Posted November 18, 2015 4:00 pm by Comments

By Robert Farago

Ryan O'Meara (courtesy harvadrleaders.com)

Writing for The Harvard Crimson, Ryan O’Meara slams presidential candidate Donald Trump’s post-Paris proclamation that an armed populace could have positively affected the outcome in Paris last week. “While preventing any tragedy is obviously important” O’Meara concedes, “gun control is about stopping criminals and the mentally ill from getting a gun in the first place . . . The attacks in Paris are what happens when trained soldiers from a terror state sets their sights on death and destruction.” Hang on. Gun control can stop criminals and crazies from tooling-up but not terrorists? Where’s the evidence for that? Equally, if someone’s trying to kill you . . .

does their motivation matter? By the same token, is a gun any less useful against a spree killer than a “proper” terrorist? I suppose that depends on how many bad guys are involved and what weapons they’re using. But as we pointed out in a previous post, having a gun during a terrorist attack is way better than not having a gun, no matter what the odds.

That’s not a view Mr. O’Meara shares, a man who would leave Parisians unarmed against terrorists – for their own good.

As Paris has …Read the Rest

Source:: Truth About Guns

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *