Jan 17, 2015 2 min read

The butchery shown from Paris last week brought international outrage towards the men who committed bold acts of terrorism.

But, as expected, the usual advocates for greater gun control here in the United States said more gun laws are needed, using the attacks to advance their claims.

They use this horrific “opportunity” to convince the American people more and tighter gun laws are warranted, and point to terrorist attacks to win support. In their curious “thinking,” more restrictive gun laws are needed, ignoring the fact such restrictive access to guns did not work in Paris.

But let’s ask, “What If?”

Imagine the attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine happened in New York, with the terrorists seeking to kill workers at The New York Times. Would New York City cops have responded as the Paris police did? Would terrorists have been able to open fire on New York streets with impunity? Of course not. New York’s “finest” did not get their well-deserved name for being anything less than the best.

The attack would have ended with the terrorists left dead on 43rd Street, in front of The New York Times Building.

And what about the shopkeeper in Paris? Suppose he had possessed a legal firearm, as many shopkeepers in the United States do. Might he had protected his shop and customers? Of course, if he had been in New York. In Paris, doubtful.

So, while the anti-Second Amendment crowd brings out old unprovable arguments for tighter gun control, let the pictures of last week’s carnage in Paris remain vivid in your head. They show more and tighter gun laws will weaken the police and citizens, putting us at greater risk.

Gerald Fontana

Waynesburg