By MamaLiberty
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.
UPDATE:
Armed self defense related to the Paris jihad murders is finally getting noticed, both in the MSM and among freedom bloggers.
Debate erupts over armed journalists after Paris attack
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.
WashPost Asks, With Straight Face: Why Didn’t Strict Gun Laws Stop Charlie Hebdo Massacre?
Very good question….
[Additional update 01-13-15]
Finally, this subject is starting to show up in at least some publications.
Charlie Hebdo Attack Demonstrates That Laws Don’t Disarm Terrorists (But Screw the Rest of Us) J.D. Tuccille
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.
Libertarian Commentary on the News, #15-02C: More on wars and cops, fear and risk
By Nathan Barton
A variety of news items today, starting with more on our Islamic wars, worldwide.
France and Israel mourned and honored heroes in last week’s murder of 17 people by French Islamist terrorists in the Paris area, as more and more people chimed that the attacks were NOT motivated by religion, using the fact that one of the victims and one of the heroes were apostate Muslims (How can a French cop NOT be apostate? To say nothing of a clerk at a kosher supermarket?) Stateside, the big news was that the Fuehrer (or someone “high” in his administration) did not go to the services and the four-million-person (or 1.5-milion, depending on what you believe) protest in France, and ADMITTED that they may have made a mistake in not going. So Kerry is going to Paris on Thursday to no doubt do disgusting things and “win” the French back to be our friends. (It might have been different if one of the victims had been black, I suppose. Or if the Jews hadn’t done it.) By the way, apparently the French president didn’t WANT the Israeli PM to come, and the Turkish Premier condemned Netanyahu for coming. Ah, isn’t it wonderful how people stand up against terrorism? Continue reading →