mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Guns in America
How to Tear a Nation Apart
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Matt_Thullen

    It’s not just gun rights that’s going to divide the U.S. Most gay rights organizations are directly blaming religious conservatives for the attack, claiming that opposition to gay marriage and gender-neutral bathroom laws somehow triggered this attack is some manner.

    It’s pretty clear at this point that large percentages of liberals have far more hatred for those Americans who differ from them on politics than they do for Muslim terrorists who actually kill Americans. Vox actually ran a piece from a guy who said “I’m a Gay Man. Don’t Use an Attack on My Community as an Excuse for Islamophobia.” The ACLU explicitly stated that conservative Christians are responsible for the attack by creating an “anti-queer climate.”

    To be perfectly blunt, the division is coming from one side in this country.

    • Andrew Allison

      Well yes, a commentator with a little maturity might have provided a less superficial post.

    • Jim__L

      The Left has discovered Wedge Issues. (So have Islamists.)

      Why no one is pointing out the former, I have no idea.

      • Matt_Thullen

        If the left thinks that ignoring the Muslim component of recent attacks in favor of blaming Christians and gun owners, then they will quickly discover what a real wedge issue is.

        • lurkingwithintent

          That is why they want to control guns.

    • jhp151

      ‘The ACLU explicitly stated that conservative Christians are responsible for the attack by creating an “anti-queer climate.”‘

      I believe it was one ACLU attorney and not the organization as a whole.

      • Jim__L

        Considering the implacable hostility of the ACLU to Christianity over the last several decades, it’s fair to generalize that to the whole organization.

      • Protest Manager

        So, has the “organization as a whole” firmly denounced that statement? No?

        Than the entire ACLU deserves to be tarred with it

        • jhp151

          Fair point

  • Andrew Allison

    Puh-leeze. Let’s start from the fact that Adam Gadahn was absolutely correct. What on Earth would more gun control measure do about that? Although I don’t own a gun, I think that the question which should be asked is why were the victims unable to defend themselves? The so-called “wedge” driven between patriotic Americans by the Orlando and San Bernardino attacks is a figment of Mr Willick’s imagination. This post adds nothing to either the gun debate or the objective of terrorism.

    • Frank Natoli

      why were the victims unable to defend themselves?
      In both cases, San Bernardino and Orlando, the victims were murdered at a “soft” target.
      San Bernardino was a “soft” target because the state of California severely limits concealed carry, and everyone outside their home is defenseless.
      Orlando was a “soft” target because the state of Florida, which to its credit has and was one of the first enactors of a “shall issue” concealed carry law, prohibits concealed carry in any establishment that is licensed to sell alcohol and the sale of alcohol is its principal business. The ban affects everyone in the establishment, not only those who are drinking.

      • ljgude

        Yes, we really have to rethink this policy of disarming the populace in this kind of 4th of 5th generation war environment. I remember when Texas put a no guns where alcohol is served law in and it seemed to me from their stats that Texas’ gun death rate fell while Louisiana which didn’t pass such a law at that time still had a high rate. I think it is crystal clear that the militia needs to be sober, but it isn’t clear to what the best approach is. If potential shooters know that some people will be armed and sober even in a bar or nightclub they will think twice – even if it just to look for a softer target. I would expect the most likely response will be metal detectors, like they are at stadiums, which worked in Paris. If you want a gun free zone, you have to employ metal detectors. But eventually I think the US, having the second amendment, has the option of voluntarily hardening itself against this kind of attack by taking away all the gun free zones which are more accurately described as defense free zones. I hope self organized citizens who actually learn how to use guns for self defense properly, like the gay gun group Pink Pistols, spring up to complement a security establishment hamstrung by the terrorist’s strategy of attacking our weak spots. Even a room full of disarmed combat soldiers was helpless at Fort Hood.

        • Frank Natoli

          I believe it was the Luby’s Restaurant mass murder that pushed the Texas Legislature into enacting a “shall issue” law. I recall Suzanna Gratia Hupp who had obeyed the law and left her handgun in her car, only to see both her parents murdered.

          • ljgude

            I don’t remember that incident, but the ban on guns in bars was back in the early 90s or thereabouts. Gun rights have advanced a long way since then and that seems to me all to the good if the people themselves – the militia as the constitution has it – are going to have to organize to protect themselves because of the anywhere and everywhere nature of the threat. I like your example. I suppose the lesson learned might go something like: If you use law to create gun free zones than only the law abiding will disarm themselves.

          • Rob Aught

            Wasn’t it Hupp’s father who charged the gunman unarmed in a last ditch effort to try and stop him? Someone did try and charge the gunman and was killed for their efforts.

      • f1b0nacc1

        I was astonished that not even the bartenders had access to a gun….

        • Andrew Allison

          Exactly — it doesn’t seem as though having a gun under the bar should qualifiy as “concealed carry”.

          • f1b0nacc1

            ‘standard operating procedure’ would be more like it

      • Andrew Allison

        Well yes, that was sort of the point of my, obviously too subtle, comment.

  • circleglider

    Another typically thoughtful piece by Jason Willick that cuts directly to the core.

