Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Chris Salcedo

Bio

September 24, 2013 - 1:41 pm

Now that the crisis has passed, countries all over the world will try to learn lessons from the latest terrorist attack. Reports from Kenya indicate that security wasn’t allowed to carry firearms in the upscale mall where the massacre occurred. At the end of the day, this was another mass shooting in a “gun-free zone.”  It would seem that someone forgot to tell the terrorists that weapons were not allowed.  Knowing terrorists, I’m sure if they had known about the restriction they would have dutifully complied.   Still, there is that chance that some terrorists are not the most upstanding, law-abiding folks in any given neighborhood.  Perhaps the better part of valor is making sure that “the gun-free zone” goes the way of the dinosaur.  We all may be a lot safer.

The liberal mind is truly a wonder.  I’m not sure what sort of mental contortion a progressive must go through to reason that it’s easier to disarm the world rather than make sure the world is able to defend itself from aggression.  But I am certain I can’t replicate the thought process.  Maybe I’m just too simple.  Or maybe they are simply nuts.  The data seem to support my way of thinking.  Take, for example, a Harvard study. For those keeping score, Harvard is hardly right-wing central.  This study found that the liberal notion that “more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths” is completely wrong.  One example from the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates.  In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher, 39,000 per 100,000, the murder rate was nearly ZERO, at 1.98 per 100,000.  But that’s Europe right?  What about the United States of America, or, as liberal call it, the WILD, WILD WEST?

In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, Obama commissioned the government to study the impact of guns on America.  The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was given $10 million to research gun violence.  What they found was a nearly complete repudiation of left-wing talking points on guns.  Among the findings were these little gems.  Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker.  How many times has some extremist progressive tried to convince us that we’re better off not having a gun when confronted by someone else with a gun?  Liberals have claimed that it’s more likely that victim would do more damage because of their assumed lack of experience and ability to wield a firearm.  The CDC also found that defensive uses of guns are common.  Willfully ill-informed left-wingers consistently  whine, “What does anyone need with a gun America anyway?”   According to the survey, “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”  They don’t know their facts.  So isn’t it time to stop listening to liberals on this topic?

The facts are there a for all to see.  Progressives just ignore them.  I don’t think left-wingers are stupid or unable to read.  In fact I think liberals intentionally ignore the facts about firearms to achieve a broader goal.  That goal is simple: make sure only government has guns to ensure a compliant populace.  The Kenyan massacre and the recent shooting rampage in Washington, D.C., are prime examples of what is wrong with the American left and their anti-gun advocacy.  Reasonable people, with safety in mind, realize that soft targets, where innocent people try to peacefully go about their daily lives, make too tempting a target for those who wish to do harm.  Experience has shown that if one is a terrorist, insane or just plain evil, one tends to attack the defenseless in an effort to remain unopposed for the greatest length of time so as to inflict the most damage.  I long for the day when the headlines read, “CITIZENS FIGHT BACK, OVERWHELMING TERRORISTS IN SHOW OF DEFIANCE.”  To hasten the reality of that day might I suggest that the people, the world over, not allow governments to keep them defenseless any longer?  Resist liberals’ attempts to disarm law-abiding citizens.  And by God get rid of “gun-free zones.”

Chris Salcedo is an experienced Hispanic journalist who has worked in the local and national media, in print, radio and television. He is also Executive Director of the Conservative Hispanic Society.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Spindok,

There was a case of one armed off duty soldier in the mall who was responsible for saving the lives of over 100 individuals. All he had was a concealed side arm. So it made a great difference.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Obama, Biden, Feinstein, et al, are always talking about passing "common sense" gun laws, but they ignore the most sensible "Common sense" measure of all, get rid of "gun free" zones and deny the terrorists and maniacs the "soft targets" that they so ardently seek.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (21)
All Comments   (21)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The thinking - or at least what passes for thinking - in the liberal mind is, I believe, operating on a false assumption to arrive at the preconceived notion they want to achieve.

That false assumption is that human nature can be changed.

Cain slew Abel and we've been at it ever since and all the sitting in a kumbayah circle beating on a drum isn't going to change that.

This being the case, it is far better for the average person to have the means to resist aggression than it is for society to assume that role at the expense of disallowing the private citizen the means of self defense.

In other words, we need cops - but not everyone can carry one around on their back so responsibility for personal safety will always default back onto the individual.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
There have been several stories in the UK and Kenyan press about civilians with handguns who were either on site or close by during the attack who used their handguns to save lives. Here is a story from todays Kenyan Daily Nation newspaper about the guy, Abdul Haji, who was in the iconic photo of the little girl running to safety.




http://www.nation.co.ke/news/How-mans-mission-to-rescue-brother/-/1056/2007316/-/iyuibdz/-/index.html

It seems he was close by when the attack started and went immediately to the mall to see what he could do to help.

The most interesting part of the story was this bit..

"...licensed gun holder and gun enthusiast, Mr Haji was introduced to guns by his father, the Garissa senator who is also a former defence minister and long-serving provincial administrator.

He grew up shooting at the Athi River range and describes himself as “very good with pistols”.

He had packed an SSK heavy blaster pistol with 14 rounds of ammunition. When he arrived at Westgate, sounds of gunfire and screams could be heard.

He teamed up with a vigilante group of about 10 people from Parklands neighbourhood who had pistols, two-way radios and bulletproof vests.

They then saw movements in the mall basement parking. Many people had been shot inside or outside their cars. Some were still alive.

“We must go in there and see if we can rescue some people,” Abbas Gullet of the Kenyan Red Cross said.

With some of the vigilantes offering cover, they crept into the basement and pulled out bodies and some injured people.

Then, together with two plainclothes policemen, they headed to the rooftop via the ramp using the wall for cover....."

The rest of the story paints a pretty gruesome picture of what the terrorist did inside the mall and how the Kenyans, both civilian and security forces, fought back.

There are plenty of photos of armed people in civilian clothes taken during the attack and siege. Some were plain clothes police. But quite a few it seems where ordinary citizens just going about their daily lives who used their handguns to defend and save innocent woman and children once the attack started.

Stories like these from the Kenyan and UK press are not ones I expect will get much coverage in the US press.


42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Somewhere, within the last 2 days, I came across a British newspaper article (Daily Mail I think) outlining the actions of a retired British Royal Marine who was at that mall in Kenya. He was armed with a pistol (which he may have been carrying illegally) and he used it (presumably actually shot at some of the attackers) to protect one wing of the mall, kept the terrorists from getting into it, and escorted the people there out to safety. The article recounted that he'd gone back into the building a number of times to lead groups of people out to safety.

So maybe it wasn't entirely a "gun-free zone" at least in actuality, but this also proves your point: When good guys have guns, the bad guys lose, or at least don't win as much.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Progressivism is a "Fact Free Zone".
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
"I’m not sure what sort of mental contortion a progressive must go through to reason that it’s easier to disarm the world rather than make sure the world is able to defend itself from aggression. "

Why do we keep making these mistakes. Making sure the world can defend themselves is NOT, i repeat NOT, a priority with the progressive world. Disarming is THE priority. There are future aspirations for this bunch that require an unarmed populace to realize. To these people, its not a matter of what the gov't can do FOR you, its a matter of what they can do TO you. They cannot do everything they want as long as you are armed.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Look what happened when the Dalton gang tried to rob two banks in Coffeyville, KS: they were shot to pieces by the citizenry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Gang
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Terrorists are careful to select soft targets - places where there is little or no armed security and where victims are unlikely to be armed. The last thing an active shooter wants is being surprised by an armed victim. Police will not kill them if they surrender. They will get lawyers and light sentences. However if they draw down on an armed civilian, the game may well be over, forever.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Definitely agree with the post, but definitely needs editing. There are a large number of mistakes here that folks will attack rather than focusing on your points.

Orion
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Guns don't kill people. Gun-free zones kill people.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Obama, Biden, Feinstein, et al, are always talking about passing "common sense" gun laws, but they ignore the most sensible "Common sense" measure of all, get rid of "gun free" zones and deny the terrorists and maniacs the "soft targets" that they so ardently seek.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All