Knowing my neighbors, it might be good not to try to stage a terrorist takeover in my town. But there are lots of “gun free” zones in Los Angeles, meaning that only criminals have guns.
It’s hard to envision hundreds of American civilians or dozens police standing by while four guys shot up a hotel full of people, encountering no resistance.
I’ve had other comments to make about this.
But this is all worth reading, and so is this. I’m afraid both of these worthies are a bit optimistic when it comes to modern America. Sure, Flight 93 fought back. The other flights on 9/11 allowed themselves to be driven into buildings, because they had all been taught not to resist. Our schools have done a magnificent job of inculcating this ethic into Americans for the last forty years or so. It was just starting when I was in high school.
John Lott has this to say, with more at the link. He is a scholar and economist, who has done lots of research into the effects of gun control laws.
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 terrorist attack showed how difficult it is to disarm serious terrorists. Strict licensing rules meant that it was the victims who obeyed the regulations, not the terrorists.
I teach in one of those “gun free zones”, and if they come to our campus before breaking out their weapons, a lot of people will die before the authorities arrive, just like at Virginia Tech, when there was only one shooter, and no one was armed to resist. And, it has to be said, no one had the guts to get together six people to charge the shooter and take their chances, knowing that someone would get to him.
I’m afraid we’ve trained a nation of sheep who like violent movies.
A possibly apocryphal report has it that a Japanese admiral advised against invading the USA because he thought we were A Nation of Riflemen
Early in World War II, Japan considered invading the mainland of the United States. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, commander in chief of the Japanese naval forces and architect of the Pearl Harbor bombing, advised against invading. Twenty years prior, Admiral Yamamoto had spent a few years in the United States studying at Harvard University. Based on his experience with American culture, Admiral Yamamoto reportedly told his government, “I would never invade the United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
Whether this is fully factual or not, we aren’t a nation carrying the rifles around with us, at least not anymore. But since 40 states have “shall issue” concealed carry laws for pistols, we may just be a nation of pistoleros.
I’m guessing the terrorists know this, and know exactly where our “gun free” zones are, even in those states. So if you live in one of those 40 states, and stay out of posted “gun free” zones, you’re probably not in a place where the terrorists are going to send a couple of dozen armed men to shoot whatever moves, for the simple reason that they don’t like victims who shoot back.
Do I sound grim about this? I’m sure the day before the Mumbai incidents the population there would have thought so, too.
Then there’s this.
Are you still thinking like you did on September 10, 2001? Have you always had memory problems? These people take their heavenly virgins very seriously.