Arriving at No 10 – the offices of Charlie Hebdo – the two men approach Corinne Rey, a cartoonist who is arriving at work with her young daughter, having just picked her up from kindergarten.I wonder if a man who let the attackers in because his child was threatened would go similarly uncriticized. But then, the woman was absolutely correct to gamble that by letting them in, she and her daughter would be spared, even at the price of 12 men's lives.
The gunmen force the terrified woman, also known to her friends as ‘Coco’, to punch in the four-digit security code allowing them access to the magazine’s office. Miss Rey was frogmarched upstairs with her daughter. The pair hid underneath a desk during the subsequent chaos.
Miss Rey said: ‘They said they wanted to go up to the offices, so I tapped in the code.
‘They shot on Wolinski, Cabu… it lasted five minutes.
Contrast her behavior with that of the Israeli security guard, who detected a Palestinian suicide bomber trying to gain entrance to a building, grabbed her, and told her that he would not let her enter, that they would die there together.
63 comments:
Kinda like the stewardesses letting the Saudi hijackers into the cockpit.
Leftists would rather endanger the lives of their president and his family than admit that men are better security guards than women.
I can't condemn her as particularly cowardly.
Part of why 9/11 was so successful was that we had been told for decades "keep calm, don't fight, and they won't hurt anyone" - an attitude that far too many now still have internalized.
After all, no reasonable person would resort to violence, right?
That said, she is certainly NOT brave. Also - with gunmen showing up at the door of a paper with heightened security due to death threats, where journalists had been attacked before, one could reasonably assume that they were there to kill one or more other people.
Saying "no", raising a scene, even getting shot would have warned others and possibly averted disaster for everyone else. While we could not have changed the minds of the attackers, this is a cusp point where one person doing the right thing could have made a huge difference.
Clearly, the attackers counted on being able to easily cow someone there at the door, to gain surprise.
She certainly demonstrated that her life was more important than that of her friends.
I would 100% sacrifice 12 people's lives to save my son's.
Although who the hell takes their kids to work in a place that is under death threats from Islamic crazies !?
Love your blog, but you're so wrong here it's crazy and will provide ammo for others to use against you -- this is an article you should retract. People who point guns very often give orders and are obeyed, by men as well as women. That's the thing with overwhelming force, whether guns or muscles.
That they found someone with a child in their protection made their threat more likely to work -- a parent has first duty to their own children, and it's hard to see in the heat of the moment that the first duty should be released in order to protect acquaintances. (Especially when "the first duty should be released" means something like "I should let them torment my daughter while I look on, and then they shoot me, and then they break the door and go in.")
A security guard is another matter -- and I think that _is_ a topic you've written on (and if you haven't, you should). As you know, men routinely take jobs that involve lethal risks, and we perform those jobs because we agreed to. (But then if we showed up to our post with children we'd be expected to fail.)
I would righteously condemn her if she was one of those "empowered" female security guards who let some armed obviously Islamic thugs into a building.
But then, it is also kind of expected that a female security guard is going to cave in the threat of overwhelming threat. Add in the presence of her child, and.....
*begin sarcasm*
Instead of telling her where to go, what to do, and where to take her kids, shouldn't we instead teach terrorists not to kill?
*end sarcasm*
I'm not making light of her dilemma or the lives lost. I'm just saying people's inability to cope with reality just makes it worse.
A mother or father has an obligation to protect their offspring. They have no obligation, other than what society or culture tells them, to protect third parties. Her duty to protect her child would have to be superseded in some way and I don't see that in this situation.
If she were alone and gave in, you'd have a point. If they threatened a third party's child, you'd have a point. However, she has a duty to protect her child before service to the state.
Yes, she can elect to subordinate that duty, but it shouldn't be demanded of parents to sacrifice their children for others, especially adults who are more capable of defense.
'I wonder if a man who let the attackers in because his child was threatened would go similarly uncriticized.'
If he let them in he was a coward for not defending...if he didn't let him in and he and his child got shot, he was a terrible father. We know how the brainwashing works.
Love your blog, but you're so wrong here it's crazy and will provide ammo for others to use against you -- this is an article you should retract.
You obviously don't know me very well if you think I give even a particle of a damn. I mean exactly what I wrote.
Is the woman's action understandable? Sure. But it was cowardly and it probably cost a few of her co-worker's lives. I can't seriously fault her myself, given that her daughter was there, (although one could reasonably question her sanity concerning that). But that doesn't change the fact that she knowingly permitted two armed men to enter the premises because she was afraid for herself and her daughter.
Furthermore, this is a very important point for men to understand. If, at any time, your interests stand in the way of her child's, you are toast. No matter what.
It isn't just the child.
In my journeys through the wasteland of corporate politics, I have found that even the closest female colleagues have no loyalty if either their careers, their reputation, or their job may be threatened. Zero loyalty. None. Zilch.
Luckily I learned it myself without having my career derailed, and plan my own defenses accordingly, but it is astonishing sometimes to witness the poor blue pill men who are blindsided by this type of behavior.
Zero loyalty and zero accountability. (the exception to the loyalty is that they will be very loyal to an alpha, UNLESS that alpha is perceived as going down in flames, in which case they will either stand by mutely or join the attackers).
So no loyalty at all.
Why should a woman have any loyalty to anyone other than her husband first and family second?
This is one big reason why women have absolutely no place in careers that require loyalty for survival or success. I have no doubt that even without her daughter there, "Coco" would have let those men in to save her own life.
You obviously don't know me very well if you think I give even a particle of a damn. I mean exactly what I wrote.
I know you meant what you wrote. I'm not reporting a typo. But what you wrote is a error, and obviously so if you even think about it for an instant. Not giving a particle of a damn means precisely what it says: you don't care enough about what you're saying to think about it. You just got a feelie, wrote it down, hit publish, and you've got a blogpost. Now you get to shake off the haters.
Keep telling yourself that story, keep the wheel spinning -- or think for a moment, and retract the stupid post.
Furthermore, this is a very important point for men to understand. If, at any time, your interests stand in the way of her child's, you are toast. No matter what.
If the man's interests happen to coincide with the story she's telling herself about herself (AKA the hamster), her child is toast, even if the man is the one destroying the child.
The story's the thing, not the child. The hamster wheel, not reality.
I would 100% sacrifice 12 people's lives to save my son's.
Which is understandable, but not brave or honorable. Defying the wicked in the face of death is brave. Complying with the wicked under threat of death and thus aiding their evil designs is not.
Understandable, but not brave.
But what you wrote is a error, and obviously so if you even think about it for an instant.
I'm surprised you doubled down. So you wish to say that helping the terrorists kill her coworkers to save herself and her child is brave? For Vox to label this "not brave" is an error? Could you elaborate your logic and the correct observation to use here?
Maternal instincts are peculiar. Most people are toast if their interest conflicts with her child's. A mother would give up nuclear warhead codes and a country to save her kid. Contrast that with a woman's ability to disregard her children's interest in favor or divorce and/or an alpha cock.
My sister would have killed for her kid, but she shipped him off 3 hours away to live with his grandparents when he didn't like her felon boyfriend. And I wish I was making that up.
But what you wrote is a error, and obviously so if you even think about it for an instant. Not giving a particle of a damn means precisely what it says: you don't care enough about what you're saying to think about it. You just got a feelie, wrote it down, hit publish, and you've got a blogpost. Now you get to shake off the haters.
You're doubly wrong. The post is not an error. Nor does not giving a damn mean what you falsely claim it means. It means I don't care if it upsets you or anyone else. As for shaking off the haters, where the HELL have you been for the last 14 years. This doesn't even rank in the top 100 most controversial posts or columns I've ever written.
This may be news to you, but some of us don't make our decisions based on the fear that someone else will disagree with us.
I have no doubt that even without her daughter there, "Coco" would have let those men in to save her own life.
I concur.
This is one big reason why women have absolutely no place in careers that require loyalty for survival or success.
Bingo.
@SirHamster to quote game of thrones, 'love is the death of duty'. Which also precisely why women nor homosexuals should serve in the military.
'love is the death of duty'.
Yet duty itself is a type of love. So other loves can kill the love in duty, but duty lives by love.
If the man's interests happen to coincide with the story she's telling herself about herself (AKA the hamster), her child is toast, even if the man is the one destroying the child.
Yep! Women have murdered their own children for tingles.
I wonder how many of us men will have to die before we wake up and realize that the women will not protect us?
Result - if you are in a building where the security can be compromised by a woman, you must act on the assumption that it will be.
I have no doubt that even without her daughter there, "Coco" would have let those men in to save her own life.
I agree, though it's unknowable.
That said, with her daughter present, she had a duty to protect her daughter.
I would 100% sacrifice 12 people's lives to save my son's.
I wouldn't assume that terrorists would keep their word. I'd expect them to wait for me to enter the code, and then kill me and my child anyway, so what point would there be in caving in to them?
