Philadelphia

Gunman Tries to Kill Cop in West Philly 'in the Name of Islam,' Mayor Calls for More Federal Gun Control

Gun used was a stolen police firearm.

|

Philadelphia PD

Last night, Edward Archer tried to kill a police officer in West Philadelphia by firing 13 rounds into his car, striking him three times in the arm in what police call an "attempted assassination."

"This guy tried to execute a police officer," said Philadelphia's new police commissioner, Richard Ross. "The police officer had no idea he was coming. It's amazing he's alive."

The suspect was apprehended and reportedly made a full confession. The Washington Post reports:

Ross said during a later news conference that the suspect confessed to the shooting and said he did it "in the name of Islam."

Police also said that the attacker told authorities he pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, the militant group that has declared a caliphate in parts of Iraq and Syria.

The gun used in the shooting was a stolen police firearm, Ross said.

Police have not mentioned a specific motive and won't yet say if they're investigating the incident as terrorism.

Among the newly-inaugurated mayor of Philadelphia Jim Kenney's first comments about the attack were that "there are just too many guns on the streets and I think our national government needs to do something about that," as reported in a Christian Science Monitor piece about using the shooting as part of the "national conversation" about guns.

The district attorney, Seth Williams, also appeared to use the attack to push his agenda on guns. "This shows us the need for smarter laws when it relates to guns on the street," Williams said. "My office is going to do all that we can to ensure the defendant is held accountable to the fullest extent of the law."

It's unclear whether Williams will explore how the police firearm was stolen in the first place and whether anyone at the police department responsible for not getting guns stolen might face some kind of responsibility, criminal or otherwise.

President Obama's unilateral gun control measures, which are mostly aimed at law-abiding civilian buyers and sellers, do include efforts to "explore potential ways" to limit accidental discharge and "unauthorized use" of firearms owned by federal agencies, which collectively make up the country's largest firearms purchaser.

Supporters of gun control measures often hedge that it's impossible to "predict" whether any specific measure would prevent a specific crime being used to push more gun control, but that, as Attorney General Loretta Lynch said, if paperwork and patience saved even one life it would be worth it.

Controlling the guns in the local Philadelphia government's possession won't be helped by anything the national government can do, despite Kenney's pleas. Kenney doesn't have to wait for the feds to impose more paperwork on controls on police guns, and could start by getting a grasp on how many, exactly, are missing at any given time, as well as how they are used off- and on-duty.

Despite fears of a "war on cops" fueled by a desire to thwart reforms and a fatal shooting of two NYPD cops at the end of 2014, 2015 went down as one of the safest years for police in the U.S. on record. There was no crime wave either. There were, however, a string of police shootings that drew varying levels of national attention, and continue to propel a discussion on police reforms.

Of note, too, that despite Archer's proclamations that he pledged allegiance to ISIS, few people, if any, are jumping to call this an act of terror simply because of the invocation of Islam. The argument that that is what often happens in America has been one of the specious arguments advocated by some on the left to call the armed activists in Oregon "terrorists."

In this instance, it was liberal leaders themselves in Philadelphia who jumped to kickstart their civil liberties-violating political agenda off a crime that drew national attention, just as liberals would accuse supporters of a tougher war on terror of doing if (or when?) they used the attempted murder of this cop to demand more civil liberties-violating measures of their own. Welcome to 2016.

NEXT: Death Rates Rise for Young White Americans Too

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Holy shitsnacks

    1. Dude, inappropes.

      1. You’re not my supervisor

        1. Looks like the Philly cops are in a zone of danger.

          1. Well I’m sure they drove on a highway to get there

    2. I didn’t think Archer was affiliated with ISIS anymore.

      1. I lol’d

  2. “Police have not mentioned a specific motive”

    Yes, they did!

    1. “In the name of Islam” seems like more of a general motive and doesn’t tell us anything about why he’d attack this specific person at this specific time.

      1. Reading locally about it, the guy is apparently off his meds or delusional.

      2. The specific motive is a general motive. I’m sure the Koran didn’t proscribe that adherents murder this particular cop in 2015. It’s more of a general standing order to kill infidels wherever and whenever you can. His motive was a belief in Islamic ideology, why he chose this particular cop or cops in general to target I assume was because maybe he felt there’d be more honor or more productivity in targeting a cop to satiate his supposed god’s bloodlust. Or maybe he just wanted black lives to matter more or something.

        1. Actually, Surah 34:108 reads “And in the year 1437 A.H., should a kaffir known as Jesse al-Philadelphia should arise and swear his allegiance to the police, then verily, thou shalt strike him down in the sight of Allah. But should he desist his allegiance and transgressions, then forgive him, for verily, Allah is the most-merciful.”

      3. “In the name of Islam” seems like more of a general motive and doesn’t tell us anything about why he’d attack this specific person at this specific time.