  • Frank Natoli

    They drove a wedge between patriotic Americans, and managed to ensure that our grieving over the dead was polluted from the outset by a din of vicious political assaults.
    Aren’t there at least two issues here? Yes, the availability of guns is one. But why is it that, nationally, top to bottom, there is a deafening silence from the side that wishes to render all Americans defenseless on the matter of what the author terms “Islamist rampages”?
    What this silence PROVES is that that side is NOT interested in a solution, only a furtherance of its own blind ideology.
    Americans who are gun owners are often more aware of and respectful of history, and how history teaches that a defenseless people are the perfect victims. That will NOT be American gun owners.

    • CosmotKat

      Well said, Frank!

  • Fat_Man

    “They drove a wedge between patriotic Americans”

    Rubbish. The left is not patriotic. They hate patriotism and they hate Americans. The Orlando massacre is just another excuse to go after the people they really hate and fear.

    • ChuckFinley

      Well, I don’t know about that. They seem pretty enamored with the fundamentally transformed country they have made out of the former United States. I, on the other hand, am less fond of it than I once was.

      • Jim__L

        They’ll find something to complain about, however this country ends up. Remember how Krugman said, “The Stimulus didn’t work because it wasn’t big enough!” Yeah.

        If conservatives (especially Christians) maintain any freedom whatsoever, Social Justice Warriors will just keep claiming that all problems are simply a result of their enemies still having the right to speak up and point out biological reality — or bear arms to prevent tyrannical government. Instead of, say, terrorist safe havens overseas, or attempting to force absolutely insane social mores on the rest of humanity.

        Seriously, how much “soft power” overseas, how much influence and sympathy of foreign populations, is sacrificed to our acceptance of — our pushing! — the LGBT agenda? Every time one of Earth’s 6 billion non-Westerners rolls their eyes about America’s LGBT obsession, America loses. If we want to start boosting America’s image overseas, the best thing we could do is show some embarrassment over Obergefell, and apologize.

    • Jim__L

      It’s utterly hypocritical for the Left to accuse others of being “phobic” “haters”.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    Ask yourself what would have happened if this attack occurred at a meeting of the NRA? Would 50 people have been murdered? Or would the Islamic Terrorist have been lucky to get off more than a shot or two? The fact is mass murders only occur in gun free zones.
    Also stop calling gun control activists Patriots, if you don’t support the US Constitution you AREN’T a Patriot.

    • Quality Control

      Jacksonian_Libertarian:
      Answer: Probably not, but (A) as the article points out: There are other (at least) equally destructive means to carry out attacks and (B) it doesn’t seem realistic to create a country entirely devoid of (voluntary) gun free zones. I wouldn’t take a gun for a night of care-free drinking and dancing – would you? Don’t get me wrong the harder we make it for terrorists the better – but this scum is awfully motivated. Hence more guns in more places will *in most cases* just displace the attack, rather than prevent it.

      As for your last sentence: Dude. Not true it can be perfectly pariotic to be unhappy about (parts of) the Constitution That’s why we have an amendment process in… the Constitution. Trying to institute unconstitutional laws (as per the Constitution in it’s current form) is a different matter, of course.

      • f1b0nacc1

        Of course there are other ways, the Tsarnevs demonstrated that quite clearly. On the other hand, limiting the number of easy targets certainly helps. As for these attacks simply being ‘displaced’, I suspect that as the targets become harder, many of the less motivated attackers (and most, not all, of them are) would be more likely to attack in the first place, or attack and be quickly stopped by a well-armed population.
        Regarding the constitution, while I rarely find myself defending JL, he is spot on here. I defend, respect, and support ALL of the constitution, including the part that deals with Amendments. Wanting to amend the constitution (as opposed to simply ignoring it) is in fact part of supporting it.

        • Andrew Allison

          Spot on. It’s so typical of the left to add “only the parts I agree with”. The outright refusal to accept the rule of law is what will probably bring down the Republic.

      • Andrew Allison

        You nicely elucidate how nonsensical the post is in attempting to conflate gun control and terrorism. Gun control can’t stop terrorism, period.

    • m1shu

      We already have a related example. The Draw Mohammed Contest in Garland Texas. Security shot down the attackers before they had a chance to get in. The big question is, why the poor security at the Pulse nightclub? If gay people feel persecuted, why do they have inept security at one of their gathering spots? Don’t they want to feel safe inside there?

      • Piltdown Ghost

        Beefing up security in case of terrorist attack in the pre-Pulse environment would have been considered “Islamophobic” by most of those the security would’ve been intended to protect. This was the same argument Edward Said made — to much praise — just before the 9/11 attacks, and in those days his word carried some weight. Said argued that Muslim terrorism existed only as a form of systemic racist oppression of Muslims, a phantom illusion cooked up by the Islamophobic Right to keep the Muslim down. Classic Islamic terrorism of the kind where “Allah-u Ackbar” are the last words the victims hear before their violent, bloody deaths did not, in Said’s view, exist.

        9/11 was enough for most people to change their minds; in the case of security at gay night clubs Orlando should finish the job. Muslim terrorists are cunning enough to choose gun-free zones to launch their attacks, whether that be inside passenger jets or night clubs, so the first step in securing a place should be allowing CHL’s to carry. To a Muslim terrorist a gun-free zone is a free-fire zone. The fewer easy targets the better.

