Originally published May 5 2015
Islamist terrorists attack Free Speech in Texas; guns prevent another Charlie Hebdo massacre
by J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) Most Americans woke up the morning of May 4 to discover there had been another violent incident allegedly tied to militant Islam in Texas. As the day went on, we learned that two gunmen attempted to attack participants and observers of a Prophet Muhammad caricature contest in Garland, Texas, shooting and wounding one guard.
The attacks, for many, conjured up images of a similar attack -- for similar motivations -- January 7, in Paris, France, when two jihadis shot and killed a dozen people in an attack on satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. The attackers even killed two Paris police officers.
What was the primary difference between both attacks? The fact that in the Texas incident, police officers armed with guns managed to thwart a disaster before it happened; in Paris, police are unarmed.
As reported by Britain's Daily Mail newspaper, the attackers in Texas were identified as Elton Simpson and his roommate, Nadir Soofi. Simpson had been a concern of federal officials in the past for allegedly attempting to travel to Africa to join a terrorist organization, though a federal court eventually tossed that accusation.
Armed police in Paris would have made a difference
The paper further noted the similarities between the Paris and Garland attacks, and one glaring difference:
Simpson, 30, who was previously the subject of a terror investigation, and his roommate... Soofi, 34, were armed with assault rifles when they were killed by a quick-thinking traffic officer after opening fire outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Dallas, at around 7pm.
The Charlie Hebdo attackers were armed with similar weapons. So, as Brietbart News noted in a column about the attacks, the difference "can be summed up in one word: guns."
Consider that, on Jan. 7, CBS News relayed a report from Britain's Telegraph newspaper that the first two Paris police officers to arrive on the scene "were apparently unarmed," which caused them to flee "after seeing gunmen armed with automatic weapons and possibly a grenade launcher." A subsequent report by Britain's Independent newspaper said that "three policemen arrived on bikes but had to leave because [the attackers] were armed."
In all, the attackers killed 12 -- a caretaker, a visitor, two officers and eight magazine employees. What's more, they were able to continue their assault on the city and the surrounding countryside until they were eventually taken out by armed police and army units.
But that wasn't until 48 hours later.
The fact that the Paris officers were unarmed was not lost on the rest of the city's police department. On Jan. 19, reported that French police had been demanding not only more firearms but more powerful firearms, a call that was no doubt reissued vigorously as images of helpless Paris police cowering before the armed militants in the moments before they were murdered circulated around the Internet.
Gun control works - when bad guys cooperate
As Breitbart noted:
The Charlie Hebdo attack was very lopsided -- in favor of the terrorists -- because of policing and arms policies, and had revealed a very important point: Gun control was not working.
Fast forward to Garland, Texas. Right before the contest, which was sponsored by the New York-based American Freedom Defense Initiative, ended, two men allegedly drove up to the event, then shot and wounded a guard before both were killed by heavily-armed Garland police officers.
"As today's Muhammad Art Exhibit event at the Curtis Culwell Center was coming to an end, two males drove up to the front of the building in a car. Both males were armed and began shooting at a Garland ISD security officer," said a Facebook post by the City of Garland. "The GISD security officer's injuries are not life-threatening. Garland Police officers engaged the gunmen, who were both shot and killed."
Gun control generally works best when bad guys cooperate -- which is never.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml