Saturday, July 23, 2011

That didn't take long...

From "terrorism expert" Brian Fishman:
[F]irearms are increasingly a weapon of choice for terrorists; reasonable restrictions on the sale and distribution of automatic weapons make sense. We monitor the sale of precursor chemicals for the construction of bombs; we should monitor the most dangerous guns as well.
What's that, Brian? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of that bloody shirt you're flapping around there.

For heaven's sake, man, have the decency to let the blood congeal a bit before you start dancing in it...

42 comments:

ZombieRush said...

We already have unreasonable retrictions on automatic weapons. I'm all for reasonable ones. I'm guessing he's a ban the evil clip kind of fascist.

Anonymous said...

Outside of Mexico, where the U.S. government is arming the terrorists, where has the availability of automatic weapons increased? In the E.U.?

This is why I could never live in Europe. It's just too violent and guns everywhere.

Shootin' Buddy

perlhaqr said...

We clearly don't need more laws. We just need to amend some of the ones we have. If we simply alter the laws of physics, these evil guns won't be a menace any longer.

I look to our Lightbringer to work this miracle for us.

TBeck said...

I can buy "precursor chemicals for the construction of bombs" at any fueling station with a green pump handle. This clown clearly has no idea what in the hell he is barking about.

Steelghost said...

I see in the story highlights that he talks about not accusing a group until all the facts are in, yet he goes on to blame firearms. This while it is plainly evident that a bomb went off. I wonder what about terrorism he has studied to become an expert. From here it would appear to be political terrorism.

Bubblehead Les. said...

So what is his criteria for a "Least Dangerous" Firearm? Enquiring Minds want to Know.

og said...

Removing weapons has always reduced the number of people shot and killed. The number of miscreants, that is.

Anonymous said...

'Scuse me, I gotta run hide my old Estwing...

http://gawker.com/5822459/kid-allegedly-kills-parents-throws-party-after-hiding-corpses-in-house

Why can't they just focus on banning whack (heh) jobs?

AT

Anonymous said...

he looks just as crazy as jared loughner, in fact, they could be brothers...
look at their photos...

Tam said...

Nah, he looks a little kooky, but Loughner was a walking poster child for the validity of phrenology.

alanstorm said...

Terrorists using weapons? Say it ain't so...

North said...

"walking poster child for the validity of phrenology."

LOL! I think I'm in love with your brain.

*grin*

Anonymous said...

Hmmm, it seems that Norway has quite a few of the common sense gun laws that the hoplophobes would like to saddle us with.

Brass

Bubblehead Les. said...

Bad Vibe Time: Homeland Insecurity Tzarina Napalitono just released a report this week that the main threat to the United States (since the Anointed One Singly Handedly killed Osama Bin Laden, just ask him) that the Main Terrorist Threat to the United States will be "HomeGrown" Domestic Terrorists.

While in Pittsburgh, I asked Alan Gottlieb of the SAF why Barry didn't push Gun Control through the Congress when he had all the Votes. He told me that Obama Care was their #1 priority, but that Anti-Gun Legislation was coming down the Pike. Recent squawking by the Same Old Crowd of Antis are proving him right.

Now, add in the Fact that Barry said a couple of weeks ago he'll just Decree Gun Control (after his "Commission" comes back with the New Regs), that he has shown he's willing to bypass the Congress, the Courts and the Constitution (i.e., Libya and Gunrunner), and he won't "let a Crisis go to Waste", any bets he'll use the Oslo Massacre to try and cripple the RKBA?

One other thing. If they start to shut down the Gooberment, will anyone pick up the Phone to handle Background Checks when one makes a purchase at the Ye Olde Arms Store, or will they be Laid Off for a Looong Time "to save Money?"

Stay alert, and stock up on Ammo. Looks like the Road Ahead is getting rougher than anticipated.

Robert said...

Ummm, Mr.Fishman you might want to see to that pesky case of the bullshits you're suffering from.

Home Depot and that place-thingy where you help gets your anxiety meds are just chock full of "precursor chemicals".

Tasso said...

A similar tragedy happened in Colorado just a few years ago. It ended quite differently: the gunman was immediately shot by a woman with a concealed carry permit.

Compare and contrast.

Anonymous said...

@tam... i meant the sheepdip who wrote the article we're discussing, there was no way to edit the original post...
he looks like jareds brother...

Brian said...

"we monitor the sale of precursor chemicals for the construction of bombs..."

Ok. Considering that a car bomb was used in this attack does that not argue that these laws are ineffective?

Yes, I know with this crowd failure is alway evidence that you need more of the same.

45er said...

Hey, man. Don't let the facts get in the way, Mr. "Journalist". I guess the fact that Norway has some of the strictest firearm regulations and everything that this guy did was illegal doesn't mean anything. How would more laws have helped? I'm guessing he would have stopped if he knew he was breaking 30 laws instead of 15. That's probably correct.

joesmoke said...

I don't know all the "facts" of this incident,no one does. Yet this much seems to be self-evident: this was a well planned and thought out act. Terrorist? Maybe,or maybe a digruntled white guy. The point is he wanted to do it and he did. Proactive laws will not stop him or anybody else,whatever their "weapons of choice".

Matthew said...

He apparently was wandering and shooting at will on that island for over an hour.

Whatever his motive, causing a diversion to distract LE while you carry out your primary strike is "Killing People 101".

The poor disarmed folks on the island should have just called Norge 911 harder I guess.

amcz said...

I'm confused by the use of the term "increasingly". Terrorists are known for using two items in particular: guns and bombs. So, is there data that terrorists are preferring firearms over bombs?

Of course, U.S. soldiers increasingly use guns and bombs to fight terrorists...

staghounds said...

I have yet to see a homicide that would have been made worse by an armed victim.

And I suspect that none of the dead on that island's ;
last thought was "Thank God it is against the law for me to have a gun!"

He has a point- Mumbai and, even more, the DC sniper crimes were very successful attacks.

But UNLIKE bombers, gun terrorists have to be present to attack and are no better armed than their adversaries CAN be. This means that using a gun is FAR more dangerous to the murderer than using a bomb.

His examples are stupid. Th Times Square bomber completed his attack and got away with it. He was an incompetent bomb BUILDER is all.

Same with the underwear bomber, except of course he did not try to escape.

As far as I know, almost every gun mass murderer has been stopped and caught in the act. Not so with bombers.

In fact this very crime argues against the writer's point- he accomplished and GOT AWAY WITH the bomb part just fine. The gun part was the most dangerous for him.

As so often happens, I am stunned that people are paid to say such fatuous things.

Eck! said...

There is an increasing level of non-critical thinking in the world. Our Brady empowered fiend truly believes that it was the gun fault.
Apparent intelligent people using their brains for what a rock to beat laundry on?

He had already used a bomb!

It wasn't the gun, it was the lack of any means or apparently personal interest to assume a defensive posture or even throw rocks!

From all I read it was a handgun and a rifle and NOT an Assault rifle or machine gun. He enticed and hunted his passive prey in a gun free zone. He was able to do this for 90 minutes and was taken alive by now wait for this..

People with Guns.

When will the non-critical thinkers or wishful thinkers accept the fact that evil (aka criminals and socio/psychopaths) exist? They need to accept that the only way to stop them is to do violence to them in response.

Oh right we have designated people to do that (police) who cannot be on scene preemptively. Personal self interest and protective instincts suggests one should be prepared.

Eck!

Leaddog said...

eck,

As you said, the killing stopped when someone(s) arrived with superior firepower. Pick your favorite similar situation, that is the way it ALWAYS ends. The knuckle heads in media and government somehow cannot understand it.

This also seems to beg the question how responsible is government for the deaths if the dead were killed because they were law abiding citizens and did not possess the means of their self defense because the government had decreed that it was illegal to do so? Sort of like those signs on buildings announcing a disarmed target rich area by stating "No firearms allowed."

It takes a special kind of stupid to come up with the tripe that the reporter and "expert" were spewing.

Joseph said...

If somebody starts a terror attack by using household cleaning supplies, will we ban bleach or ban rust remover?

Anonymous said...

Fishman must mean Europe and North America, because car bombs (aka VBIEDs) seem to be wreaking havoc on the populations of Iraq, Pakistan and a couple of other places. Nor do I recall firearms being used in the 7/7 attack in London or the 3/3 attack in Madrid. And if you can't find a firearm in the Middle East, you need to retrain your seeing-eye camel.
LittleRed1

John A said...

Thanks, I was hoping to have a good laugh today.

This character is an expert? A "research fellow" yet? He gets PAID to come up with this junk? Where can I apply - I could certainly do better than this! But then, I think my six-year-old grand-niece could too.

staghounds said...

http://staghounds.blogspot.com/2011/07/quick-thinking-norwegian-teens-take.html

staghounds said...

If only.

Anonymous said...

When will these tools learn that banning a particular tool doesn't stop some tool from killing folks with said tool.

Personally, I am glad we have an "evil ray gun" ban in effect here on planet Earth. So far, it has worked.

Kristopher said...

Leaddog: it doesn't require superior firepower.

ANY resistance will shut down most active killers.

A Mr. McKown pulled a pistol on the Tacoma Mall shooter, was gunned down with the SKS that nut was carrying ... and then said nut holed up in a retail shop and whined to a terrified clerk about how bad his life was until the police tackled him.

Any resistance by their victims is not in these loons' playbook. They shut down, and then default by either suicide, running away, attempting suicide by proxy ( "shoot me!" ), or hunkering down.

We've had exactly one active shooter who wanted a real fight ( the Texas clocktower shooter ).

Mick Havoc said...

What a bedwetter.

An Ordinary American said...

Two thoughts:

• Where were these kinds of "experts" when I was in the military overseas? I could've used these geniuses. . . as sandbags.

• Why didn't this attack happen in Switzerland?

--AOA

Matthew said...

Could we quit with the blind Swiss adulation? They have a militia system that ends up with a secured rifle and 20 sealed rounds, that can only be used under particular rules, in every home. Some folks also like to shoot on their own, some other folks don't.

That's it, the land of clocks and chocolate isn't some sort of private gun ownership paradise, it's more like New York State at best depending on the canton.

By the numbers, if I were told to find a legal gun in a private home in Europe, and Switzerland was off the table, then Norway would be high on the list.

Not that that the mere commonality of guns in the home would have done much good since in most cantons in Switzerland (to my knowledge) and the entire country of Norway the licensed carry of handguns for personal defense is effectively forbidden and/or so uncommon as to not statistically exist.

Look at the facts...

The nut deliberately attacked a non-residential resort island; even in vaunted Switzerland there would have been nary a home-stored SIG to hand. As it was a political camp, for teens, for the liberal Labor Party no less, the odds that there would have been privately-carried weapon on hand, even in some folks fantasy version of Switzerland, is unlikely if not laughable.

John said...

BTW,the latest report I read included horrified mentions of those new-to-the-press dum-dum bullets that are made to smash flesh and bone. No reporter's historical minute looking up dum-dums on wiki, then no journalistic foul, apparently

I'm guessing ordinary hunting rounds.

Crotalus (Dont Tread on Me) said...

Maybe guns are becoming the "weapon of choice" for terrorists, but thats because of gun bans. Terrorists tried guns in Israel, thinking that the citizens were unarmed. To their deep chagrin, the Israelis returned fire,and shot them to doll rags, and later terrorists went to suicide bombs. This latest sicko knew that gun control disarmed his victims and he was successful. Gun control enables this kind of thing, but the tyrants will not allow people to have guns to defend themselves, so there will be more.

And someone altered his twitter page in an attempt to blame Christians and conservatives for this. He was neither Christian or conservative.

God, Gals, Guns, Grub said...

Tam,

I remember reading an article about 15 years ago about how Israel created the situation for suicide bombings. In the 1950s and 1960s, mass shootings by gunmen were common place until Israel pretty much created a culture where almost everyone carries a gun.

It pretty much stopped the mass shootings because as soon as the gunmen whipped out the guns, they were promptly shot by an armed citizenry. That is when those terrorizing Israel switched to bombs as shooting after the bomb goes off doesn't undo the damage of the initial attack.

Guns are not the weapons of choice for terrorists, no matter what the liberal sheeple think.

Dann in Ohio

Free-range Oyster said...

Matthew,
Can you give a source on the Swiss regulations? I've been looking for info on exactly that issue (conditions of use of the military rifle). I can't find any proper sources in English, and Google translate doesn't get me far.

Matthew said...

FRO,

No, just general stuff, though I know I read Swiss law in detail back in the days when no gun rights conversation was complete without someone pointing Alps-ward saying "See! See! Pro-gun eleventy!1!".

http://davekopel.org/2a/Foreign/The-Swiss-and-their-Guns.htm

Here's Kopel's essay from 1990. It's pretty general and I believe things have tightened up a bit since.

The wiki on the subject looks accurate. In essence you can take the issue rifle to and from the range for practice, and that is encouraged, but you don't simply carry it around. We're there to be an incident near a Swiss house I'm sure it'd come off the shelf as well.

The issue rounds are sealed and accounted for to make sure you don't use all your ammo for practice one day and then have nothing to shoot Germans or Frenchmen with on your way to the muster the next.

An Ordinary American said...

Matthew,

I'm glad you read about Swiss gun laws. . .

Some of us lived them.

It's not "blind adulation" as you seem to think, but rather first hand experience.

Regards,

--AOA

Matthew said...

Then your adulation isn't blind, is it?

I apologize for not figuring out from your post or pen name that you are a former Swiss resident of some type.

So, given your personal experience, what are the chances that a private person, on a non-residential island, during a teen camp/rally, which apparently had the island monopolized, put on and staffed by the liberal Labor party equivalent of Switzerland, would have been armed and in a position to intervene?