The recently (and presently still unresolved) terrorist attack in Mumbai, India has been on my father’s 46″ Sony HD TV – Fox News of course. This of course lead up to a conversation between dad and myself about how gun control might have allowed for this to happen. I figure it’d be a good thing to write about.
Before I start though, I think it’s important to examine how the attacks went down. The attacks in India weren’t conducted via remotely detonated IEDs or Boeing aircraft, but rather by assailants actually raiding various hotels and other locales, which include a Jewish center (yeah, religious tolerance my ass). This is interesting, because I’m willing to postulate that such method of attack here on US soil would be extremely ineffective, at least in locations where restrictions on the ability to keep and bear arms are minimized. Why? It’s simple. What do you think is going to happen if Johny Jihad and a couple of his buddies decided to roll into a business where many of the occupants are packing? It’s pretty simple, they sure as hell aren’t going to get very far without a fight.
I thought I was going to write a bit more, however upon stumbling upon an article by an Indian named Abhijeet Singh, I figure it’d be best to just link to the article (which was actually written back in 2005) – it does a hell of a job describing the link between terrorism in India and restrictions on firearms ownership. Without further ado, here it is. Happy Thanksgiving.