This was her Normandy, she made her choice.
I wouldn't assume that terrorists would keep their word. I'd expect them to wait for me to enter the code, and then kill me and my child anyway, so what point would there be in caving in to them?
cail,
That's a fair observation. Like I said, she could elect to subordinate her duty to her child.
I just don't know if I'd ever expect or demand a parent should subordinate their duty to protect their child in order to protect third parties.
For Vox to label this "not brave" is an error?
Someone thinks I'm saying that it's brave to let a terrorist in a door? That's a strawman. Scroll up, my first post is right up there.
On the other hand, it's not unrealistic to suppose that journalists have actually done precisely that, and called this woman "brave". Now a post about THOSE articles I could get behind (and that's the sort of post I expect from Vox). Such a post would point the finger at the nutjobs who would say such a stupid thing, and _correctly_ help people to see how intellectually vapid feminism is.
Based on history of crime and war, the direct threat of a gun _normally_ makes women AND MEN obey the wielder. This is true even when there's almost no hope that the gunman will let you survive, even when your own child isn't involved. This is human psychology 101. It's based on creating the impression of overwhelming life-threatening force (as I said before).
The stupid thing is that my correction led Vox to dig himself in deeper in his error. Oh well, it's not the first time I failed. Maybe I should have spent more time composing my blog comment.
Women only love their children unconditionally. Usually.
Everyone else is subject to conditions, including her husband.
Women only love their children unconditionally. Usually.
Only if they're actually out of the womb. Inside, all bets are off.
@cailcorshev
What would a Spartan do in that situation? What would an idealized Roman do? What would one of the ancient Israelites do? What would any man of any virtuous Stoic society do in such a situation? Would he put his sons life against that of his brothers?
Well, we would. And that's why we are suffering these constant attacks and depredations. We have no sense of brotherhood at all. I think that we men of the West are currently little better than animals. We lack the masculine Virtues. I am not saying we should be Spartans, or God forbid, Romans. Those were terrible, evil men. But they were MEN. This generation, we are neither good men, nor evil men. We are spineless and broken.
Someone thinks I'm saying that it's brave to let a terrorist in a door? That's a strawman. Scroll up, my first post is right up there.
Vox: Female bravery cannot be relied upon if you're not her child. (females not brave)
You: This is wrong and must be retracted.
If Vox is wrong, you're saying there's something here that should be evaluated as bravery. Which? Your previous post only talks about how understandable her actions were.
That's nice, but "understandable" is not "brave". So what do you think is brave here? If you don't think there's anything brave here, then you don't have any substance to say Vox is wrong.
@SirHamster
I think he's trying to say that men would also cave in and let the terrorists in. But, he seems to be confusing men with pussies.
Which isn't relevant.
Women do X.
"Men do X too!"
So what? Does that negate Women doing X in any form? At worst, the statement is incomplete, as opposed to wrong and needing retraction.
I love the story of the 18 year old mother in Oklahoma who, just after her husband's death, defended herself and her infant from an intruder with a 12 gauge and a pistol. So, she knew to grab her weapons, but she still called 911 and proceeded to ask permission to shoot the intruders. The 911 operator told her she "needed to do what she had to do to protect her child."
Though there might be men who would have responded the same way as Coco or the 18 year old woman, we all know stories of the tremendous heroics of men and their selfless sacrifice. It's been many years and many incidences and very very few (if any?) stories of a woman's ability to react swiftly and heroically in a time of need such as this.
I just don't know if I'd ever expect or demand a parent should subordinate their duty to protect their child in order to protect third parties.
I wouldn't either. But like AmyJ, I doubt that her daughter's presence actually had much to do with it except to provide a rationalization for what she would have done anyway. And many men would have caved too, child or no. Only a particularly brave person, and one able to stay calm enough to think through the situation and realize, "Hey, these guys may kill me anyway," would be able to make the hard choice to refuse.
And the fact is that men are more likely to have that kind of bravery and coolness under pressure. Which wouldn't be a problem, except that we now send women into situations where those things may be required, like military service, and then act confused when it doesn't go well.
SirHamster, that's not a summary of the discussion at all; it's completely out of context. I gave a detailed correction to Vox's post explaining that all of the history of violence shows that men and women both routinely cave in the face of overwhelming force. I also talked about the nature of males in risky jobs, which both agrees with the idea that men risk their lives, _and_ shows how bad it is to compare a male on-duty security guard to a female cartoonist with a child next to her.
