It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Belgium Shooting – Case for Gun Control?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 09:13 PM
I was sitting around today and a thought occurred to me. Why haven’t I heard the gun control advocates taunting us with the recent Belgium shooting?

A “lone gunman” shoots and kills his cleaning lady, then enters a crowded shopping area where, using grenades, an “assault rifle” and a handgun, he kills two teenage boys, a 2 year old girl, a 17 month old girl, a 20 year old man and a 75 year old woman. An additional 123 people were injured.

Ordinarily, the gun control crowd would be salivating. But nothing? What’s the deal? So, I began looking into it a little bit and here’s what I learned.

The conclusion for me is that we have in Belgium the harshest gun laws in Europe and certainly one of the worst in the world

That statement is from writer/physician J.J. Martin, from Malonne, Belgium. Continuing in the same article, Martin notes

The actual situation is: A law-abiding ordinary citizen cannot buy any type of firearm, unless he has a valuable reason (money transport, jeweler, etc.). If, by chance, he can have the authorization to buy a gun, the permit will be valid for only three years and a new application must be made at that time. If the permit is not accepted, he will have to sell, destroy or surrender the gun to the police.

Any citizen owning a gun of any type at the date of the new law must register it with the police and ask for authorization to keep it. If the authorization is not granted, the citizen must sell, destroy or surrender the gun to the police.

Now I understand. The horrendous tragedy… no, tragedy isn’t the right word… the treacherous criminal act of a murderer is evidence in support of those who have tirelessly argued that “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”.

In this case, not only did a parolee, previously convicted of possessing 10 prohibited firearms and 9,500 gun parts, somehow obtain more weapons in a country with some of the strictest gun laws, he was also able to obtain hand grenades. Looks like those gun laws aren’t everything they’re touted to be, huh?

Then, I was struck with another notion. Isn’t it interesting how the left is always ready to leap to the defense of Muslims, demanding others draw a distinction between the mainstream followers of Islam and the extremists (which I agree with completely), but treat all American gun owners as extremists? Think about it. When have you ever heard a gun control fanatic say anything like “The person who commits violence with a firearm is in the extreme minority and we should avoid generalizations that demonize the majority of gun owners, who are law abiding and productive citizens”?

Didn’t think so.

posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 09:35 PM
Laws of any kind don't prevent criminality.

Drug laws don't prevent the sale, transfer, and use of drugs.

Gun laws don't prevent criminals from possessing and using guns in an unlawful manner, and in many cases, simply make the law abiding easy targets for those who could care less about the law to begin with. In this case, gun laws didn't even prevent this particular crime from being committed by someone with an apparent lengthy criminal record involving firearms and it certainly didn't prevent this man from accessing military grade explosive devices(grenades).

The culture there is obviously quite different from that of the United States. In the US many gun owners and advocates of the 2nd Amendment see the gun, in general, as a patriotic symbol and beyond that a symbol of our liberty and something to be protected. The 2nd Amendment, and indeed firearms in general, in my opinion, are what protects our rights as individuals.

In the US it is not enough that we have a Constitution and a system to protect our most cherished and fundamental rights, but to take it a step further and enforce those rights with the force of arms if the need should ever arise.

Gun laws designed to infringe upon the right of Americans to arm themselves as they see fit are nothing more than an affront to the natural right of self defense and an invitation for criminals to prey on the weak with impunity.

I thank the Lord every day I live in the US.
edit on 14-12-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 09:44 PM
Man I was all set to come in here guns blazing (sorry) after reading the thread title. Very good point you brought up. Where in the hell did this guy get grenades? I can't even find bottle rockets anymore.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:13 AM
reply to post by WTFover

Whenever I hear of these types of tragedies [This is one of the worst type IMO] I always wonder...

How would this have played out had one or two of the innocent victims been legally armed? We wont know. This case just proves that when and if firearms are outlawed only outlaws will have them. What motivates people to kill? This has been the question going back to the dawn of man.

In my opinion had some of the victims been legally armed the death toll and or the other seriously injured numbers would have been less considering the Perp would have most likely died from 9 mm [This is Europe] lead poisoning to the head. [And justifiably so]

My heart goes out to the victims and their families.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:20 AM
You guys are absolutely correct. The myth that banning guns will somehow end violence is a sham. It's simply an attempt by TPTB to disarm the population, so they can rule us as slaves. Unfortunately, there is a large segment of brain dead individuals that believe the rhetoric. The irony of the whole thing is that the brain dead anti-gun crowd are usually the ones screaming the loudest when the government flexes its muscle and might, and imposes its rule on them, knowing they're unarmed.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:48 AM
Thank you all, for your input.

While looking for info on Belgium's gun laws, I also came upon this blog post. Apparently the author, Gattina, is from Belgium. The date is 22 April 2007.

Of course it happens too that people are murdered but never such massacres could occur like in the USA for example. With a knife you can only kill one person at the time, with strangling, beating etc. too. It's therefore impossible to shoot around like a mad cowboy and kill more than 30 people at one time, as it had happened last week in Virginia.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:39 PM
If the people being attacked were armed or at least one or two this would never have been so bad.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by WTFover

That person is obviously an idiot. They hate guns, because they are personally afraid of them. And, since they are afraid, they think everyone should have that right stripped away. They probably think locking their doors makes their house burglar proof as well.

Osaka School Massacre
New York Stabbing Spree
Richard Speck Murders

That's just to name a few. Let's not forget Jim Jones either.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:53 PM
I **love** how the anti-gunners BELIEVE that by outlawing something the problem goes away! No it doesn't your morons, all a law does is make an actions criminal, it doesn't stop the said action! If outlawing somthing stopped it, there'd be no drugs, no speeding, no murders, no tax evasion (another topic), no buggery etc.

It is better that a few bad men can get guns while the entire populace is free to arm themselves than it is for the populace to be unable to arm themselves while a few bad men can get guns. The worst part is the moment we're unarmed, it isn't the street criminl who is the threat but the government itself who is the threat to the people. History has proven that point time after time.


top topics


log in