Constitutional Law

John Lott's latest

Over at the Fox Forum.

"In India, victims watched as armed police cowered and didn?t fire back at the terrorists. A photographer at the scene described his frustration: ?There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything. At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, ?Shoot them, they?re sitting ducks!? but they just didn?t shoot back.?

Meanwhile, according to the hotel company?s chairman, P.R.S. Oberoi, security at ?the hotel had metal detectors, but none of its security personnel carried weapons because of the difficulties in obtaining gun permits from the Indian government.?

India has extremely strict gun control laws, but who did it succeed in disarming?

.....

The attack also illustrates what Israelis learned decades ago. ? Putting more soldiers or police on the street didn?t stop terrorist?s machine gun attacks. Terrorists would either wait for the armed soldiers or police to leave the area or kill them first. Likewise, in India, the Muslim terrorists? first targets were those in uniform (whether police or security guards).

Terrorists only stopped using machine guns to attack Israelis once citizens were allowed to carry concealed handguns. In large public gatherings, a significant number of citizens will be able to shoot at terrorists during an attack ? and the terrorists don?t know who has them."

Hat tip to reader Bret Gallo!

Full post as published by Of Arms and the Law on December 02, 2008 (boomark / email).