        • m1shu

          Good security regardless of terrorism or not. I used to work for a night club which, prior to me working there, got robbed by a street gang. The club had a capacity for about 3,000 people. The owner marketed the club as upscale and thought, with the clientele he’s attracting to the club, security was not an issue other than checking IDs when necessary. The problem was he didn’t do basic background checks for staff such as bar backs (the guys who run beer, wine and liquor from storage to the bars). Some of these guys were gang members and let the rest of the gang through the back. They robbed not only the club but the patrons as well. Some of the women got raped too. Naïveté can be very costly.

  • FriendlyGoat

    The stories are that an unstable nut inspired by Islam shot some gay people, manufacturers and a seller of guns and ammo recently made a little money supplying the nut, the GOP sees a chance to grandstand and the stocks of gun makers today went up.

    • Jim__L

      Oh please. The grandstanding is being done by the Left here, plain and simple.

      The fact that the stock of gun makers went up is a function of Americans’ desire to protect ourselves, and not surrender that power to the Ivy League aristocracy — who doesn’t seem to be interested in protecting us at all.

      It’s time to show the philosopher-kings the door.

      • FriendlyGoat

        I was just reporting the news and listening to your candidate, Mr. Trump.

        • Angel Martin
          • FriendlyGoat

            Off point.

          • Rob Aught

            Nope. Democrats have seized on guns as the issue and are trying hard to overlook the Islam angle. Clinton went after guns first and then probably saw her overnight polls decided to talk about Radical Islam.

            All I see on the left is how bad guns are. Really? Despite mountains of evidence that guns are used far more often in defense than for murder, despite the climbing violent crime rate in the UK, despite the growing cottage industry of homemade guns in Australia after their ban, anyone thinking we can magically make 350 million guns into a non-problem and that it will solve anything is delusional.

            In the meantime we are importing people who hate our culture and say their religious law should supercede our national laws and they don’t like our freedoms, women’s rights, or gays.

        • JR

          You failed to address his point and instead went for the mockery of Trump. Pretty weak tea.
          BTW, we get it that the Left doesn’t like Trump. It’s fine to not mention it once in a while.

          • FriendlyGoat

            No, JR, it is obligatory on everyone with freedom of speech and any inclination toward liberal life in America to expose the inconsistencies in Mr. Trump at will. Did you get AT WILL? Let’s start with the fact that his supporters are worshipping Ravin’ Cavin’ Donald who has NOTHING WHATEVER special to add to politics. He has been through the Ravin’ stage to knock out every other Republican you guys might have liked better (or been less embarrassed by)—–and now he is going to the Cavin’ stage where he reverses himself on all of his life positions to become indistinguishable from Mitch McConnell. Those of us who see this as a shtick and a fraud will be speaking loudly for the next five months. You can lower yourself to shilling for this Barnum if you want, but you WILL NOT silence me or anyone else

          • JR

            Ugh, I think your caps lock is broken or something.
            Relax, I wasn’t advocating for restricting freedom of speech, although the irony of the man of the Left suddenly becoming a 1st amendment fanatic is not lost on me. It’s just gets a little monotone. We get it. You really don’t like Trump. I just don’t see how Ravin’ Cavin’ Donald comment adds anything to civility of the discourse. Seeing someone like yourself sink to a level of caricature of a sneering Left-winger is most discomforting.

          • FriendlyGoat

            This is an important election for the left to not lose. Donald will continue to pull out all the stops on his pipe organ and everyone else has to respond in kind.
            BTW, Ravin’ Cavin’ Donald is an original hatched at our kitchen table. Everyone on the left should be “in the act” for the next five months.

          • CosmotKat

            What you are spewing ( a lot of rage and hate as usual) is what many thought of Barack Obama in `08 and `12. Do you think smearing half the nation and continuing to claim there is more to fear from patriotic Americans than Islamic terrorists is the message of an elected leader of an entire country. Do you think dissembling and lying to the American people from the bully pulpit about those with whom he disagrees is the sign of a leader?

          • FriendlyGoat

            I have been proud of Barack and Michelle Obama every day he has been President and she has been First Lady. It is not a mere coincidence that Obama’s approval ratings have been going up during the rise of Trump. We’re not going to agree so let’s skip bashing each other, okay?

          • CosmotKat

            Most hyper-partisan progressives have enjoyed the Obama’s. The ideological fit is obvious since it’s only progressives like you who could enjoy a president that smears the citizens of his country, lies pathologically to the nation, promises of cohesion while he drives division through his own innate bigotry and hostility to the American people. Obama’s rise in the poll is media driven, it certainly has nothing to do with his performance since nearly 7 in 10 continue to believe the country is going the wrong direction under this president. If you want to skip the bashing then try for a level of intellectual honesty and stop blaming the problems of this president on those with whom you disagree and hate because you smugly feel superior.

          • FriendlyGoat

            All I know is that the more we get a preview of possible-president Trump, the better Obama looks to people answering poll questions about his performance as president.
            As for the “right track-wrong track” polling, it is only meaningful to nincompoops. Everybody has a gripe and if you don’t know what the gripes are after a “right-track, wrong-track” question, it is plumb silly to ask it.

          • CosmotKat

            Yeah, there’s a big difference isn’t there. You’ve got one candidate who has proven that she cannot be trusted, is innately dishonest, and willfully untrustworthy vs. someone who speaks in a manner you don’t like. I’ll take the unproven straight talker over the lying and corrupt person who is likely to rob us blind while selling out the country and blame it on a vast conspiracy and those with whom she disagrees.

            “right track-wrong track polls have the same gravitas as favorability polls that indicate people think Obama is doing a good job. They are for hyper-partisan nincompoops who blame others for the problems this administration caused.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Cosmo, someone told me that eating above-normal amounts of regular black pepper can improve mood and mental outlook. I now do it and I think it helps. So I’d recommend it for you too. You are NOT happy, as evidenced by your comments. But maybe you could be. Lots and lots of black pepper.

          • CosmotKat

            thanks for the suggestion, but I am very content with my life, but since you admitted to taking pepper to combat your insanity
            Homemade recipes for insanity

            “Traditional natural home remedy for insanity using black pepper : Grind 12 corns of black pepper with 3 gms. brahmi leaves, mix with half a glass of water, strain it and drink it twice daily. This is beneficial for the treatment for insanity.

            Simple home remedy for insanity using water-melon : If the insanity is due to the excess of whirruicall1liotions or apprehensions, mix a cup of water-melon juice with a cup of milk and 30 gms. of sugar candy, fill it in a plain bottle and hang it on a peg in the open in the moonlight overnight. The following morning give it to the patient to drink. Give it to him for 21 days. It will provide relief from whimsical or apprehensive behaviour.
            http://www.online-vitamins-guide.com/dietary-cure/insanity.htm

            I also suggest you consider your ideological outlook, perhaps humility, and open mindedness, more tolerance would also help relieve your tendencies for mental issues.

          • FriendlyGoat

            What black pepper (and a very nice black dog) do for me is reduce my tendency to want to lash out at you in retaliation for being lashed out at. Good grief, man. Life is short. Even though I enjoy comment sections as vehicles for developing our thoughts, we really do not have to argue ALL THE TIME.

          • FriendlyGoat

            What black pepper (and a very nice black dog) do for me is reduce my tendencies to lash out at you in retaliation for being lashed out at.
            Good grief, man. Life is short. Even though I enjoy the comment sections as vehicles for developing our thoughts, we really do not have to argue ALL THE TIME.

          • CosmotKat

            Then engage in debate and leave some of your hyper-partisanship on the sideline and others will do the same, but your’s is nothing but a steady drum beat of anti-right taunts and hate. It really gets old.

            More than half the country has seen their lives negatively impacted by this administration just as much as you may feel the country was impacted under Bush. However; under this administration the sound of jack boots is growing louder, our security is more suspect and a Hillary presidency gives rise to the notion that further erosion to our rights seems likely. Your comments give no credence to your claim as a vehicle for developing thoughts, but rather a vehicle to denigrate those with whom you disagree.

          • FriendlyGoat

            According to you, I have already taken one of the remedies for insanity (been on it over a year), so I’m not insane. My dog says I’m not even mean.
            Yes, I am a partisan liberal. Everyone on the right is a partisan conservative. I like Obama and Clinton or Sanders. You don’t. It’s just life.

          • CosmotKat

            No, it was according to you. “Cosmo, someone told me that eating above-normal amounts of regular black pepper can improve mood and mental outlook. I now do it and I think it helps.” Dogs are animals who love unconditionally unless they are beaten. You don’t beat dogs you beat those with whom you disagree.

            That’s where you are wrong. I’m not partisan. I act like one when I find intellectual dishonesty in people like you who are hyper-partisan. I have yet to find a hyper-partisan progressive (you are not a liberal) ever see beyond their own nose. You are ideologically incapable of tolerance and an open mind, but you think you are. The passions that drive the typical progressive is self-righteousness and hate.

          • FriendlyGoat

            As Ronald Reagan famously said, “There you go again.”

          • CosmotKat

            Reagan also said, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”

          • Jim__L

            At least he isn’t mentioning tax policy in irrelevant posts as often as he used to — although that may be implied by his McConnell comments later in the thread.

        • CosmotKat

          Did you report that Mr. Obama laid waste to a field of straw men, cable-TV pundits and the always-evil “partisan rhetoric,” by which he means anyone who disagrees with him. Did you think it represented a striking display of personal anger and pent-up grievances and a total failure of leadership during a national crisis? Just asking, Goat.

          • FriendlyGoat

            No, of course not. I think it is the beginning of a freed-up lame duck to campaign vigorously for everything not Trump, not Tea Party, not far-right nonsense and not Republicanism.

          • CosmotKat

            That would take intellectual honesty so I understand why you wouldn’t, goat. Lame duck period is the excuse you are going for to excuse his lack of class?

            You are entitled to embrace all the far left isms of the Democratic party……Marxism, Stalinism, Leninism, fascism, Maoism, narcissism, racism, hedonism, terrorism, Islamic fanatacism, and National Socialism. I can’t wait for this community activist, in his freed-up lame duck mode, continue to look small as he delivers his anger, hatred, and intolerance toward those who do not embrace his fantasy ideology.

            ,

    • CosmotKat

      Another of your biased remarks, Goat. No grandstanding by the DNC? The DNC should be ashamed that a registered Democrat, who was a Islamic-american and one of the DNC’s favored identity groups, killed 50 people. There seems to be a lot of unstable nuts that vote Democrat.

