We need crime control --not gun control

National Post ^ | December 13, 2008 | George Jonas

[neverdem]

The terrorist attacks in Mumbai last month claimed some 500 casualties, dead and injured. Among the many questions raised by the outrage, there was a purely practical one: Why was the attack so successful? How could so few terrorists claim so many victims?

One obvious answer is firepower. Guns were illegal in the hands of both the terrorists and the victims. The victims obeyed the laws, the terrorists didn't. The police had guns, of course, but instead of protecting people, they stayed away until the massacre was practically over. Gun laws -- surprise, surprise! -- weren't strong enough to defend victims, only strong enough to keep victims from defending themselves.

India's gun control, one of the strictest in the world, goes back to the 19th century when Britain introduced it to forestall a repetition of the Indian Mutiny. "The guns used in last week's Bombay massacre were all 'prohibited weapons' under Indian law," wrote Richard Munday in the Times Online, "just as they are in Britain." The terrorists were successful because they didn't obey the gun control law rooted in the Raj, while their victims did.

India isn't alone. Many countries, including Canada, have gone out of their way to make criminals as invincible and victims as vulnerable as possible. This isn't the aim, of course, only the result.

"Guns don't kill, people do." The gun lobby's old slogan is true enough, but it's also true that guns make people more efficient killers. That's why gun control would be such a splendid idea if someone could find a way to make criminals and lunatics obey it. Since only law-abiding citizens obey it, it's not such a hot idea. It's more like trying to control stray dogs by neutering veterinarians.

The police carry guns for a reason: They're great tools for...

[piroque]

here’s a link; good sources ;

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=313837&page=35

[Jack Hammer]

“Many countries, including Canada, have gone out of their way to make criminals as invincible and victims as vulnerable as possible. This isn’t the aim, of course, only the result.”

Actually, it is PRECISELY the aim in the minds of many, who simply hate the thought that others may may be socially and/or politically empowered in a way that they, themselves are not. Suc people are too averse to guns qua guns to take the steps necessary for their own personal defense and the defense of their families and loved ones.

[caveat emptor]

I thought it was called the SEPOY Rebellion

It was. "The [Indian] rebellion is also known as India's First War of Independence, the Great Rebellion, the Indian Mutiny, the Revolt of 1857, the Uprising of 1857 and the Sepoy Mutiny". ;-)

[GOPJ]

...gun control would be such a splendid idea if someone could find a way to make criminals and lunatics obey it. Since only law-abiding citizens obey it, it's not such a hot idea. It's more like trying to control stray dogs by neutering veterinarians.

Great post!!! Thanks.

[GOPJ]

New tagline- -
Gun Control:like trying to control stay dogs by neutering veterinarians - Jonas

[Ouderkirk]

If we had armed air marshals and pilots before 9/11,...it wouldn't have changed a thing. They would have targeted the marshals first and merely delayed the inevitable.

The solution is to isolate the cabin from the cockpit. Take off with cameras watching the cabin. At the slightest hint of trouble, drop the cabin pressure and it's lights out for everyone. Then have your air marshals go and sort out the good from the bad.

[ari-freedom]

“If we had armed air marshals and pilots before 9/11,...it wouldn’t have changed a thing. They would have targeted the marshals first and merely delayed the inevitable.”

nobody knows who the marshals are. Israel has been doing this for years. Of course you can’t just give them guns and assume they can handle it. They have to specifically train for shooting terrorists on a plane.

No, I don’t think taking out the cabin pressure is such a great idea.

[Ouderkirk]

You just don’t get on an El Al flight...like you would any other airline. Having flown El Al it’s pretty intimidating when you go to the check-in. And there is a certain security in having passed the screening.

Dropping the cabin pressure, is the way to go. Everyone passes out for a few minutes and your marshals can move in and take control immediately without having to sort out the dynamics.

As a person who regularly concealed carries, I can spot who’s packin’ and who’s not almost immediately. Just one of those things that you learn to take notice of.

[DocH]

Thanks for the link.

The "shelves' appear to be emptying.

[ctdonath2]

How could so few terrorists claim so many victims?

Well, a little math explains.

500 victims / 10 terrorists = 50 victims per terrorist.

Considering that the attack started in extremely crowded areas, and proceeded for three days, the numbers are not surprising. If any surprise is to be had, it is that the casualties were not higher. Averaging considerably less than one victim per hour across the ordeal, one may wonder that more ... er ... efficient means were not used.