I absolutely gave no hint of thinking she's brave, and I denied it later. (In fact, it never crossed my mind that someone would think she's brave -- otherwise I might have said she wasn't. Because, of course, she wasn't. That's not what "brave" means.)
The simple fact is that if your building's security rests on civilians not being caught in the parking lot, your building isn't secure against assault. That's a risk most companies are willing to take. But suppose you realized your company was at risk, and responded by subtly hiring only men. OK, did you just stop this event from happening? (Answer: no. Historically speaking, pointing a gun at someone's head and giving orders will _work_. So long as you don't touch religion and don't order them to murder, they won't be able to assess the real threat. Do either of those and they might start to think.)
SirHamster, that's not a summary of the discussion at all; it's completely out of context.
I can read. Apparently, you cannot. Are you a woman, perchance?
And the fact is that men are more likely to have that kind of bravery and coolness under pressure.
That's true. And even more so, men are more likely to willingly _enter_ into jobs where such things are expected requirements. But "cartoonist" is not such a job. (Nor is "editor", although I do admit that guy had balls.)
Which wouldn't be a problem, except that we now send women into situations where those things may be required, like military service, and then act confused when it doesn't go well.
Fantastic point.
And this is part of why I'm scratching my head at this article. Is Vox really intending to say that a woman cartoonist failed by not being a male security guard? Do you want to live in a world full of male security guards?
Let me try one more time. Let's put it this way. If the attackers had not found a woman leading a child (which you claim led directly to their total success), but instead a random (male) civilian employee, would they have failed? Would their chances of success have changed at all?
I read that the woman "gambled" that she'd survived, and "won". OK, fine -- but put the gamble the other way. Were the attackers _gambling_ on finding someone who they could intimidate into opening the door? IMO they were betting on a sure thing, and if nobody had been there or she hadn't keyed the door they would have gone right through. (I don't know that for sure, since it's possible the door was somehow unbreakable -- I just doubt it, I've worked in _really_ secure buildings.)
I think the real gamble for the attackers would be the security officers, not the employees.
"I wonder if a man who let the attackers in because his child was threatened would go similarly uncriticized. "
The leader of my country was roundly criticized by leftards far and wide for hiding himself after an armed attack on our parliament.
And this is part of why I'm scratching my head at this article. Is Vox really intending to say that a woman cartoonist failed by not being a male security guard? Do you want to live in a world full of male security guards?
Let me try one more time. Let's put it this way. If the attackers had not found a woman leading a child (which you claim led directly to their total success), but instead a random (male) civilian employee, would they have failed? Would their chances of success have changed at all?
I hope you're not tainted with SJW ideology enough to be unable to understand statistics. But yes, they would have been more likely to have failed. And the other point is, if a man had caved and let them in, he would have been more likely to have been killed anyway; and if he wasn't, to have been roundly criticized in the press. Coco got off scot-free, as it were.
@Calicorshev
I wouldn't assume that terrorists would keep their word. I'd expect them to wait for me to enter the code, and then kill me and my child anyway, so what point would there be in caving in to them?
Yup.
I was speaking to someone about that today. The woman surely thought that by letting them enter she would save her life and her daughter's. But we know how these people kill without remorse after getting what they want. So she could also have been killed afterwards.
What would have happened if the woman had refused to let them enter? Would the terrorists have killed her? By doing so gunshots would have been heard all around putting everyone else into alert. That would have prevent terrorists to do the damage they wanted. So that probably wasn't an option for the terrorists either.
@wtanksley: Is Vox really intending to say that a woman cartoonist failed by not being a male security guard?
No. Vox did not say nor imply that. It's entirely in your imagination.
Vox writes many posts, especially on this blog, that are descriptive, not prescriptive. People often read in prescriptive messages that aren't there. The message of this post is "this is the behavior you must always expect from women." It is not "I am outraged that this woman acted like a woman"; that's a wrong inference on your part.
Thanks, Johnny. That's a very helpful explanation. I definitely agree that we should counter feminist stupidity by pointing out women acting in ways that show men and women are not the same, and this blog is extremely useful for that.
How do you explain Vox comparing her to the Israeli security guard, though? He was doing his job with loyalty and courage, a model of male virtue; she was ... a civilian with a child. If we hadn't known her gender, we couldn't have guessed. (Now, if a hypothetical unnamed citizen accompanied by a child HAD resisted two AK-47 wielding terrorists we would have known his gender with 99% certainty or better. This would be a fair point for Vox to make.)
I think it's almost certain the same thing would happen no matter the gender, as I've mentioned before (which is why I think this is a useless post), but I admit that people would have criticised a guy, since he wouldn't be fulfilling any kind of manhood (no win).
There are way better examples of useless female security guards, or women soldiers "heroically" captured. There are actually decent parallels in men who resist armed robbery (and I REALLY doubt this is anyone except men). And as I mentioned, DOING YOUR JOB when that means dying is an expression of manhood.
Wtanksley, the thing you're missing (and maybe it's an honest mistake, if you're new here) is that a single blog post isn't made in a vacuum. It's posted in the context of the entire blog, and Vox has posted many articles about the promotion of male/female equality and the media lionizing women every time they DO show any bravery, even if it means rewriting the narrative.
So that's the context here: a woman did what WE would expect a woman would do, but which contradicts the media narrative on Tough Chicks, but does it slow them down a bit? Do they show the slightest embarrassment when it doesn't go the way they say it would? Do they report it the same way they would if a man had allowed shooters into a building full of women?
Those are the points, and you're not going to get them by parsing a single post and looking for things to nitpick. It's not about this particular woman or what she should or shouldn't have done. It's about the wider problem of you-go-girl feminism and media culpability in it -- even unto the point of getting people killed.
Something that younger players often don't understand, is that a woman loves her children more than she can love her man. Accept this and plan your life accordingly.
From the genetic standpoint it was the correct decision.
@Cailcoishev
This is getting depressing. I found an article called How to Find a Feminist Boyfriend and had some fun with it.
cail, the problem is that this woman did what almost anyone would expect almost anyone to do. And this article is treating it like it's some kind of special revelation about women.
Would they report it the same way if it were a man? Well... This happens all the time, to men and women. Most of the time this happens they don't report it at all. This time they reported it because the consequences were so gruesome.
What would be interesting is to find some mainstream news site hailing her as a hero (as happened with that one female soldier). The fact that most of them have found her unnotable is not itself notable -- she IS unnotable. She fits right in with 95% of the population, and 100% of the females. (The stats here are speculation.)
cail, the problem is that this woman did what almost anyone would expect almost anyone to do. And this article is treating it like it's some kind of special revelation about women.
There is no problem. I don't blame her, and I suspect no one here does either.
However, for some men in this world, this is a special revelation, because we were propagandized from an early age that the sexes were equal in all respects even though they are not. We end up confused and hurt because women do what a woman would do, and not what a man would do.
That is why this blog and VD are well worth reading. That you want him to retract this post because it bothers you is silly. The question is not how this makes you feel, the question is, "Is this True?"
As for men - we judge each other and the correct answer is to resist. And so we must steel our hearts and prepare to eat a bullet for the sake of our coworkers, should we be thrust into such a situation.
By and large true, SirHamster. And I do enjoy this blog for the type of post that this is intended to be. I just don't think it succeeds, and this failure is going to be made hash of.
That you want him to retract this post because it bothers you is silly. The question is not how this makes you feel, the question is, "Is this True?"
You can't have missed that Truth is the objection I've been making all along, can you? This post is here only because so many of you think it confirms your narrative. It gives an example of a woman behaving in a uniquely womanly way. And because of that, 12 people died. Compare this to the Israeli security guard.
But it doesn't confirm your narrative. It's just random noise -- it's a woman doing a womanly thing, yes; but it's a womanly thing that so many men would do that if you only knew "someone backed down and did what a gunman demanded" you couldn't guess the person's gender.
From a Bayesian perspective, this isn't evidence.
You give women way to much credit
Maybe she acted to save her child, maybe she acted to save her own ass. My money is on the saving her own ass.
Women show no particularity affinity to children. Frivolous divorce hurts kids and women line up for that; feminism hurts sons and women line up to support that; they line up to slaughter their unborn children or to protect the right to murder the unborn; they abuse their own kids in all manner of ways.... yea not buying the bullshit that women love kids,
I doubt any 12 random "american's" are worth my son stubbing his toe. There is little to no value saving them. Our "co workers" are a different matter though
SFC Ton.
You can't have missed that Truth is the objection I've been making all along, can you?
It wasn't. You wanted retraction. You wanted self-censorship. Falsely hidden behind "I love your blog". You didn't add to his point, you wanted him to remove his point and shut down the discussion ... because people might badthink. That's not Truth loving, and makes it clear you don't know this blog or Vox at all.
You accused me of not paying attention to the context when I've been re-reading this entire discussion for each reply. I am trying to find sense in your objection and I cannot find it. It's nonsensical.
but it's a womanly thing that so many men would do that if you only knew "someone backed down and did what a gunman demanded" you couldn't guess the person's gender.
