Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Virginia Tech anniversary creates difficult moment on gun control for lawmakers [View all]ellisonz
(27,776 posts)21. It's a flawed article...
Prohibitedlawed pretenses with flawed analysis and a flawed presentation of statistics. In short, it is just the sort of right-wing rubbish you would expect from a right-winger like Richard Munday.
Here is proof this guy is a massive imbecile with an agenda:
The firearms massacres that have periodically caused shock and horror around the world have been dwarfed by the Mumbai shootings, in which a handful of gunmen left some 500 people killed or wounded.
For anybody who still believed in it, the Mumbai shootings exposed the myth of gun control. India had some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, going back to the Indian Arms Act of 1878, by which Britain had sought to prevent a recurrence of the Indian Mutiny.
The guns used in last weeks Bombay massacre were all prohibited weapons under Indian law, just as they are in Britain. In this country we have seen the irrelevance of such bans (handgun crime, for instance, doubled here within five years of the prohibition of legal pistol ownership), but the largely drug-related nature of most extreme violence here has left most of us with a sheltered awareness of the threat. We have not yet faced a determined and broad-based attack.
The Mumbai massacre also exposed the myth that arming the police force guarantees security. Sebastian DSouza, a picture editor on the Mumbai Mirror who took some of the dramatic pictures of the assault on the Chhatrapati Shivaji railway station, was angered to find Indias armed police taking cover and apparently failing to engage the gunmen.
For anybody who still believed in it, the Mumbai shootings exposed the myth of gun control. India had some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, going back to the Indian Arms Act of 1878, by which Britain had sought to prevent a recurrence of the Indian Mutiny.
The guns used in last weeks Bombay massacre were all prohibited weapons under Indian law, just as they are in Britain. In this country we have seen the irrelevance of such bans (handgun crime, for instance, doubled here within five years of the prohibition of legal pistol ownership), but the largely drug-related nature of most extreme violence here has left most of us with a sheltered awareness of the threat. We have not yet faced a determined and broad-based attack.
The Mumbai massacre also exposed the myth that arming the police force guarantees security. Sebastian DSouza, a picture editor on the Mumbai Mirror who took some of the dramatic pictures of the assault on the Chhatrapati Shivaji railway station, was angered to find Indias armed police taking cover and apparently failing to engage the gunmen.
What a foolishly inflammatory and stupidly reasoned argument. Would you care to defend such tomfoolery?
Also, this isn't Free Republic, we respect copyright law as best as can be discerned. I reasoned the poster could use a heads-up.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
49 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Virginia Tech anniversary creates difficult moment on gun control for lawmakers [View all]
ellisonz
Apr 2012
OP
The entire premise that an external terror attack reflects on internal gun control laws!
ellisonz
Apr 2012
#29
Do you think the Mumbai attack would have had better, equal or worse results (from the perspective
PavePusher
Apr 2012
#49
"All that matters is how we interpret the constitution in the context of today's reality."
ellisonz
Apr 2012
#44
They are doing what their constituents elected them to do - protect gun rights.
GreenStormCloud
Apr 2012
#9
And that is it in a nutshell. Being anti-gun is a death sentence in congress.
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#13
No matter how many times you try and put words in my mouth, it won't work.
Atypical Liberal
Apr 2012
#39