Another day another Fox News bombshell.
Allow us to introduce you to Emily Miller, an investigative reporter for Fox’s DC affiliate, and talking head on Fox & Friends.
Miller appeared alongside Democratic strategist Brian Benjamin to discuss whether the Charlie Hebdo and subsequent attacks would have been less deadly if they had taken place on US soil.
The Monday report, introduced by host Anna Kooiman, opened with this comment from Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson:
“One thing that is different here is weapons are universally available and so, uh, it is actually a very good thing that the tensions are not exactly the same because we would expect to have a lot more of that sort of carnage here.”
Miller jumped straight in with both feet, stating: “I think, you know, as far as French gun laws, it’s basically a gun-free zone. As we’ve seen in the United States, gun-free zones lure evil crazy people like terrorists there because no one fights back.
“When you have a terrorist attack some place where someone has a gun, or any kind of attack, any kind of public shooting, that’s where they fight back, so gun free zones like France, where unfortunately even the poor police aren’t carrying guns, it’s just very attractive to somebody who’s going to go in with a gun.”
Kooiman ran with it, asking Benjamin: “When we see terrible massacres happen in the United States don’t we see them in gun-free zones like schools and movie theatres?”
Benjamin replied: “We do but the concern we have to worry about is the lone wolves, this is starting to pick up around the world.
“And my concern is because of the fact we have the ability for these guys to just go into any gun show and just pick up guns legally, you could be on the terrorism watch list, pick up a gun, my concern is what happens if they just start just shooting people everywhere, around the country because they have the ability to do it and our government allows it with our gun laws. ”
Adopting a sneering laugh, Miller then suggested Robinson, who writes a twice-weekly column for the Washington Post, should “Write this out as his explanation for the ridiculous comment that the second amendment puts us more in danger of terrorist attacks, it’s the polar opposite. The second amendment is what keeps us safer from terrorist attacks because foreigners know we have guns.
“I’m a gun owner, I was a victim of a home invasion a few years ago, I decided to get a gun to protect myself. Millions and millions, half the country has a gun in the home. A terrorist knows that if he goes in places that are not gun-free zones, people can shoot back.
“Like the guy who had the camera phone in this horrible crime when this policeman in Paris was shot in the head begging for mercy… the person who was taking that video, if they had been a concealed carrier, or like me a gun owner, they could have shot the man, maybe put him on defence, but instead they just watched and took a video.”
When Benjamin repeats his concern that terrorists could buy guns at gun shows, Miller concedes: “But the fact is there’s a lot more people who can shoot back at them.
“And mostly, if they’re foreigners, they can’t buy a gun legally…but you know what it doesn’t matter. All the gun control laws in our country will never stop crime, in the history of this country… there has never been a gun control law that has reduced crime.
“I can’t think of any gun control law that prevents terrorists because you know what? If they are murderers, they don’t care what the laws are already.”Suggest a correction