In our age of men without chests, it might be a 50/50 guess. Still does not detract from Vox's point, nor does it justify a retraction.
If we read that a courageous cartoonist refused to give up the key entry code, attempted to attack the terrorists and was killed in the process - that'd be a strong clue as to being a member of the decisive, aggressive sex.
"Yep! Women have murdered their own children for tingles."
All of them were narcissists/psychopaths/borderlines.
Although who the hell takes their kids to work in a place that is under death threats from Islamic crazies !?
Leftist/Marxist SIWs. Children, like everything else, are, to these creatures, mere accoutrements, props to be used in the advancement of an agenda. They have no value or purpose that isn't political and are only important so long as they serve to advance "the cause."
This woman did the right thing by thinking of her child first. This is precisely what we expect mothers to do. That other people died is lamentable. The woman and her child could also have died, by the way. A man would have made the same decision if it was his wife or his child being threatened. Terrorists know this, which is why they choose vulnerable targets.
If the woman had NOT done what she did, I think in all honesty, Vox, you would have written a post about this and we would all be in agreement with you that she was a terrible mother who had put 'strong independent career woman' over her first duty, which is as a mother.
Men have a natural protective instinct to physically protect women and children, (theirs and others') and women have a natural protective instinct to physically protect children (theirs or others'). All human beings understand this principle, and where it goes wrong we are upset and baffled and disappointed.
This woman did right. Your wife would have done the same. That people died is not HER fault, it is the fault of the terrorists.
That the child should not have been at the workplace is a valid argument, as is the argument that that woman (with a child of kindergarten age) should not be working anyway, but those are separate arguments. Occasionally, men also have their child at work, for various reasons, and it would also be expected that they would do anything to protect that child in the circumstances that this woman faced.
It would have been more deplorable if she HADN'T done what she did. So for this reason, I am with matthew thomas, midknight and wtanksley and others who refuse to condemn this woman. For what it's worth, I am otherwise in general agreement with you that a lot of women are doing bad things and this must be corrected if society's decline can be stopped.
When seconds count, the unarmed police are minutes away on their bikes. My thing with this woman and the women (and some men) that admitted they would do the same thing if they found themselves in her position, they are the ones that are actively pushing for weapons disarmament. Even if all the people had on their side was one pistol in that office, we might have gotten a story with fewer causalities. At least once a week I see at least one of my liberal Facebook friends pushing for more gun control, but can any of them say that if the chips are down, they wouldn't sacrifice my life to save themselves and/or their children? No, (and really no one can) don't legislate out of my right to defend myself with a gun.
If the woman had NOT done what she did, I think in all honesty, Vox, you would have written a post about this and we would all be in agreement with you that she was a terrible mother who had put 'strong independent career woman' over her first duty, which is as a mother.
That is not true. You may believe what you like, but I can assure it is not true.
@AM Apprentice
If it was just me in that situation i'd like to think that i would not open the door but i wouldn't even have to think twice to save my sons life, as far as i'm concerned my duty is to protect him and i would throw you, me and any number of casual acquaintances under the bus to keep him safe.
Maybe you don't have kids so you don't understand how much you love your own children. Also for the record I'm about as right wing and anti gun control as it gets.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned here. The most important thing being that if you're going to hire security guards because you fear for the safety of your employees, you either go all out and hire properly armed and dangerous professionals who know what they're doing, or you let the whole thing go. Fat, sleepy mall cops are useless and instill a false sense of security which is even more dangerous than no security at all. At least when you know there aren't any "security" personnel in your building, you'll remain slightly more vigilant, but if you think Loqueesha will take a bullet for you, you're in for a rude awakening.
@matthew thomas
I don't have kids, but I don't blame anyone that for looking after themselves and family first and foremost. My complaint is that it is mostly women and liberal men that are calling for people to be disarmed. So women, and I am sure a good amount with children, petition their state and Washington DC to put in stricter gun control , but as demonstrated by this woman, if some crazed killer were to come to some enclosed room were I might be at, she will punch in the code.
If you are anti gun control, we have no problem. My beef isn't with you, regardless of what you will do. But know I don't care about you or your kids, I will save my own skin.
All I am asking that I be allowed to carry a firearm without worry about some unarmed police officer on a bike taking it away from me.
Hebdo's shootings just show how modern security only stops law abiding citizens from accidentally bringing a pocket knife into a building. Most, if not all, won't stop a brute force Attack or attackers with a plan.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.