Whether we choose to acknowledge it or remain oblivious to it, the fact remains that there is a war being fought on a global scale. This war is not for money, land or resources; it is a war against freedom and any who seek to live their life on their own terms.
This war is not considerate of unarmed civilians, women and children; nor is it declared upon any particular nation.
On one side – The various nations of the globe, dedicated to human rights, civil liberties and freedom on a broader scale.
The other side – Various extremist organisations dedicated to destroying any who oppose an -alienated- Islamic totalitarian regime.
From 2000 – 2013 approximately 190,300 people have been killed as a direct result of these extremist organisations. (according to the global terrorism index)
These organisations belong to no country and have “sleeper cells” in every nation around the world.
A “sleeper cell” is a group of individuals -loyal to the extremist organisations- who take up residency in a country and purport to be upstanding citizens.
Whilst under this guise, they generally arm themselves via illegally sourced munitions or by smuggling munitions over national lines -as is believed to have been the case in France.
When enough preparation has been made, the sleeper cell “activates” and seeks to choose a place to enact an attack.
Generally the location is within cities or suburbia -to demonstrate that these groups are “close to home” for those who do not appreciate their potential, or feel they are safe; “it won’t happen here”-, they are public, crowded and picked at random which makes these attacks more concerning as they can happen “anywhere”.
The goal of the attack is to kill as many people as possible -women and children included so as to maximise their impact on community/national morale- and have it reported via news and other media globally.
The attacks generally result in substantial loss of life and horrific reports of actions taken by extremists to family/friends/neighbours/countrymen.
13 November 2015, the world was reminded of the danger and potential of these “sleeper cells” when several co-ordinated attacks happened in Paris over several locations.
The worst attack was the Bataclan Theatre where it is reported 128 people were killed and a further 200 wounded. – see below for survivor account
In 1991 France enacted gun laws that were fairly similar to what our firearm laws are now, with one exception, the right to carry a firearm was still legal. On 27 October 2014, Article R. 315-1 was passed. Article R. 315-1 ‘Prohibited Carrying and Transport of Firearms’ was essentially the law to remove the right to carry guns.
“It is forbidden:
1° To carry firearms, components of firearms and ammunition of categories A and B, except in cases provided for in Articles R. 315-5 to R. 315-11;
2° To transport without a genuine reason firearms, components of firearms and ammunition of category B;
3° To carry and transport without genuine reason firearms, components of firearms and ammunition of categories C and D”
*What is the average police reaction time in Australia?
*How quickly could Australian police respond to an attack
in a crowded shopping centre?
*How many people need to die before police can react?
This decision to disarm the population was justified with the statement “matters of defence should remain with the state and not the population”.
A promise that the people would still be protected even if they didn’t have their guns -This promise did not protect them!
128 people will never again kiss or hug their Parents/siblings/child, they will never truly have owned their existence as it was taken by others
This failed promise now means that families/friends are left incomplete, forever to endure the pain and sorrow of their Fathers’/mothers’/brothers’/sisters’/sons’/daughters/grand-sons’/grand-daughters’ murder.
The 200 wounded survivors are left with visions only a soldier sees – a vision of war.
They will never again feel safe, nor be able to silence the echo of a gunshot, or the cries of people falling to gunfire around them. They will always remember what a bullet feels like when it tears into flesh -or- the helplessness they felt as they lay there bleeding -waiting for death to take hold.
They will always see blood on the floor and lifeless eyes attached to horrified faces.
These images will haunt their very existence.
“We who have seen war will never stop seeing it, in the
silence of the night we will always hear the screams.”
The attackers at the Bataclan Theatre were standing at the rear of the theatre and began to fire into the crowd.
When they exhausted their first magazine of 30 rounds, they attackers remained standing in the same spot and reloaded a new magazine into their rifles before continuing for a second round.
They stood still…… Not panicked, not rushed…. Calm.
They knew they were not threatened, or hindered.(implication)
If Article R. 315-1 was not brought forward, there is a chance that some people in the theatre may have had firearms with them.
What if they did?
What if they returned fire?
Would the attackers have “calmly” stood still?
Would they have reloaded to have another round of slaughter?
Would the outcome have been a total of 328 bullets hitting civilians, killing 128 and wounding 200?
I do not suggest that the right to carry firearms is a guaranteed measure of safety; however, I do suggest that it would have reduced the death toll considerably.
The right to carry firearms is not the same as “the right to bear arms” as is the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The Second Amendment grants all citizens of the United States of America,
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The right to carry firearms means that current firearm laws in Australia are maintained and that handgun owners will still be required to adhere to the current governing firearm laws in accordance with the 1996 NFA and State firearm laws.
The only difference will be that lawful, responsible and vetted handgun owners will be allowed to carry their firearms on their person without having to provide “genuine reason” for doing so.
It will not allow “anyone” to get a handgun, nor will it mean “shootouts” in the street or guns being drawn and used at the first sign of trouble.
If anything, the right to carry serves as a deterrent, negating the need for action.
A criminal decides they wish to rob a bank; they have a choice of two banks.
A. “Savings Bank” with 8 bank staff and 14 patrons inside.
B. “Loan Bank” with 8 bank staff and 14 patrons -of which,
3 are armed with handguns- inside.
Which bank do you think will be robbed?
Bank A would be a criminals logical choice, therefore, “the right to carry” saved 22 people from being threatened or placed at risk, without even having to be brought out of their holsters, or touched in any way for that matter.
An “armed” population creates higher risk and lower chance of success to any criminal/attacker.
Just like any “school bully”, an attacker is always tougher when they are “swinging the big stick”.
Take the stick away and they generally retreat.
Please fact check any and all statistics you come across regarding guns, as the anti-gun lobbyists have been proven time and time again to exaggerate facts, or manipulate them to make guns more dangerous than they actually are.
Interpol have already suggested that the right to carry is an effective choice for protecting open societies.
“Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble: Societies have
to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,
one is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the
reason for that.”
These attacks are not “lone wolf”, they are carried out in support of extremist groups and they will continue!
Would it not be better to be on level ground when it does happen? Or is another “Bataclan” more acceptable?
Please consider the reality and true facts.
“Downstairs Julien Pearce, a radio reporter, was near the top of the stage when the shooting began.
He saw two people, terrorists, he said, enter the theater, "very calm, very determined" and firing "randomly."
They wore black clothing but no masks. He saw the face of one shooter, who was very young -- a maximum of 25 years old." He was like a random guy holding a Kalashnikov. That's all."
Pearce said the gunmen stood near the back of the room and continuously shot people who had dived on the floor when the shooting started -- shooting some of them execution-style.
"They were not moving," he said of the gunmen. "They were just standing at the back of the concert room and shooting at us. Like if we were birds."”
We want the right to carry firearms as the government's promise of protection can not be proven.