Unarmed Citizens Vs. Armed Jihad: France & Gun Control.

Following the attacks in Paris, French President Francois Hollandé declared a “war on ISIS” and ordered a bombing raid on the ISIS-held city of Raqqa, Syria.

A strong gesture? I suppose. But it’s not going to do much good. Even if President Hollandé orders an all-in French invasion of ISIS-held Syria, it’s not going to solve France’s biggest problem, which is domestic. France has millions of Arab Muslims holed up in poor urban ghettos across the country, most especially in Paris. These Muslim ghettos are utterly impervious to French rule-of-law. Police officers do not even enter these areas, most of the time; mainly because it is too dangerous for them to do so, but also because they know it’s a losing battle. Many French Muslims are not inclined in any fashion to respect the French government or the rule of any law except Islamic law. For French cops, it’s far easier and less dangerous to just try containing Muslim crime and violence to the Muslim ghettos.

The French government does not try to enforce anything in these Muslim “no-go” areas, beyond the occasional raid on terrorist safe houses; but these are not even done by police. They are done by heavily armed SWAT teams who get in and get out.

These regions are hotbeds of radical Islam. They are filled with disenfranchised young Muslim males eager to strike out at who they view as decadent Western infidels. The only option the French government has to rule these areas is through unbridled martial law. But martial law is extremely taboo in Western Society. Something like martial law will not be declared until things get really bad.

Here’s the major problem facing the West, and especially Muslim-heavy countries like France and Sweden: the police and military can do almost nothing against homegrown jihadists. Radical Muslims are dedicated to the cause; they are not afraid to kill themselves in a suicide attack. Suicide attacks on soft targets like restaurants are the great undoing of conventional police and military forces. If young Mohammed is willing to backpack an AK-47 into a restaurant and shoot everyone inside, the police and military will be nigh incapable of stopping him. These attacks are too random to consistently prevent.

When you need the police right now, they’re just a phone call away. Sometimes this means only minutes in response time; but a few minutes is all it takes. When the bullets are flying, every second counts.

The solution to this is obvious: the public should be relying on themselves for protection, not the police or military. If the public is the target, which they are, then they should also be the adversary. Men should be carrying guns in shoulder holsters under their shirts, and women should be packing heat in their purses. They should all be visiting a firing range at least once a month to work on their aim and technique. They should be prepared for the possibility that they may need to kill someone to protect themselves and their families.

But European leaders do not want this. They have worked hard to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, who are entirely at the mercy of Kalashnikov-wielding Muslims that, unsurprisingly, do not care about gun laws. They are more concerned about European citizens with guns, as opposed to Muslim jihadists with guns. If leaders in Europe really were concerned about protecting citizens from terrorism, they would’ve backpedaled on the stringent gun laws by now. Instead, they encourage useless gun control laws which all but ensure that only terrorists will be walking around with guns. The terrorists can thank the governments of Europe, especially France, for making their job easier for them.

Consider this sound bite from a former Secretary General of INTERPOL:

“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”

“Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?” Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. “What I’m saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, ‘Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?‘ This is something that has to be discussed.”

“For me it’s a profound question,” he continued. “People are quick to say ‘gun control, people shouldn’t be armed,’ etc., etc. I think they have to ask themselves: ‘Where would you have wanted to be? In a city where there was gun control and no citizens armed if you’re in a Westgate mall, or in a place like Denver or Texas?'”

This logic is not entirely lost on the bigwigs. I’m quite sure that European political leaders know, on some level, that an armed citizenry is the only effective response to Muslim terror that does not involve a massive incursion of civil rights. But they refuse to act on it.

Part of the refusal to admit the necessity of gun rights is this: it would be an admission of failure on the part of the Messianic State. Many political leaders in Europe (both left and right) believe in the messianic character of the State as the bringer of political salvation to the masses: the great provider of food, shelter, medical care, education, and protection from harm. Retreating on one front – protection from harm – could lead to a virulent strain of growing independence that throws the other aspects of the Messianic State into question. It’s better for them to just hunker down and try to weather the storm. So what if some unarmed Europeans get killed in the process? You have to break eggs to make an omelet, after all.

I don’t doubt that European political leaders are upset about Islamic terrorism. But I think they are also equally upset about something else: that the Muslim terrorists are rocking the boat and making them look bad. Everything seemed to be going along just fine as European governments disarmed their citizens and rendered them toothless and totally dependent on the government for protection. Cue the Islamic terrorists:

“None of these infidels can shoot back? Such easy targets. Allah be praised!”

Suddenly, the terrorists are making the pro-gun control European leaders look incomparably stupid. All the feel-good promises of a society without gun violence look more retarded than ever as Muslims with contraband AK-47s wreak havoc on the law-abiding population. I’m sure anti-gun Europeans are gnashing their teeth in frustration; the Islamic terrorists are making them look like utter fools. The terrorists are destroying the credibility of gun control. I can hear the pleas from the pro-Gun Control crowd now…

“No no no, you don’t need a personal firearm! We just need more gun laws. And more police. And more money, of course! We’ll protect you, we promise! We’ll answer 911 calls quicker!”

Riiigghht.

This is what gives the USA a tremendous advantage over Europe in dealing with the Muslim terrorists of the future. Gun Control already does not have a lot of credibility in the USA; not when compared with Europe, anyway. Support for gun ownership is at modern highs, which is marvelous. Already, a large number of Americans own firearms, and a growing number carry concealed firearms. Americans are far more prepared to deal with terrorism, in this regard.

In terms of “random” Islamic terror, there is not much the authorities can do to prevent it. But we are in a much position on-the-whole here in the USA. Firstly because we do not suffer from interminable gun control, but also because we do not have large ghettos of angry Muslims to contend with. We should not envy France, in this regard.

When the bullets start flying, every second counts. Nobody in the Bataclan theatre was armed, other than the terrorists; 177 people were executed. Would things have turned out differently if even just 10 of the hundreds in attendance had been packing heat? We’ll never know for sure. But I’ll take the odds of armed citizens vs. unarmed citizens to prevent terrorist massacres any day of the week.

Europeans are going to have to figure out really quick that packing heat will be the only way to effectively counter randomized Islamic terror.

Tags: , , , ,

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: