Breitbart
According to the UK Guardian,
the first of the two shootings took place at 3:30 pm on February 14,
and the second came shortly after midnight. In total, two civilians were
killed and five police officers were wounded. PET intelligence head
Jeds Madsen said the gunman may have taken his cue from “militant
Islamist propaganda issued by [ISIS] and other terror organizations.”
We saw this same thing in Paris, where strict gun control laws were no hindrance to the terrorists who struck Charlie Hebdo headquarters, gunning down civilians and police officers alike.
The Sydney School of Public Health’s GunPolicy.Org
lists Denmark’s gun regulations as “restrictive.” For example, “the
acquisition, possession, and transfer of each privately held firearm”
must be recorded and “retained by an official register.” Ammunition
sales are also registered/recorded.
Moreover, to own a gun in the first place, you have to be a “licensed
gun owner,” because gun ownership is “a right not protected by law.”
Part of getting that license includes justifying your need for firearm,
and that is followed by stringent criminal background and mental health
checks, among other things.
GunPolicy.Org lists France’s gun regulation as “restrictive” as well, yet attackers in neither country were stopped by gun control measures.
On January 19, Breitbart News reported
that French police admitted gun control was hurting their ability to
perform as law enforcement officers and said they wanted to go from a
lax policy on firearms to one more focused on armed readiness. The Associated Press reported that this change included a request to issue police “more” guns and “heavier” guns.
Like the Washington Times, Breitbart cannot report a story without twisting it beyond recoggnition. The extreme rarity of these incidents in Denmark and France is the real story. The way strict gun control has nearly eliminated these tragedies, that's the real story.
An interesting side note in the story is in the final paragraph. Police and military do indeed need heavier firepower than civilians are allowed in order to cope with that occasional and exceptional situation.
Police and military do indeed need heavier firepower than civilians are allowed in order to cope with that occasional and exceptional situation.
ReplyDeleteWrong. Absolutely, utterly, unforgivably wrong.
Tell him, Tench:
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
And another thing:
DeletePolice and military do indeed need heavier firepower than civilians are allowed in order to cope with that occasional and exceptional situation.
I thought you believe that cops and gun owning private citizens are in the same "category":
He disputes my calling this guy a dangerous lawful gun owner because he's a cop, as if cops are another category of their own. They're not.
So, if I'm following you, private citizen gun owners are in the same "category" as cops (whether or not those cops own guns), which (apparently) means that we private citizens who own guns must hang our heads in shame every time a cop uses a gun wrongly, but we're in an entirely different "category" with regard to what firearms, magazines, etc. we're to be "allowed" to own--is that correct?
You constantly post examples of what you argue are trigger-happy, murderous, and often racist cops, but you want them better armed than the population on whom these thugs are unleashed--does that about cover your position?
We can never stop all shootings, but stricter gun laws do help and the number of shootings compared between America and most European countries seems to prove they work.
ReplyDelete