laws enacted in the U.S. (not to be confused with the narrow-topic, "cherry-picking", mere correlation studies). Each of those broad-based, non-selective studies has found essentially the same thing....there is no significant evidence that any of the gun control laws ever enacted, nor any combination of them in the aggregate, have ever led to a significant reduction in the rate of violent crime in their jurisdictions or nearby jurisdictions. The manipulation of "studies" is astonishing in its dishonesty and lack of predictive science. ------------ Randy ------------------------------ https://newrepublic.com/article/134389/no-gun-control-wont-prevent-terrorism-thats-not-point No, Gun Control Won’t Prevent Terrorism. But That’s Not the Point. Donald Trump raised eyebrows on the right when he tweeted <https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/743078235408195584> on Wednesday, “I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.” This position is not only at odds with the NRA, but the party of which he’s the presumptive nominee. But it’s consistent with the idea, popular among conservatives this week in the wake of the Orlando massacre, that a violent death perpetuated in the name of Islam is somehow more grave than others. Consider a *National Review* piece on Wednesday addressed <http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436675/dear-anti-gun-liberals-dont-tell-me-which-gun-i-need-self-defense> to “anti-gun liberals.” David French, the conservative writer and erstwhile Donald Trump rival <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436222/david-french-not-running-president>, offers the following take on the Orlando massacre: “If you want to stop jihad, gun control is the least effective mechanism.” He expands on this thought with “a bit of math”: It turns out that less than 1 percent of Americans who’ve died in the war on terror fell to guns purchased in America. If you narrow the inquiry to only those American deaths in the United States, the number is less than 3 percent. Jihadists will kill with boxcutters, pressure cookers, knives, guns, cars, airplanes — with anything they can possibly use to end a human life. This “anti-gun liberal <http:///article/125498/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them>” has no beef with that analysis. Islam-inspired terrorism is indeed a phenomenon; as someone who went to high school next to what were, until shortly after my graduation, the Twin Towers, this is neither new information nor information about which I require much persuading. But the question of whether gun control would prevent terrorism—and French isn’t alone <https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/263197/orlando-wasnt-about-gun-violence-or-homophobia-its-daniel-greenfield> on the right with his take—is sneaky and misleading. Getting rid of certain guns wouldn’t prevent all terrorism, though it could mitigate the damage <http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/terrorists-are-turning-to-guns-more-often-in-u-s-attacks/>. But the purpose of gun control isn’t solely to reduce terrorist violence, but violence generally, of which terrorism—radical Islamist or otherwise—is a tiny part <http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/deaths-from-gun-violence-vs-terrorism-in-one-chart-20151002>. And gun control can work in conjunction with fighting ISIS; they’re not mutually exclusive position. You can advocate for both, and indeed the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party does exactly that. If “jihad” were the main cause of violence in America, then it would be imprecise to propose gun control as the principle solution. And it would be naïve to look at the Orlando tragedy as entirely distinct from ISIS-inspired violence in Europe and elsewhere. But in the American context, which also happens to be the one over which American lawmakers and the American public have the most control, gun violence is simply a greater danger than self-radicalized lone wolf shooters. The “anti-gun liberal” position, as much as one can generalize, is that gun violence is a problem regardless of what inspires it. It’s as if, to French and others <http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/12/obama-calls-orlando-shooting-terrorism-then-pivots-to-gun-control/> on the right <http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/14/dhs-secretary-gun-control-is-now-a-national-security-issue/> making similar arguments, killings committed by self-proclaimed ISIS fans are somehow more deadly than, for instance, Chicago’s surge <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/04/us/chicago-shootings.html> of gun violence. ------------------------------ The left is in a bind where saying absolutely anything about guns, other than that “radical Islamic terrorists” perhaps shouldn’t have them, inspires outrage on the right. This—as well as the nature of this latest mass shooting, but hardly all of them—leads proponents of gun control to cite terrorism. That, in turn, leads the right to reframe the discussion as one about how best to prevent terrorism—and to point out, correctly, that there are terrorist attacks even in places, like Paris, with stricter gun laws. This is a weak gotcha, one that’s technically, selectively true, but oblivious to actual risk-assessment and how to keep Americans safe. Men like the Orlando killer will probably always find a way, meaning that the very cases that inspire outrage about America’s gun violence problem are not only unrepresentative, but also are likely to happen regardless of the measures taken in their wake. But the measures themselves remain urgently necessary for all the more representative, tragically everyday instances. Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy’s nearly 15-hour filibuster <http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/15/connecticut_s_chris_murphy_democratic_senators_filibuster_on_gun_control.html> may not lead anywhere immediately in terms of legislation, but it’s a significant step towards removing gun violence off the list of untouchable subjects. As for how much this week’s gun debate connects with the crime that inspired it, does that matter? Chances are, neither a more hawkish approach to ISIS <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06/16/john-mccain-obama-is-directly-responsible-for-orlando-attack/> nor an assault weapons ban would have prevented this specific massacre. But such a ban—and other proposed policies that have resurfaced after the Orlando tragedy, like universal background checks—would reduce gun deaths in America, thus making a significant dent in the number of senseless deaths in America, period. It’s time for the entire country to value those lives as much as the ones lost to terrorism. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=oa-2322-b> Virus-free <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=oa-2322-b> __._,_.___ ------------------------------ Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected]> ------------------------------ Visit Your Group <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmc29qZ2liBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NjYzNjM2Mzk-> [image: Yahoo! Groups] <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlc3MwM21vBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ2NjM2MzYzOQ--> • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • Unsubscribe <[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> __,_._,___ -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
