Watching as much of the news and reading as many of the commentaries as I can manage, one thing stands out as a question not being asked, a topic not being mentioned almost anywhere.
The people targeted by the terrorists were not armed… none of them. They had zero effective ways to participate in their own defense. They were sitting ducks, conditioned to believe that the police would or could protect them and that they would be wrong to even wish for other options.
The question of the motives of the attackers, their religion or any of the rest of it seems distinctly secondary to this vital issue. Why couldn’t these people at least have some chance of self defense? How does that learned and beloved helplessness contribute to world peace or safety?
I’m not saying that the attack could have been thwarted by a man or woman – or two or three – who happened to be carrying handguns at the moment. That’s not the point, though many have tried to excuse the situation with that silly idea.
The point is that the French people, as a whole and as individuals, do not have any effective self defense options in any situation. Their culture accepts and often glorifies unarmed, helpless victimhood. As does most of the rest of Europe and all too much of the rest of the world. It is this acceptance of victimhood, the idea that helplessness -relative or complete – is somehow safer and better that is the problem. And it is a problem in far too many places in America as well.
Changing that, building a society based on individual sovereignty and responsibility for one’s life and safety, is the only long range cure for terrorists of any sort. And that includes having and using the most effective self defense weapons that can be devised, both as individuals and within voluntary association communities.
Armed self defense related to the Paris jihad murders is finally getting noticed, both in the MSM and among freedom bloggers.
Something of an Internet snit has erupted over the idea of journalists carrying guns in the wake of the bloody attack in Paris, and a story in Wednesday’s Washington Examiner quoting author Emily Miller and opinion columnist Jed Babbin seemed to spark the debate.
Very good question….
[Additional update 01-13-15]
Finally, this subject is starting to show up in at least some publications.
That’s not to say that France’s laws had no impact. It’s impossible to know whether anybody at Charlie Hebdo or at the market could have successfully taken advantage of an opportunity to defend against murderers who didn’t care about statutes and penalties. What we do know is that, under the law, the victims had no chance to find out. They had to settle for being legally disarmed when their assailants were not so encumbered.