Sudden bloody terror.

I had planned for today a post about anti-heroes and outlaws, some thoughts spurred by my viewing this week of a 2010 French mini-series about the terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal. I’ve decided at the last minute, here at midnight, that it much of it might seem inappropriate given the events in Los Angeles Thursday. An ex-LAPD officer has been on a murderous rampage this week, and his shooting of three police officers, one of whom died, Thursday morning has generated the largest manhunt in LAPD history. The search for the fugitive ex-cop hunting cops is receiving national attention.

I must say that while I am saddened and outraged by the apparent ambush on the police officers, I am also disturbed about the police shooting of two innocent women delivering newspapers in Torrance, victims of mistaken identity. Evidently, the two women were traveling down the street in a vehicle that resembled the murder suspect’s and had their lights off. One woman was shot in the hand and the other in the back. They’ll be okay, yet it must have been a narrow escape as the LA Times reports that “the blue pickup was riddled with bullet holes and what appeared to be newspapers lay in the street alongside.”

I understand that in the aftermath of attacks on police, it is a stressful time for officers in the field and that emotions and adrenalin run high. At the same time, it is hard to imagine how two small unarmed women, apparently of Asian ethnicity, could have posed such an imminent threat to the officers that they would have to open fire on them.

And, of course, we deal once again with needless death caused by a sick person with an assault rifle. Yesterday’s events strike a crippling blow against the theory that people need guns to protect themselves. It doesn’t help. The police officers had guns and yet those weapons provided no protection.

I believe we should strive to become a society without any guns. In Japan, it’s illegal to have a gun, period. Their police don’t carry guns. Britain has the toughest gun control laws in the world. Most of their police don’t carry firearms either. The gun deaths in those two countries each year is but a fraction of the annual gun deaths in the United States.

Wednesday’s post was on guns, and normally I hate to do two posts in a row on the same topical subject, but sometimes that’s the way it turns out. Have a good weekend.

C2Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, aka ‘Carlos’: What are these dumb Japs up to?
Galeriste: What’s going on?
Galeriste: Time’s up. No one’s dead.
Galeriste: Isn’t Furuya in Holland?
‘Carlos’: So what? There’s no plane or crew! It’s useless.
Galeriste: What will you do?
‘Carlos’: Act for them. Algerian-style. Sudden bloody terror.

Carlos (2010)


2 thoughts on “Sudden bloody terror.

  1. True, Japan has a law against owning guns, so therefor you reason no death by guns, should the Japanese also have a law against fists? Women who die by beatings in Japan are among the highest in the world, also rape in Japan is at records highs, because some men choose to penetrate women and children against their will with their penis, should all penis’s be banned in Japan, (if so then include Sweden in penis removal)? In England anyone who chooses may own a gun if they are 18, the gun must be registered, that is the same law that the U.S. has with the exception that 3 people must recommend that the person applying for the gun is of good character. England has one of the highest rate of deaths by blunt instrument, should all blunt instruments be banned in England because the “blunt instrument” poses a threat to society.
    My point being that anything can be used for a weapon, for good or for harm, a knife, a penis, a fist , a gun, a drone, a lamp, an ashtray, a car. The problem I believe is so much deeper that your post professes. We as a society are taught early on many things that are not actually to our benefit. Coping, choices on how to cope with pressures that helps all to live harmoniously together is the answer, not banning items that can only be replaced by different items to accomplish harm. Get to the root of the problem and that is teaching a different way.

  2. Thanks, Deborah for your comment. You do have a point, but let’s take it a step further. Should we allow every country who wants one to possess a nuclear bomb? From what I’ve seen, those who are opposed to banning guns or even reasonable gun control, are dead set against N. Korea or Iran having nuclear weapons. In other words, they want to ban that kind of weaponry for those countries. Why? Because dangerous weapons in the hands of dangerous people is a terrible threat to the welfare of all. Dangerous weapons in the hands of anyone regardless of their intentions is something to be avoided, because there is always the possibility of an accident. That’s why some folks are in favor of banning all nuclear weapons.

    I’m in favor of a weaponless society. There’s nothing to be done about hands and penises. They come with the human body. It’s part of nature. Guns, knives, and so on, are not natural. They are manufactured. Coping, choices – that’s good, if you are a well-balanced person. But we both know that the people who do the most damage with guns and knives are not well-balanced. I want to keep guns from getting into their hands, and frankly, I don’t really believe anyone needs a gun. Put them all in box, tie it with a ribbon, and throw them all into the deep, blue sea.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.