Guns: The Difference Between Garland And Paris

From Breitbart:

REUTERS/Mike Stone

When armed terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo headquarters over Muhammad cartoons on January 7, unarmed police officers were forced to flee for their lives. When armed men attacked people gathered in Garland, Texas, on May 3 over Prophet Muhammad cartoons, armed police cut them down — and the Daily Mail reported that the body of one was left lying the street while police searched for explosives.

The difference between Garland and Paris can be summed up in one word: guns.

On January 7, CBS News relayed reports from Britain’s Telegraph newspaper that the first two officers to arrive “were apparently unarmed” and “fled after seeing gunmen armed with automatic weapons and possibly a grenade launcher.” The UK’s Independent reported that “three policemen arrived on bikes but had to leave because [the attackers] were armed.”

Moreover, the terrorists were able to continue their attack at different points in and around the city for the next 48 hours.

On January 19, Breitbart News reported that French police were demanding more guns as well as guns that were more powerful.  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 on Sunday, where approximately 75 attendees gathered in the Curtis Culwell Center to attend a contest for the best cartoon of Muhammad. The contest was sponsored by New York-based American Freedom Defense Initiative.

Just before the contest ended, two armed men allegedly drove up near the Culwell Center and shot and wounded a security guard before both were killed by heavily-armed Garland PD.

According to a City of Garland May 3 press release:

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. The GISD security officer’s injuries are not life-threatening. Garland Police officers engaged the gunmen, who were both shot and killed.

There was no prolonged, two-day pursuit of attackers, nor were there unarmed police officers dodging bullets on their bicycles. But there were plenty of guns in the hands of good guys who were keeping watch over the cartoon contest and who were charged with stopping any bad guys with guns who might show up.


The headline says it all and that is the reason we must continue to battle all efforts to diminish our Second Amendment. To expect cops to police a city while on bikes and unarmed is insane.


Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Guns: The Difference Between Garland And Paris

  1. BrianR says:

    On-the-spot justice. DRT.

    Adios, you sorry-assed jihadi maggots.

    Here’s what I find especially interesting about this. Every morning, I tune up my day by reading the editorials in the leftist lamestream press: the NY Slimes, Washington ComPost, LA Slimes, etc.

    This morning’s talking points seemed to be about how the contest itself was to blame (natch) for being unnecessarily provocative. In other words, the lefty cowards in this country not only don’t believe in the Second Amendment, but they don’t think much of the First, either (unless they’re using it to trash American values, of course).

    We, as a country, should cede the issue of Muhammed (may he rot in hell forever) and his cartoon depictions to terrorists. Placation.

    Gutless nutless morons, all.

    • Kathy says:

      Of course the lefties would call it provocative, and no doubt they left out the part where the muzzies hosted an ‘awareness’ event at this very same facility shortly after the attack in Paris. At the time there was uproar about a religious event being held on school property and people protested outside that day.

      There was a lot of controversy at that time too, about whether or not other publishers had the nerve to post mohammed cartoons like Charlie Hebdo had done. Many of them didn’t and that’s when Geller called BS on them and scheduled this event.

  2. Buck says:

    It is pretty much obvious to everyone but the gun grabbers that the ONLY people who would abide by a confiscatory gun law would be dumb honest folk.

  3. Uriel says:

    Thank goodness the guns and protection were available, unfortunately it looks like this is becoming the trend just to keep people safe.

  4. Clyde says:

    Dumb assed jihadis. Guess they didn’t “learn thine enemy” well, did they? GOOD. The more of THEM dead, the better.

    • Kathy says:

      They’re going to be sorely disappointed when they get to hell and find out there’s no virgins, lol.

  5. vonmesser says:

    قتلى الحق هناك

    Arabic for Dead Right There

  6. tannngl says:

    Kathy, did you hear all the chatter this morning about how this little group meeting in Garland deserved this attack? Most at least only said they brought it on! Amazing! On FOX!
    Then Alan Dershowitz came on and said, NO! offensive speech is allowed! No one can become violent because of offensive speech!

    Back to your post. We’ve got to remain vigilant on our rights. Individual guns are so important as well as the police weapons.
    Good report.

    • Kathy says:

      I did, tannngl! They labeled it provocative like she’d pushed the envelope too far, so what happened was because they ‘brought it on themselves.’

      I’ve said for a long time that taking the bad with the good is what the 1A is all about. The muslims use it against us, the ‘thugs’ in Baltimore use it to spread racism, Geller used it to shine a light on the muslim impositions being pushed on us. Bravo for her!

      • tannngl says:

        A double bravo for Pamela Geller!
        One other thing that irked me on FOX this morning: Brian kept calling her (Pamella Geller) ‘Pam’. Her name is Pamela! People who change your name are demeaning you. I believe that.
        Ok, I’ll stop.

  7. BrianR says:

    Now HERE’S a real surprise (clearly I’m being ironic…).

    CAIR thinks the people hosting the event were just as “guilty” as the now dead dumb-assed jihadis.

    As we used to say in Nam, kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out.

    (MOST emphatically, I’m not referring to the good Texicans using their First Amendment rights)

    • Kathy says:

      Doesn’t CAIR think we’re all guilty and want to obliterate us? Then they could have our country and turn it into the same cesspool the ME is. They did come in conquest after all. Maybe they just forgot to factor in the Texicans, eh?

    • vonMesser says:

      I wonder if that thimble-brain congresscritter is aware that the NRA-ILA (National Rifle Association – Institute for Legislative Action) is a registered political lobby, and thus CAN support candidates?

    • Buck says:

      I remember and I know what you meant…. (here I would insert a smiley face if I had a smiley face)…

  8. Hardnox says:

    The coolest thing about this story was that an ordinary cop, with obviously a lot of range time, calmly popped both of these scumbags in the head since they had body armor on.

    Garland should have a parade for this cop and declare a holiday in his honor. There’s no telling how many lives he saved.

    Only one rent-a-cop got a nick in the ankle. No one else was injured. It is a miracle and it is all due to this one cop.

    God bless Texans!

    • Kathy says:

      Considering all sides of this, it turned out as good as it possibly could have, except for one thing that sticks in my craw a little. Wasn’t crazy about them herding those people onto the buses, even if it was for their own safety. I think my cooperation would have stopped at that point.

    • Buck says:

      I wondered about the body armor. Head shot in a combat situation. That takes balls!

  9. CW says:

    Love the article, Kathy. It’s especially timely given idiot-mitten Michael Moore’s call to disarm police. There coudn’t be a better debate than the one that played out between Paris and Garland, Texas.

    Second Amendment – 1
    Michael Moore, et al – 0

  10. Garnet92 says:

    Reporting is still sketchy, but from my understanding, the hero policeman who applied a DRT to each of the two scumbags used a Glock .45 and since they were both wearing body armor, apparently he took them both out with head shots. Reports are that they were firing at him with AK-47’s. If that’s the case, that cop is one cool dude.

    Staying that composed under fire, enough to hit both bad guys with head shots with a pistol is the stuff of video games. I haven’t seen any reports of the distance, but it had to have been greater than the nominal 7 yd. combat range.

    It’s believed that the terrorists got there a little early and prematurely started shooting at an unarmed security guy. They were premature in that the event had not yet concluded. If they had waited until a time when the remaining attendees would have been exiting all at once, they would have had a target-rich environment for the bad guys to wreak havoc on innocent citizens. No telling how many they could have killed if presented with that scenario.

    He should be beatified as a saint.

    • Kathy says:

      Thanks for adding that info, Garnet, and I agree, he’s a saint. I don’t suppose they’ve given his name? At the very least, he deserves a headline.

      • Garnet92 says:


        Here’s some more updated information, for what it’s worth. The cop (who still remains nameless) is a 60 year-old dude, and the police recovered a Kel-Tek Sub2000 as one of the weapons used by the terrorists – there’s been no more mention of AK-47s. They’ve said that the terrorists were armed with two long guns and four pistols – nothing more on calibers or manufacturers. One set of soft body armor has been shown in pictures. The Garland policeman who dispatched the two scumbag thugs apparently began shooting at about 20 yds and stopped at about 7 yds – he was advancing as he shot.

        BTW, I think that the Garland policeman should be forever be nameless to prevent retaliation against him or his family by other terrorists. He should be retired and put in the witness protection program – or something like that.

        That’s the latest I’ve been able to scratch together.

        • Buck says:

          Hey, if he’s nameless why the witness protection program?

          • Garnet92 says:

            Because I don’t believe that he’ll remain nameless. Some enterprising media type will learn his name and expose it. I’ll be very surprised if we don’t know his name in a week or two max.