No Mention That It Was A Gun Free Zone

The chutzpah of the gun prohibitionists is certainly on display here. The Brady Campaign is highlighting an article from Mike Bloomberg’s newest media property The article says the abortive terrorist attack on the Amsterdam to Paris train which was stopped by three young Americans, a British businessman, and an undisclosed Frenchman shows that you don’t need guns.

Evan DeFillipis and Devin Hughes say the fact that the people who stopped the attack were unarmed validates data from the latest research by Harvard’s David Hemenway.

In the wake of mass shootings, Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association (NRA) frequently returns to a familiar soundbite: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” The corollary of which is that unarmed civilians are helpless “fish in a barrel.” But the heroes on that French train clearly demonstrated otherwise — and the outcome of that active-shooter incident is just the most recent in a list of examples refuting an argument that has become central to the push for expanded gun rights.

Defillipis and Hughes, Oklahoma-based investment advisors who blog at, go on to say that Hemenway’s “research” shows that having a firearm does not make a person safer nor give you any advantage in protecting property.

What they don’t discuss is why these incidents always seem to happen in gun-free zones. I guess that would not support their narrative.

As an aside and it has nothing to do with the article, how narcissistic do you have to be to put your SAT scores in your LinkedIn profile? There are some things you just can’t make up.

8 thoughts on “No Mention That It Was A Gun Free Zone”

  1. They also fail to mention the fact that despite this person being known to several intelligence agencies as a potential terrorist with ties to terrorists, he was still walking free, in Paris, with an AK 47 and a pistol. Uhhh.. OK then!

    on the aside: it's not narcissism, it's credentialism.

  2. Hasn't Hemenway's prior research been thoroughly debunked? Continuing to rely on his "studies" makes me question their standards (but then again, few "academics" publish papers supporting their point of view, so maybe they have low standards out of necessity?).

    I'd point out that the mindset is the most important factor; the men who responded refused to be victims and go quietly. I'd also point out that had they been armed, it wouldn't have taken six of them to subdue the bad guy, and none of them would have been harmed in the process. And I'd end by reminding them that "gun free zones" only guarantee unarmed victims; the fact that that these heroes chose to fight back anyway didn't alter the odds, which were still firmly in favor of the bad guy.

    I expect these points to be so far above the heads of the writers at that they can't even make out the con-trails, but I'd point them out anyway, to anyone who will listen.

    (And 2350 on his SATs? What's the scoring rubric now? When I took them, the best possible score was 1600! Also, big deal; his work history shows no longevity — 10 jobs in the past 8 years — and he rarely stays in one job longer than 2 years. I wouldn't hire him!)

  3. Maybe the Official Story has changed since I read it, and just double checked, but there's the more fundamental problem that the assailant's rifle jammed before the counter-attack, and he didn't have a magazine for his handgun. Given the initial distance between them, it's entirely possible the assailant would have prevailed if not for that, and his general incompetence.

  4. In their warped little miniature minds, they want all of us to go to hand to hand combatives? Against someone who's (in my case) 35 years younger than me, at least 100 ponds lighter than me, both of which mean faster and stronger. As a fat old man, if I'm going to hand to hand with a young punk like that, everyone's going to die, I just go first.

    If I'm armed, well… you know the saying. Beware the old man; he'll just kill you.

Comments are closed.