  • Stephen

    I’ve made this same point for more than a decade as proof that Al Qaeda was clueless and not serious as a terrorist organization. Precisely because the more than three hundred year history of firearms ownership in North America and the culture that incorporated it has made it a flash point in the decades long civil war between cosmopolitism and traditionalism, cumulative small arms attacks like these, because they are ahistorical, are guaranteed to have a larger impact than the spectacular one-offs like 9/11. This has been obvious for a very long time. Only recently have middle eastern terrorist groups gotten a clue.

  • John Dowd

    “After 9/11 and the Boston Bombings, Americans grieved together and comforted each other. They resolved to fight their attackers as one nation. ” That is simply not true especially for 9/11. There was too much BDS after the 2000 election to allow the Democrat party to truly “rally around the flag” and support a united response. Their co-operation was tactical in a political sense not in a patriotic sense. Senator Chuck Schumer was a prime example. He exploited 9/11 for special favors for New York City constituents while criticizing the Bush’s war effort whenever an opportunity presented itself. Of course Schumer conveniently forgot his contribution to 9/11 in the form of a ridiculous agricultural immigration program that allowed one of the 9/11 hijackers to enter the country. Let’s not forget the 2007 crisis in Iraq. Senator Harry Reid declared that “this war is lost” while U.S. troops were engaged in combat. Let’s recall Edward Kennedy and John Murtha who exaggerated “Abu Ghraib” minor incident out of all sensible proportions. And let’s not get started discussing GITMO where illegal enemy combatants worse fear is gaining too much weight from Halal chicken dinners. The sad truth is this country has not united nor has it accepted the fact that Islam is a war with the west and has been at wart with the west since its beginning. Until that truth is accepted we remain vulnerable as a nation to Islamic terror.

    • Rob Aught

      This is a good point. I remember in about a week or less there were Democrats expressing discomfort with all the patriotic displays.

  • Quality Control

    Kudos to Jason Willick. Original thoughts like this one are the reason why checking for TAI’s take is always worthwhile.

  • Nevis07

    Well, if liberals didn’t try to politicize and take advantage of events at every opportunity, it wouldn’t need to become a wedge issue, would it? The left’s inability to acknowledge, let alone come up with policy solutions, to Islam and its incompatibility with Western culture (99% of Afghan Americans believe in upholding Sharia law for example) shows that they cannot separate out causation and are more concerned with playing political games – after all, we didn’t hear calls for banning pressure cookers after Boston, did we?

    So have the terrorists found a way to divide Americans? Yeah, unfortunately, I have to admit they have. But that the leftists fault, not the group of Americans that wish to uphold the constitution.

    • Andrew Allison

      Terrorists have not found a way to divide Americans; the gun issue divide pre-dates radical Islam.

      • Nevis07

        The fact that it pre-dates has no bearing on the situation. Terrorist access to firearms has added fuel to the existing debate, so in that sense yes, they are exploiting a wedge issue.

        • Andrew Allison

          Perhaps, but the resident sophomore claimed that said access was creating a divide.

          • Jim__L

            The fact that the Left is pushing this as a wedge issue is new.

          • Andrew Allison

            Nope. The Left creates “wedge” issues right and left, as it were. The only person I’ve seen suggest that terrorists have created a wedge between patriotic Americans is Mr Willick.

      • Rob Aught

        Radical Islam has been around longer than guns.

        The real gun control push didn’t happen until the 60’s though the slide began sometime in the roaring 20’s.

        • Andrew Allison

          Not only is Radical Islamic terrorism in the West is a relatively recent phenomenon, but the author was referring specifically to San Bernadino and Orlando, and guns.

  • LarryD

    Harvard Journal of Law and Policy, vol 30, no 2

    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

    Gun Control laws don’t work, in fact, violence gets worse when guns are restricted.

    And the SCOUS has held, in multiple cases, that police have no duty to protect.

  • solstice

    Americans may be pitted more than ever against each other, but the jihadists are also pitted more than ever against each other. The Sunni-Shiite sectarian war, as well as infighting among rival factions within those sects, is the only reason why the death toll from jihadist attacks in the West is not much higher. However, the West keeps shooting itself in the foot by importing the glaring pathologies of the Muslim world via immigration. Were it not for our unconscionable immigration policies and PC insanity, we could simply watch the Muslim world decay and destroy itself from within without being affected.

    • Jim__L

      They may be destroying themselves, but we’re frankly the ones decaying.

      • solstice

        They are decaying as well. The Muslim world is currently experiencing a dramatic decline in fertility, and if you were to spend time in the Arab world (as I have), you would observe the marriage crisis among the relatively educated social classes as well as the widespread feelings of despair, hopelessness,and self-loathing among the population. You would also observe that a majority of Arab youth are functionally illiterate, unskilled, unemployed. or underemployed, and that they spend the bulk of their time goofing off, smoking hash, watching porn, and harassing women on the streets. If that is not decay, I don’t know what is.

      • solstice

        Militant Islam is attractive to many Muslims because it provides them with an outlet for the humiliation and rage they feel at the abject failure of their societies.

  • DiogenesDespairs

    Like other gun cokntrol “debates” triggered by mass shootings, the “Progressive” left and its media megaphones will make a big fuss over “gun control,” helping more people realize that if there had been someone armed at the scene of the crime the outcome would probably have been very different. Then, more laws will be passed abetting gun possession by law-abiding citizens than are passed against it.

    The “divisions” are mainly created by people who want divisions rather than solutions.

  • Rodney

    Although I myself don’t own a gun, I consider a gun free zone as a return-fire-free zone for anyone looking for an easy target. I used to work at a hybrid gun free zone. It was a gun free zone in that federal law did not permit personal firearms and hybrid in that the feds expected the facility, a nuclear plant, to maintain a well trained armed guard force. There may be compelling reasons to keep a bunch of buzzed partiers unarmed out of concern for their compromised inhibitions, but we have already have a solution with respect to driving, the designated driver. In this environment of home-grown terrorism, how about permitting establishments that serve alcohol to arm some of their staff. One or two well-placed bullets may have stopped the shooting well before the body count swelled to fifty.

    • Jim__L

      A shotgun behind the bar used to be a fixture of that kind of establishment.

    • Rob Aught

      To be fair an off-duty police officer was there working security. He retreated because he was outgunned.

      I wonder if he would have been so quick to retreat had he known the response time would be a baffling 3 hours before SWAT entered? Did you know there is an 85% chance of surviving a gunshot wound if treated promptly? I wonder what the body count would have been if SWAT had entered sooner? How many people died simply because treatment was delayed?

      A single armed security person is better than nothing, but to your point there should be more than one line of defense. The 51% rule for establishments serving alcohol is fairly standard, however there should be some provision for the owners, managers, and staff for having the option to be armed in case the worst happens.

      • jjcassidy

        How did the shooter get a rifle into a guarded night club?!

  • jeburke

    I doubt the ISIS call to the gun is all that sophisticated. Rather, it’sa recognition that high-casualty bomb attacks, especially by largely untrained new recruits or internet-inspired lone wolf attacks are not as easy as they seemed back when al Qaeda published its directions for making bombs in your mom’s kitchen. The quest for bomb materials has led to dozens of FBI interdictions of would-be attacks. The Times Square car bomb fizzled. Even the successful Boston bombers managed to kill only three. By contrast, gun attacks such as those in Fort Hood, San Bernadino and Orlando have racked up scores of casualties. Guns are easy to obtain with few questions asked and when used against unarmec crowds require little skill to inflict maximum damage. That’s why.

    • Rob Aught

      Here’s an interesting thought.

      Obtaining bomb making materials has become more difficult due to the automatic red flags that get raised for certain large purchases.

      We already have a background process in place for guns and the check goes to the FBI. If the government were serious about stopping terrorism they can do so by simply investigating any firearm purchases with urgency when done by someone who is a known radical. The shooter in Orlando was one of those people.

      At this point my real question is, if the background checks don’t do any good, why do we have them? What would be the point of making them more intrusive if we don’t do a thing with the information we have now? I’d rather scrap this expensive and ineffective system if we’re going to ignore potential terrorists because some Fed agent is afraid of seeing their career ruined for doing their job.

  • delta 5297

    The mutual recrimination would be happening even if this terror attack had been carried out by other means, and even if some other “segment of society” had been targeted. No, the reason America is divided is because one political party, and that party is the Republicans, has chosen to be divisive and unreasonable. They have actively stoked hatred of their opponents at every turn and refused compromise, cynically calculating that their voter base would follow them along as they moved the goalposts. And they were right.

    • Rob Aught

      Which is why a registered Democrat Muslim shot up a bar. It’s obviously the Republicans full of hatred.

    • steves_59

      The REPUBLICANS have chosen to be divisive and unreasonable? America is divided because of the Republicans? Republicans have actively stoked hatred of their opponents at every turn?
      Your post is ridiculous. Anyone who has been affected by the stupidity of our current crop of screaming campus garbage babies, anyone who was insulted by the “bitter clingers, clinging to guns and religion” comment, anyone negatively impacted by the straight Democrat party-line vote on the PPACA, anyone punched at a Trump rally by La Raza bigots, anyone shouted down by BLM idiots, and anyone stuck living in Democrat-controlled inner cities would disagree.

      “Cynically calculating that their voter base would follow them along as they moved the goalposts” would be a perfect description of Hillary’s campaign efforts. Under criminal investigation by the FBI, this woman “cynically” believes that anyone under investigation by the FBI should be prohibited from buying a gun.
      But not prohibited from running for President, amirite?
      I suggest you sober up before you post again.

  • Rob Aught

    Many of us view the attack in Orlando with horror. We’ve put aside our differences with the gay community to mourn their losses. I may not be a conservative by strict definition, but I do lean right and I know I don’t agree with bathroom policies, gay marriage, etc. All the same, those seem like small matters right now. Gay or straight, all I can think about is the death and damage done to over 100 of my fellow Americans and their families.

    If the Left sees what I see, and to one of the supposedly favored constituent groups, and has decided this is the time to seize on guns, then they are despicable. They are the ones responsible for the divide because they cannot waste anytime to capitalize on this tragedy to push one of their favorite talking points.

    I really don’t want to hear about us as a divided nation. The Left has done this with their constant focus on the difference between race and gender, the difference between rural and urban, the difference between religion and the secular. Many on the Right have undertaken this same hyperpartisanship but the first shot was done by the Left and they show no signs of trying to find common ground. Their actions about this horrible event demonstrates that plainly.

    They are more interested in seizing power than mourning American citizens.

  • skeets11

    In this case I don’t think the terrorist did not have enough brain cells to understand the full implication of his attack on American society, but really managed to hit a perfect inflection point, gays, guns and Islamic terrorism.

  • CD

    I think there is another element at play here…political correctness. When guns are used, the anger within the Left is directed towards the most acceptable enemy…the 2nd Amendment. They have been indoctrinated against anger and prejudgment towards religion (except for Christianity and Judaism) and thus cannot bring themselves to address the growing cancer within the Muslim world.

    You also saw anger being directed towards Christianity (Anderson Cooper’s interview with Fla. Atty Gen. Pam Bondi) and the effort to associate Christian opposition to gay marriage with Jihad. Again, political correctness dictates that the Left’s anger can only be directed towards historically acceptable targets…whites, christians, jews, gun owners, republicans.

    • ThomasD

      Islam is both collectivizing and otherizing. As such it is sympatico with much of the leftist program.

      Christianity (by and large) is a force for individualism – free will and natural law are concepts common to Christianity. This makes it an abject enemy of the left.

    • ARMSTROB

      And it allows Obama to not have to admit his terrorism policies are not working and that he has no other plan. He can dismiss actually trying to fight terrorism and instead just distract the country with his false excuse of guns being the problem while ignoring the real problem. I also wonder if his description of a moderate Muslim is one that supports Sharia law being the rule of law here in the US? That I think is the elephant in the room which he and the MSM refuse to ask.

  • CosmotKat

    “The purpose of terrorist attacks is not, first and foremost, to kill and maim people, but to sow fear and distrust, to undermine the public spirit—to undermine the very fabric of a society.”
    Seems like this is straight out of “Rules for Radicals.” Now onder the Democrats align so easily with the Islamic terrorists.

    “But for cosmopolitan liberals, gun rights are an anachronism—a symbol of all the wrong-headed views espoused by working class whites.”
    Seriously? Only working class whites? This is so elitists and bigoted.

    “Perhaps terrorists who choose to carry out their massacres with guns are actually “taking advantage” of American society in a rather different way than many liberals think.”
    I think you mean progressives, not liberals and they don’t think, they react.

  • http://manipulatingliberals.com Alinsky Rocks!

    It’s becoming more clear to people what truly divides the left and right – our respective beliefs as to the ability of others.

    The left’s response of “we need more gun control” is based on their perception that most people are incapable of acting properly in the presence of a firearm – and for certain wouldn’t be able to use one successfully in self-defence.

    • catorenasci

      I would suggest that the real reason the left wants gun control is that they believe citizens in possession of (effective) firearms would not submit quietly to the left’s agenda, which the left knows the bulk of the citizenry does not approve of. As long as the people are well-armed, tyranny is a tough thing to initiate. Take away almost all of the guns, and there is no ability to resist.

      • http://manipulatingliberals.com Alinsky Rocks!

        I can argue with that catorenasci, however I’m referring to why the average person would would agree with one position of another.

  • ARMSTROB

    If the left really wanted less guns in the hands of those that shouldn’t have them they could do one thing that would immediately turn things around. They could ask why Obama and his DOJ are not going after straw-buyers. Until they do this they are just hypocrites and allowing Obama to put political correctness ahead of our safety. If the progressives were really for our safety and believed in gun control as a means of achieving it they would take the time to learn that the AR-15 is a sales gimmick dreamed up by the gun company who sells them. Even Hillary does not know this so why would anyone take them seriously? The right went along with Pres. Clinton’s assault rifle ban but when it was debunked even Clinton acknowledged it as a waste of time. Now Obama/Clinton and the progressives want to do it again gun sighting lights and all.

    • Piltdown Ghost

      ATF runs stings against straw buyers all the time. Sometimes these sting operations go far enough to commit entrapment crimes against innocent people. If you’re looking for a magic anti-terrorism pill this isn’t it.

      The last line of defense is armed, law-abiding citizens, but that line is erased in gun-free zones like the Pulse nightclub. The surest way to reduce the body count of Islamic terrorist attacks — bombs notwithstanding — is to make ourselves harder targets.

  • RedWell

    “Watching the grimly predictable response to the Orlando tragedy…”
    Isn’t this an entry in that genre, as well?

    • elHombre

      Observing is not advocating, Redwell.

      • RedWell

        I don’t follow.

        My point: after every shooting, the left and right (broadly speaking) square off in this ritualized tit-for-tat. It’s sterile, particularly because both sides suffer some serious cases of motivated reasoning.

        Everyone over here is talking about “The Left” and on the other side, everyone is talking about “the Right Wing.” It would be comical if people didn’t actually believe this is real political discourse.

        • elHombre

          Correct. You don’t follow.

          • RedWell

            Haha. Clever. I now stagger from the scene, bewildered and vexed. How could I have been so wrong?? Thank you, dear interlocutor, for unveiling my intellectual weakness and shame. I only hope I may follow your Disqus exploits and learn what is True and Correct in the ways of intellectual rigor and honesty.

          • elHombre

            Thanks for the blather. Observing is not advocating, Redwell.

  • stefanstackhouse

    We’re not going to get gun control. However, bringing gun owners under a more effective system of training, organization, command & control – i.e., a modern update of the militia concept that is embedded in the 2nd amendment itself – holds greater promise. The truth is that our law enforcement services are stretched too thin and really are not quite adequate to provide the level of protection to the public safety that is needed in light of the new terrorist threat and an increasingly dysfunctional society. They could use a force multiplier. If even a fraction of gun owners would be willing to step up, go through some basic training, and integrate into a tightly controlled and commanded auxiliary force that strictly followed protocols established by the police, they could do much good. They could bulk up the visible police presence, thus deterring criminals. They could provide extra eyes and ears, and equipped with radios to contact dispatch could help the police to respond faster to disturbances. They could cover lower priority locations, thus freeing up more professional officers to surge in response to a crisis situation. They could help with lower-level tasks like crowd and access control.

    I would hope that the NRA and its members would see this as a great and very positive opportunity and would step up with enthusiasm to such a program. I’m not holding my breath that I’ll ever see it, which is a shame, for it is just about our only opportunity to make lemonade out of lemons.

    • Jim__L

      It wouldn’t surprise me to see this happen. But it would have to be in a Conservative administration, I don’t think there’s a change in h*ll a Democrat would go for this.

  • Protest Manager

    “They drove a wedge between patriotic Americans, and evil ones”
    FIFY

  • Josh

    Jason Willick, the author of this article, correctly notes that “the purpose of terrorist attacks is not, first and foremost, to kill and maim people, but to sow fear and distrust, to undermine the public spirit—to undermine the very fabric of a society.” But Willick completely ignores the obvious: killing and maiming people is precisely HOW terrorists “sow fear and distrust.” And the greater the casualties, the greater the fear.

    So no, despite Willick’s claims, terrorists are NOT intentionally choosing to carry out their massacres with guns because of the “political firestorm over gun control” mass shootings cause, and I can say this confidently because of one word: NUKES. Terrorists would love, love, LOVE to get their hands on a nuke or two. It isn’t hard to imagine the scale of the casualities and fear a nuclear terrorist attack would unleash upon the entire world. And the mere THREAT of such horror has been enough to spark a renewed debate of nuclear weapons among complacent governments. And no, fervent debate over nuclear weapons is NOT one of the terrorists’ goals. And even if it were, that is no reason to not have such debates.

    Again, terrorists use whatever is at their disposal to maximize the casualities. The Boston Marathon bombers used pressure-cooker bombs because they allowed them to kill 3 people and maim hundreds of people from a safe distance at an event heavily protected by law enforcement presence. And you can be damn sure that if pressure-cooker bombings oocured on a daily basis like mass shootings, and/or with the casualty rates of mass shootings, articles like this would be a reality instead of merely satire: http://www.satirev.org/us/fearing-regulation-pressure-cooker-sales-spike

    I find it interesting that Willick evokes 9/11 without any discussion of the regulations that passed in the wake of those tragic events. Maybe because the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters, so knives were banned on planes. Willick wouldn’t want anyone recognizing the parallels to Orlando or San Bernardino. The shooters used AR-15 style weapons, so maybe we should ban semi-automatic rifles.

    Furthermore, the “political firestorm over gun control” is not unique to mass shootings by terrorists. The “firestorm” happened after Columbine. It happened after Sandy Hook. After Aurora. After SMCC, Umpqua, Charleston, San Bernardino, etc, regardless of whether or not the mass shootings were labeled as acts of “terrorism.”

    But for the sake of debate, let’s just assume that Willick’s unfounded claim is true, that terrorists are indeed intentionally choosing to carry out their massacres with guns because of the “political firestorm over gun control” mass shootings cause. This is merely yet another reason to @#$%ing DO SOMETHING about it by STRENGTHENING gun control.

    Willick claims that “the Paris attacks should make clear that draconian gun control doesn’t exactly prevent terrorist mass murder.” French gun control laws might not have been able to prevent 100% of all mass murder, but you know what? France does NOT have DAILY mass shootings like the US. So clearly something is working in France that we might want to try here in the US.

    Here’s a thought, how about we try enacting comprehensive gun control legislation (close gun-show loopholes for background checks, require nationwide waiting periods, ban high-capacity semi-automatic rifles, etc)? And if that all doesn’t work, we repeal the laws or let them expire. But we’ve got to give the gun control laws an actual chance. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban only lasted for a decade and it had so many loopholes that crippled the ban’s effectiveness.

    Willick offers no explicit solutions to this (non-existant) problem he has (mis)identified, but he seems to suggest that the only answer is for “cosmopolitan liberals” to shut up. Willick attempts to present himself as neutral, non-partisan, but his biases are obvious, with mischaracterizations of proposed gun control measures as “a scorched-earth-campaign against America’s tradition of expansive gun rights.”

  • Angl0sax0nknight .

    What gets me is the constant anti-gun propaganda and the lefts lies about gun attacks! This country is on the verge of ripping itself apart because the left is talking about illegal gun restrictions!! Who do these leftist tyrants think is going to collect the 300+ million guns in the United? Trying to confiscate guns in this country will be suicidal for any government agent! And any politician that calls for illegally denying the People’s 2 amendment would have a bullseye on their head!!

  • Anthony

    theweek.com/articles/629815/how-alexander-hamilton-solved-americas-gun-problem–228-years-ago

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service