Thursday, December 4, 2008

Mumbia Terrorism: Another Blow to "Gun Control"

I found this article on Media with a Conscience.

Mumbai and the Horror of Gun Control

Contrary to what some advocates of 'gun control' tell you, removing a right to defend oneself never makes one safer as we've witnessed in the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

In the wake of the terrorist attack in Mumbai, I can already hear the U.S. gun-control crowd calling for new gun-control measures here in the United States. There will be several big problems with their pleas.

One, as an article in the International Herald Tribune points out, India has strict gun-control laws. Those laws did not prevent the terrorist attack at the Oberoi and Taj Mahal Palace and Tower hotel. As libertarians have long been pointing out, terrorists and murderers have no reservations about disobeying gun-control laws. The long-held assumption among the gun-control crowd that murderers and terrorists will respect and obey gun-control laws, even while having no reservations about violating laws against murder and terrorism, is ridiculous, as the Mumbai killings once again demonstrate. READ MORE>>>

The International Herald Tribune (referenced above) points out this simple fact, "Obtaining a license for even a single [security] officer to carry a gun is extremely difficult in India, which has tight gun control laws."

The author also points to the words of a photographer, Sebastian D'Souza, who recounts his experience during the attack.

But what angered Mr D'Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "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."
The militants returned inside the station and headed towards a rear exit towards Chowpatty Beach. Mr D'Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."
Frankly, I think D'Souza isn't alone in his frustration.

Freedom loving individuals throughout the globe share similar sentiments.

When the police can't protect me, why am I forbidden from having the means to protect myself?

No comments: