The most likely targets of Islamist wrath are in the cities with the most restrictive gun laws.
To the foreign or uninitiated visitor, it must appear somewhat peculiar that the most prominent, recognizable, and provocative public figures in all of these United States spend the majority of their time in cities that are indifferent toward their security. Taken together, Washington, D.C., New York City, and Los Angeles host almost all of the more controversial media personalities in America; and, taken together, these cities have some of the worst self-defense laws in the country. Had Charlie Hebdo been an American publication, it would most likely have been located in Brooklyn or in Silver Lake or in Columbia Heights — positioned, in other words, in precisely the sort of place in which attacks on its employees would have been most likely to succeed. This, as the French might say, is “absurde.”
The team that took out a good portion of Hebdo’s staff was alarmingly well-trained, and, if the videos that we have seen are any indication, was determined to the point of psychosis. Indeed, so thoroughly prepared and so ruthlessly efficient were the assailants that they managed without a great deal of effort to overcome even an elite security guard who had been sent to protect the paper by the Ministry of the Interior. Certainly, things might have been different if the events had unfolded in heavily armed states such as Oklahoma or Texas — or, for that matter, if someone in an adjacent office had been possessed of a rifle of his own. But this is by no means guaranteed. Could an average group of dispersed concealed carriers have taken on a couple of guys with automatic weapons and rocket launchers? Maybe. Maybe not. Every situation is different.
More
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.