        I dunno, did we need a specific motive on why Muhammed Attah flew a plane into Joseph Agnello who was having his coffee on the 87th floor of the World Trade Centers?

        1. I didn’t say we needed one. Just that we don’t have one.

    2. Yeah, Gunman Tries to Kill Cop in West Philly ‘in the Name of Islam,’ motive unclear.
      No matter what you do, don’t mention the war Islam!

      1. I mentioned Islam a little bit, but I think I got away with it alright.

  3. It’s unclear whether Williams will explore how the police firearm was stolen in the first place and whether anyone at the police department responsible for not getting guns stolen might face some kind of responsibility, criminal or otherwise.

    You should have just mic-dropped here. Beautiful.

    1. But…

      mayor of Philadelphia Jim Kenney’s first comments about the attack were that “there are just too many guns on the streets and I think our national government needs to do something about that,”

      Perhaps they could start by taking guns away from the cops?

      1. And leave them vulnerable to the Muslim Hoards?

        Wait… I’m on board.

        1. Muslim Hoards?

          Are they hoarding stolen police sidearms?

          1. Yes. It appears that they are.

          2. Where can I find some Muslim WHORES?

      2. Perhaps they could start by taking guns away from the cops?

        It’s the only logical takeaway.

  4. I’m not sure how shooting cops in Philly helps establish a new caliphate in Iraq. Maybe there’s a Chaos Theory of Jihad with which I am not acquainted.

    1. Of note, too, that despite Archer’s proclamations that he pledged allegiance to ISIS, few people, if any, are jumping to call this an act of terror simply because of the invocation of Islam.

      It certainly seems like it was intended as a terrorist action. A really, really, retarded terrorist action. But a terrorist action, nonetheless.

    2. Destabilize other countries with terrorist attacks, cause mass retribution against Muslims due to violence, use retribution to convince Muslims they’re at war with the West, use new recruits to commit more terrorism.

      That’s the goal. It’s not a smart goal, but ISIS has basically admitted that’s what they’re trying to do.

      1. It’s not a smart goal

        Are you kidding? It’s ingenious and it’s working. Have you seen the useful idiot yokels here clamoring against Muslims?

        But you nailed it. That is EXACTLY their goal.

        1. It’s not a smart goal because a backlash against Muslims would just result in all the Muslims getting killed or deported, not an effective long term destabilizing of the country.

          It requires a lot of things to happen – a) the country has to have a backlash that is violent but b) the backlash has to be minor enough that it doesn’t force Muslims to leave the country. They’re shooting for a sweet spot that’s probably unobtainable.

          1. They’re shooting for a sweet spot that’s probably unobtainable.

            I don’t know, there exists a strong aversion to appearing intolerant in the west. They can always just push the white guilt button when things heat up too much. And yes I oppose Islam and yes I get called “yokel” for this, but 99% of the mentions of mass detentions, deportations and concentration camps I hear is coming from the multicultists strawmanning those who simply call Islam what it is.

            1. Ironically it’s the multicultists and their failed experiment in Europe that is going to lead to deportations and concentration camps, and yet it’s the people that have been warning about it that they blame.

              1. Yeah, the idiots clamoring to alienate innocent people hold no responsibility.

                1. Because the proper response to alienation is violence?

                  1. Perhaps violence. More likely with support for it.

                    Let me ask you something RG, I treat you like shit for something someone else did, how do you respond?

                    1. Ignore you. It’s that friggin’ simple. Maybe you are the racist for not expecting the same from certain cultures.

                      Or maybe you are Pope Francis who thinks bad words about imaginary friends should result in violence. Either way, you’re off the rails.

                    2. So I threaten to deport you for the actions of another and you’re going to ignore me?

                    3. Yes, you have zero ability to deport me.

                      But you’re going down an interesting path in which you seem to think violence, or support for it, is the acceptable response to non-violent threats.

                    4. If you treat me like shit for something someone else did, what should I do?

                      Get all jihaddy and attack lots of people who aren’t you?

                      Or is the answer “Hitler”?

                2. Hey Frank I don’t control the news, I don’t create world opinion, all I’ve been saying was bringing a bunch of Muslims into the west would lead to conflict, and it has.

                  Point this out and I get called a racist, say “I told you so” after the fact and I get called a racist and someone blamed for the conflict I predicted. I guess I should be flattered that you think I have that sort of power over people.

                  1. I told you so?

                    What the fuck are you talking about? You are in no position to “I told you so.” A tiny subset of refugees are criminals and that proves your point? BULLSHIT!

                    There is a small subset of criminals within EVERY group.

                    There is no conflict but the one you. and those like you, are creating by blaming innocent people for the actions of criminals. The very concept is immoral and, needless to say, outside libertarian principle.

                    1. Come off it, pal. Now you’re into subsets? An even tinier subset of people are calling for reprisals, yet you’re on here flipping out over people pointing out the problems with assimilation.

                    2. I told you so?

                      What the fuck are you talking about? You are in no position to “I told you so.” A tiny subset of refugees are criminals and that proves your point? BULLSHIT!

                      Uhh there’s every reason to say I told you so. Every honor killing, every gang rape and class of crime comitted grossly disproportionately from their numbers in the west is another reason to say I told you so.

                      No one said that every single Muslim will spill blood. But there has been plenty of talk about their culture being largely incompatible, about mass numbers of them taken in short periods of time being nearly unassimilatable and their particular brand of crimes being widely supported.

                      There is a small subset of criminals within EVERY group.

                      But typically those criminals don’t enjoy such widespread support from the group.

                      The very concept is immoral and, needless to say, outside libertarian principle.

                      Being a utilitarian-in-denial, you yourself are outside of libertarian principle.

                    3. But there has been plenty of talk about their culture being largely incompatible

                      Said every xenophobe ever to walk the earth.

                      But typically those criminals don’t enjoy such widespread support from the group.

                      [citation required]

                      And even if correct the right thing to do is drive the innocent to support the terrorist. When there is a simple alternative…punish the guilty.

                      Being a utilitarian-in-denial, you yourself are outside of libertarian principle.

                      Says the anarchist that doesn’t support freedom of movement.

                    4. Said every xenophobe ever to walk the earth.

                      Great smear.

                      [citation required]

                      I have literally posted this data for you a dozen times in the past. Large proportions of the Islamic world support death for apostates, honor killings, stoning of adulterers, execution of blasphemers and even go so far as to offer moral support for suicide bombers, Al Qeada and ISIS and their goals. Get off your ass and google “muslim public opinion polling”, I’m not doing this for you again.

                      Says the anarchist that doesn’t support freedom of movement.

                      I’d support it if it were real. There is no freedom of movement that isn’t bounded first by property rights and free association. Neither of which are ameliorated by the existence of public property or public accommodation laws. But of course this doesn’t occur to people who are fundamentally inconsistent, like yourself.

            2. “I don’t know, there exists a strong aversion to appearing intolerant in the west. They can always just push the white guilt button when things heat up too much.”

              Obviously, the white guilt button has an override, since the progs are able to call for disarming black people – as well as largely-brown people on TSA lists – in the name of Goodness and Niceness.

              1. Progs are never intolerant. Never. Ever.

          2. It’s not a smart goal because a backlash against Muslims would just result in all the Muslims getting killed or deported, not an effective long term destabilizing of the country.

            They’re not aiming for long-term destabilization here, they’re aiming for war fatigue.

            1. Don’t they also believe there’s some big prophesied battle where they defeat the armies of Rome or whatever? They’re basically a doomsday cult, they have no incentive to plan long term because as far as they’re concerned, doubling down on the crazy will only hasten their inevitable victory.

              Now, of course, that does strike me as an oversimplification–surely not everybody there is drinking the millenarian Kool-Aid–but if it’s true that that’s the underlying endgame of their thinking…

              1. I just think they’re taking a much longer view of this war then we are.

            2. War fatigue is mostly a factor when the war is elective. That’s currently the case in the US, but if they ever started to make serious inroads in Europe, the US’s cultural ties to that continent are strong enough that we would still feel they represented an existential threat (the same can be said for the rest of our continent and South America, particularly given ISIS’s fixation on Rome).

              When dealing with a widely perceived existential threat, a society is likely to generate a mass movement of its own (which will, whatever else it is, be deeply anti-Islamic). That means unity, self-sacrifice, and the abandonment of individual morality for collective punishments. And if the enemy is genocidal in nature, it’s that much easier to justify using genocide against them.

              Al Qaeda and ISIS need to read more Hoffer.

              1. Again, as Irish said, it’s not a smart goal.

          3. It’s not a smart goal because a backlash against Muslims would just result in all the Muslims getting killed or deported, not an effective long term destabilizing of the country.

            They don’t care about that. It’s essentially a call to arms.

            Their target audience isn’t just the Muslims within a given country. It’s Muslims everywhere. Doesn’t matter where it happens, all the terrorists need do is to be able point to anywhere people elect to punish all Muslims for the crimes of the terrorists. France is a perfect example.

            Terrorists attack. Yokels take it out on the Muslim population. Terrorists say, look how Muslims are being treated by Christians (et al.). Terrorists gain support. Terrorists can continue with their immoral/criminal/political activities under cover of religion.

            This is Terrorism 101 and as I’ve said before, those calling for repercussions on all Muslims are useful idiots.

            1. This is Terrorism 101 and as I’ve said before, those calling for repercussions on all Muslims are useful idiots.

              I strenuously object to the notion that John is useful.

              1. To the terrorists, he’s a godsend.

            2. The useful idiots were the dumbasses like you calling the the importation of these animals, not the people warning against it.

              Don’t blame the messenger, we warned this shit would happen, and all you idiots did was call us racists. If there is going to be conflict, war, deportations, concentration camps then the blood is on you and the other multicultists’ hands, and not us for daring to warn you that this is where it was all going to lead.

                1. Where’s the backlash? European leaders are tripping over themselves to let in more, despite their citizens well founded concerns.

                2. The useful idiots were the dumbasses like you calling the the importation of these animals, not the people warning against it.

                  Indeed.

                  Part of Francisco’s error is to think of Muslims as merely a racial or ethnic “group,” against whom one should not make broad generalizations. But Islam is a religious and political ideology. It’s not “discrimination” against Nazis or Communists to hold those group members to the tenets of their ideologies. It doesn’t matter if an individual Nazi or Communist has personally killed a Jew or put someone in a gulag. Islam is a violent, anti-libertarian ideology, whether any individual member is violent or not.

                  1. Violent

                    As is evident by the 3.3 million Muslims peacefully living in the US.

                    And you’re right it’s not libertarian. And neither is Christianity. But you don’t hear libertarians calling for the deportation of Christians either, do you PSF? You can both believe whatever nonsense you wish, with my blessing, provided you do not infringe upon the right of another in doing so.

                    Those that do should be punished. Those that don’t should be left the fuck alone.

                    1. the 3.3 million Muslims peacefully living in the US

                      Not even counting the ones who aren’t “living peacefully” because they are committing acts of terror or are actively supporting such people, there are plenty who voice support for religious violence. They’re just too small a group to do much about it… yet. From the polls at the link:

                      The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 19% of Muslim-Americans say that violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law in the United States

                      The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 25% of Muslim-Americans say that violence against Americans in the United States is justified as part of the “global Jihad”

                      Pew Research (2011): 1 in 10 native-born Muslim-Americans have a favorable view of al-Qaeda.

                      The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 51% of Muslim-Americans say that Muslims should have the choice of being judged by Sharia courts rather than courts of the United States

                      Pew Research (2011): 8% of Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified

                      The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 33% of Muslim-Americans say al-Qaeda beliefs are Islamic or correct.

                      The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 38% of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct.

                    2. ha I see you beat me to it.

                    3. And 1 in 10 Americans believe in the Easter Bunny. Hell, you believe we should fuck with an entire group of people based on the actions of a tiny portion of them. That makes you as immoral as them, or worse.

                      Show me the violence.

                    4. As is evident by the 3.3 million Muslims peacefully living in the US.

                      (2015): 33% of Muslim-Americans say al-Qaeda beliefs are Islamic or correct. (49% disagree),
                      http://www.centerforsecuritypo…..l-Data.pdf

                      (2015): 38% of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. (43% disagree),
                      http://www.centerforsecuritypo…..l-Data.pdf

                      It’s not a tiny minority.

                    5. And how do either of those two bullets imply they aren’t peaceful? How many have initiated force?

                      So we should punish the entire community based upon the beliefs of 1/3 of the population? I say again…BELIEFS.

                      What are you, the fucking though police?

                      Like I said, you can believe any nonsense you want. If you aren’t initiating aggression, who gives a shit?

            3. Yokels have yet to take it out on Muslims. Refusing to pay for refugees to relocate to western countries is terrible advertising for ISIS. “People who are fleeing our reign. The west is so terrible they refuse to let you live for free in their territory for the rest of your natural life!” I’m sorry but the current calls to restrict refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants from ISIS controlled territories are just not the propaganda boom you think they are.

              1. Woah are you suggesting that simply not allowing refugees in isn’t the same as being the 3rd Reich?

              2. I’m not referring to moving refugees.

              3. Exactly! There has been no backlash, only the people who warned this world happen saying “I told you so” and warning that things are going to get worse if something doesn’t change.

            4. The Muslim community insofar as it bears any burden for the actions of terrorists, and it doesn’t presently, would be probably owing to the broad support that Islamism, shariah and Islamic terrorism receives from the Muslim community in most Muslim majority countries and those residing in the west. It’s not my society that is backwards and intolerant of Islam and Muslims, it’s exactly the other way around.

            5. Terrorists attack

              That’s step one in your progression there. Terrorists attack.

              And then the people defending themselves are ‘yokels’?

              Why?

              Because you make the assumption that they’ll retaliate on the wrong people? That they’ll retaliate on the terrorists and the people the terrorists have hidden among?

              You do understand, don’t you, that there’s only one solution to the scenario you suggest? A final one?

              If every time they hit us and we hit back it makes more terrorists then, de facto, all muslims ARE terrorists–or will be.

              1. Fucking Right to Self Defense. How does it work?

          4. It IS a smart goal–just look at Francisco’s reaction–

            A muslim kills a cop and everyone is stupid/pants-shitting/racist/whatever the SJW brainworm that has eaten the minds of so many Hampersanders lately says for daring to think this might have something to do with Islam.

          5. the backlash has to be minor enough that it doesn’t force Muslims to leave the country.

            I think you mean “the backlash has to be minor enough that it doesn’t force Sunnis to leave the country.” Each sect is an infidel to the others.

      2. That’s the goal. It’s not a smart goal, but ISIS has basically admitted that’s what they’re trying to do.

        They’ve certainly succeeded in making me less free with all the security theater we engage in.

        1. They’ve certainly succeeded in making me less free with all the security theater we engage in.

          They may have sparked it, but make no mistake…we did that to ourselves.

          1. They may have sparked it, but make no mistake…we did that to ourselves.

            No, people I didn’t vote for have done it to me.

            But I understand your technical point.

      3. It’s not going to work out in their favor. If other countries shut their border they’ll lose their safety valve for dissidents. If the folks with the options of fight, flee, or die lose the flee option they are going to start fighting. Unlike most of Africa these guys won’t be able to rely on foreign aid to keep they just comfortable enough to prevent their people from killing them.

    3. I’m going with crazy person influenced by terrorists’ ideas for now. I don’t imagine much rational thought went into this particular incident.

      1. I’m going with crazy person influenced by terrorists’ ideas for now.

        John Robb predicted this almost a decade ago.

        1. The link, it is SugarFreed.

      2. Probably mistook the Islamic ban on pork. Thought they were talking about the Pigs.

      3. “I’m going with crazy person influenced by terrorists’ ideas for now.’

        Sounds that way. If he were a proper, pray 5-times a day moozie, he’d at least have had the decency to get a proper name, like Mohammed Hazzam Rashid Safir Al Bella Vista

        I have a little experience with ‘crazy people’, and they do have an incredible propensity to take items from the news and amplify them in their mind until they’ve become almost-spiritual forces.

        1. Not just items from the news. A lot of severely mentally unstable people are hyper-religious. Some interpret the voices in their head to be God, angels, or demons.

      4. I’m going with crazy person influenced by terrorists’ ideas for now. I don’t imagine much rational thought went into this particular incident.

        I agree. It feels lone-wolf-ey.

      5. “You don’t have to be crazy to become a fanatical jihadist, but it sure helps!”

    4. And ISIS will claim responsibility for this, I’m sure.

      People go nuts everyday. If connecting with nutjobs and provoking them to jump over the edge is the extent of ISIS’ operational capacity, then we should be even less concerned about them than I thought.

      1. we should be even less concerned about them than I thought.

        You’re thinking about it in the wrong way.

        How much money did ISIS spend in sending out the meme that has inspired a handful of shootings in the US?

        How much money are we going to piss away outfitting beat cops with Robocop-like body armor due to this?

        The cold equations of 4th generation warfare.

        1. That is a good point. One of the best way we could fight ISIS is with humor and ridicule. But we don’t do that because it would be racist and offend Muslims.

          1. And you’ll be called a proponent of violent reprisals and concentration camps just for criticizing Islam and Muslims.

          2. There exists video of senior ISIS officials performing gay sex acts with teenagers.

            Have you ever heard about or seen it?

            1. Wait, I thought that was kosher over there. At least if they were on top.

              But I did hear that they enjoy being cuckolded by Jews while watching from the closet.

              1. They can’t even write thinly-disguised pornography without blaming the Jews. Really!

          3. Yes, one thing I definitely agree about with you people is that people need to stop being all afraid to offend anyone who isn’t of white European Christian extraction. And stop acting like criticism of a belief system is racist.
            I still want to respect all Muslims as individuals (to the extent that they deserve respect). But that does not extend to not saying what you think about their beliefs and cultural practices. The first amendment is great because it protects both the right to practice ones religion and the right of others to tell you that your religion is fucked.

            1. The problem is what a jihadist faction of Muslims is doing with Islam.

              I don’t think they represent a majority, because ISIS and other fanatics keep trying to recruit from what they seem to assume is a silent majority that isn’t involved in jihad – or in ISIS terms, isn’t involved in jihad *yet.*

              1. Yeah, I agree with that too. There do seem to be a lot of people open to the jihad thing, but I see no reason to assume it is anything close to a majority.

              2. True, but the jihadi terrorists aren’t the West’s only problem, or even the prime one. Compare the number of KKK church bombers to the number of people who supported Jim Crow. Unfortunately, the West is largely comprised of uppity blacks, in this analogy, so both the chaotic evil and the lawful evil faction are a problem.

    5. Shoot enough cops and cops will stop showing up to work and things will decay pretty quickly. I terrorizing cops and judges is how you run a insurgency.

      I am not saying one would succeed here. But this guy was not wrong to think shooting a cop was something that would help one along.

  5. “The gun used in the shooting was a stolen police firearm, Ross said.”

    Police have not mentioned a specific motive and won’t yet say if they’re investigating the incident as terrorism.

    Among the newly-inaugurated mayor of Philadelphia Jim Kenney’s first comments about the attack were that “there are just too many guns on the streets and I think our national government needs to do something about that,” as reported in a Christian Science Monitor piece about using the shooting as part of the “national conversation” about guns.

    The district attorney, Seth Williams, also appeared to use the attack to push his agenda on guns.

    The gun was stolen from the police, and they’re using this to push for gun control?!

    Is the whole damn world about “noble” lies now and never letting a crisis go to waste? Surely there must still be some honest people out there somewhere.

    1. 13 shots and didn’t kill him. That’s poor gun control

      1. Cop weapon, cop accuracy

        1. Ya but it’s missing the passive voice

          1. Non-cop finger on the trigger

          2. Tense was past.

    2. Imagine how many guns will be stolen when they confiscate all 400M privately held firearms.

      1. About 400 million?

        1. Accurate to the hundred millionth part. Impressive. *harumph*

    3. Heck, I remember when David Dinkins was mayor of NYC, and he used a stabbing incident to call for more gun control. They’ve never been particularly big on honesty or shame.

      1. I liked it better when they were blaming everything on global warming.

    4. as soon as a shooting hits the news circuit, they jump to more gun control as fast as possible. i wonder how much they are hoping this does not get widely distributed, after they realized it was a gun stolen from the only people they think should be allowed to have guns

  6. West Philadelphia, born and raised?

    1. I bet some neighborhood kids will soon move to their uncle and auntie’s in Bel Air.

  7. The Philadelphia Police Comissioner’s reaction has a lovely parallel with the German Interior Minister’s reaction fretting about right wing groups…

    Both are incorporating a worry about their political opponents’ narratives into their immediate reaction to the incident at hand.

  8. The gun used in the shooting was a stolen police firearm, Ross said.

    Police have not mentioned a specific motive and won’t yet say if they’re investigating the incident as terrorism.

    Among the newly-inaugurated mayor of Philadelphia Jim Kenney’s first comments about the attack were that “there are just too many guns on the streets and I think our national government needs to do something about that,” as reported in a Christian Science Monitor piece about using the shooting as part of the “national conversation” about guns.

    The Party of Science at work again, I see. I’m sure glad we have these sterling intellects to guide us into the 21st century.

  9. The gun used in the shooting was a stolen police firearm, Ross said.

    You mean that kind of gun control?

    1. Make stealing illegal. Duh doy.

  10. “Of note, too, that despite Archer’s proclamations that he pledged allegiance to ISIS, few people, if any, are jumping to call this an act of terror simply because of the invocation of Islam. The argument that that is what often happens in America has been one of the specious arguments advocated by some on the left to call the armed activists in Oregon “terrorists.””

    I’m willing to call it an act of terrorism. He tried to kill a non-combatant to spread fear in support of a specific political goal, which is like the definition.

    1. Yes it is. It is a half assed act of terrorism but it is an act of terrorism, just like the woman in Las Vegas that ran down the people on the sidewalk screaming Allah Akbar.

      And one other thing; even if it turns out this guy is a psychotic doesn’t mean this isn’t an act of terrorism. Since when can mentally ill people never engage in terror? What the hell kind of sense does it make to say that an attack is only terrorism if it is committed by someone who is certifiably sane?

      1. Wait, she actually did because of Islam. Last I heard the motive was unknown. I’m not surprised I didn’t hear the motive if she was an Islamic extremist, but it’s still interesting.

        1. that is what I have read. The Las Vegas police and media let the whole thing drop out of sight because Las Vegas does not want to scare away tourists because of a terror attack.

          1. Could you link a source for that? All I’ve seen re: Islam comes from sites that are not reputable, Snopes claims it’s not true, and I can’t find an article corroborating the Islam claim.

            1. The article I read is that she was homeless and frustrated she couldn’t find anywhere to park and sleep. She sounds like a person with a lot of problems that snapped.

            2. All of the various right wing websites claim witnesses heard her scream Allah Akbar. Of course that is hardly proof. However, the Sheriff has repeatedly said he is “uncomfortable with speculating on a motive” and every single major news media story on the subject I have ever seen says nothing about her motive. They don’t even speculate about it.

              I have never seen a murder case where neither the police nor the media will even speculate about the motive. Have you? Maybe infowars and such places are wrong. They often are. But, I honestly can’t think of any reason why both the police and the media are so quiet about her motive other than it being terrorism. Can you?

      2. Right. We don’t claim serial killers who are total lunatics aren’t really serial killers.

      3. So, was the Planned Parenthood shooting pro-life terrorism or the act of a clearly unhinged person?

        1. The organizational calls make a difference. ISIS is actively encouraging people to take up arms for their cause without seeking direct funding or materials from the main organization. Pro-life organizations have not made public calls for killing folks in Planned Parenthoods in years (if ever). Many have even actively discouraged such behavior.

          1. Why does that make a difference? Was the shooter’s intent to terrorize a non-combatant or not?

      4. What the hell kind of sense does it make to say that an attack is only terrorism if it is committed by someone who is certifiably sane?

        Yeah, if that were the case there be few, if any, “terrorist attacks” since I suspect the vast majority are carried out people that aren’t all there.

  11. The shooter was drawn to the mystical power of the gun. He had no choice but to find an easy target and start shooting.

    If we disarmed the police, then they wouldn’t have firearms to lose and innocent people wouldn’t be corrupted by the power of evil guns.

  12. Disarming the police seems like a good compromise.

  13. You know what other Archer pledged allegiance to ISIS?

    1. Perfect phrasing

    2. Lana…LAna……….LANAAAAAAA!!!!!

  14. Those darn crazy police gun nuts! They don’t need semi-automatic battlefield weapons only designed to kill lots of people!

  15. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said, if paperwork and patience saved even one life it would be worth it.

    Um…no…it wouldn’t.

    Fuck off slaver!

    1. Bureaucracy – doing God’s work one ream of paper at a time.

  16. More reasons to ban Muslims and more reasons to ban guns!!!! Something for everyone!

    1. Now that’s bipartisanship!

    2. Speaking of banning Muslims, that case we were talking about yesterday isn’t shaping up so well for asylum seekers:

      “BERLIN ? At least 18 asylum seekers are among 31 people who have been identified so far by the federal police as having played a role in a violent assault on young women in the German city of Cologne on New Year’s Eve, the Interior Ministry said on Friday.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01……html?_r=0

      The big story is that the media in Germany, apparently, did a self-imposed blackout of the story–especially in regards to the assailants being overwhelmingly Muslim immigrants / asylum seekers.

      1. I’m curious as to how this all eventually be blamed on Israel.

        1. The immigrants are obviously acting out their trauma caused by the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

          1. They are just powerless people venting their frustration over the situation on the West Bank. Look Lee, you can’t expect these people to go and take on Israeli tanks with their bare hands do you? Groping innocent German woman is the only means they have to resist.

            1. …something about rape as an “insurrectionist act” a la Eldridge Cleaver…

        2. curious as to how this all eventually be blamed on Israel.

          Jews control the banks and weather making the Arab world hot and poor, which leads to increased violence by young Arab males. It’s like you’re not even trying to keep up.

          1. We have read the same pamphlets.

      2. I saw someone on twitter the other day complaining that the German media released the ethnic background of the assailants, even though it’s completely relevant to immigration debates. Here’s how the left works – they call people bigots for making predictions that mass immigration from misogynistic societies might harm women, then when people from those societies behave exactly as predicted the left argues it’s wrong to talk about it even though it proves the people they were just calling bigots right.

        It’s like a religion. They set up the situation so that their worldview is incapable of being refuted by facts.

        1. Uh it’s not just the left. Read some of the comments in the PM links last night.

      3. And blaming gun control is analogous to victim blaming.

      4. I believe Reason has already stated their opinion that Asylum seekers are not the same think as refugees. Yeah, I couldn’t type that with a straight face either.

        1. And we can trust the federal government to properly vet and ensure no one dangerous gets in. I can’t type that with a straight face either.

          1. Look according to Reason the government sucks at every single thing except vetting the refugees, and if you disagree you’re worse the Hitler.

            1. You are a double racist. And that is like worse than being a racist.

              1. Double yokeltarian republitarian latte racist

          1. Legally and in common parlance like that used by the news are two separate things. It’s like saying the ex who guts your pet and leaves it on your bed isn’t insane because they knew what they were doing is wrong. Yes legally you are correct, but you knew what I meant when I said it.

            1. That’s what I meant by “But what’s the point”

      5. Just as, in the United States, if the media doesn’t report on the race of a perp who commits a horrible crime, everyone will assume the guy must be black, pretty soon it will assumed in Europe that if the media don’t report on a perp’s ethnicity, he must be Middle Eastern or North African.

        1. And yes, I meant to say “he”, not “he or she.”

  17. PA resident here. Wonder if there is any connection with this dude and the keyboard jihadi recently taken down in Harrisburg. They should look into it.

  18. I’ve read one EO was to drop the CLEO sign-off from NFA purchases. Isn’t that the raison d’?tre of a 199 gun trust?

  19. I’m not a jump-to-overreactions type of guy, but if anyone wants to use this as an excuse to wall off Filthadelphia, you’ll get no argument from me.

  20. ” as Attorney General Loretta Lynch said, if paperwork and patiencebillions of dollars in new Federal bureaucracy saved even one life it would be worth it.””

  21. Gunman Tries to Kill Cop in West Philly ‘in the Name of Islam,’ Mayor Calls for More Federal Gun Control

    Saying there’s a problem with the guy doing the killing is racist.

    1. No Diane. This guy is black and a Muslim. Saying there is a problem with the guy doing the killing is DOUBLE RACIST!!

      1. Samuel L Jackson must be vastly disappointed.

        1. If only the killer could have been a hated white man.

          1. And an NRA member to boot.

            1. and a militia member

              1. I’m pretty sure if that were the case we’d all be swimming in the Left’s cum from their collective “world’s gushiest orgasm.”

  22. So now I suppose all you crazy NRA GUN NUTZ!!!! will be saying that ALL policemen should have guns!

    1. The police should be allowed to carry anything a civilian can carry.

      1. Reverse that and I agree 100%.

        1. I should have put a vice versa in there, but yes, that’s what I meant.

  23. I’m not sure if this rises to the level of an Iron Law. Maybe there is some subsidiary level.
    Like Pewter regulations. Anyway…

    Anyone who says they want to have a conversation about an issue is lying.

    1. How is the 911? is it done?

      1. Porsche or a terrorist attack?

      2. alas no. the restorer succumbed to his drug addiction and just….left.
        I’ve found another guy to complete the job, but he’s working in between other jobs.
        It’s painted, but the assembly is taking forever, a million little details.

        1. Restoring cars is such a shady endeavor sometimes. I feel for you. My engine threw craps last summer. After a long odyssey trying to find another, I finally just had the one I had rebuilt by a place up in Canton, Connecticut. I should have it back by the end of the month. We should email and trade horror stories.

          1. you can e-mail KenBruce911@yahoo.com and I’ll send you some pics

            1. Yes it does. And I emailed you. thanks.

            2. *Signs up for Hillary as well as Bernie’s campaign propaganda emails using KenBruce911@yahoo.com as email address*

              /I keed, I keed… maybe

          2. Your car doesn’t have the infamous IMS bearing failure does it ?

  24. Remember folks, if we keep guns away from EVERYONE, Muslims get swept up in that.

    1. Only if that EVERYONE includes the police.

  25. Kenney … could start by getting a grasp on how many, exactly, are missing at any given time, as well as how they are used off- and on-duty.

    Exactly. But this would probably save more than one life, so fuck it.

  26. Oh, and nice alt-text.

  27. This is a story all about how
    My life got twist-turned upside down
    And I liked to take a minute and sit right there
    And tell you how I became the Caliph of a town called Bel Air

    In west Philadelphia born and raised
    In the mosque was where I spent most of my days
    Chillin’ out, maxin’, salatin’ all cool
    And all shootin’ some mortars at a school

    When a couple of Yahdui who were up to no good
    Startin’ makin’ trouble in my neighborhood
    I got in one lil’ fight and my Imam got scared
    He said you’re movin’ with your cell in Bel Air

    I whistled for a cab and when it came near
    The license plate said “Jihad” and it had a miniature Kaabah in the mirror
    If anything I can say this cab is rare
    But I thought now forget it, ya habibi, to Bel Air

    I pulled up to the house about 7 or 8
    And I yelled to the cab “‘ayri feek, smell ya later”
    I looked at my caliphate, I was finally there
    To sit on my throne as the Caliph of Bel Air

    1. *sustained opera applause*

  28. Police also said that the attacker told authorities he pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.

    I wouldn’t feel bad at all if the feds charged him with treason and then sentenced him to death.

    1. That’s actually a brilliant idea.

      Wait no, thought about it for a second. Someone would try to apply it to the ranchers in the nature center. Best to stay away from that one.

      1. Except that the ranchers haven’t openly declared their allegiance to another nation.

        I suppose in order for this train of logic to work, the US would have to recognize ISIS as an actual nation, and maybe that’s not a good idea as it would bestow some sense of “legitimacy” on ISIS.

        Plus, it wouldn’t stop the Progtards from trying to argue that treason charges apply to the ranchers, no matter how nonsensical it would be.

        1. Yeah, I know there is a difference, but I don’t trust the people in power not to trip all over themselves to prosecute the ranchers instead of this guy. We’ve got him on murder. No need to make the charges worse when there are potential bad side effects for the rest of us.

        2. the US would have to recognize ISIS as an actual nation, and maybe that’s not a good idea

          If it was the prerequisite for declaring and fighting a real war to eradicate them, there might be a silver lining.

  29. Among the newly-inaugurated mayor of Philadelphia Jim Kenney’s first comments about the attack were that “there are just too many guns on the streets and I think our national government needs to do something about that,”

    Fuck off, slaver.

  30. There was no crime wave either.

    Tell that to Heather MacDonald.

    1. I can say while it’s anecdotal, it seems like crime is increasing where I live. I’m getting local crime blotter ‘reports of shots fired’ continuously. It used to happen here and there, but it seems nightly now.

      I suspect 8 years of shitty economy are slowly catching up to us.

  31. So a crime is committed with a gun stolen from a cop, and the mayor’s reaction is to conclude that this underscores the need to limit gun ownership to cops? That sounds like the level of derp I would come up with if I were building a gun-grabber straw man, trying unfairly to make the gun control crowd look stupid.

  32. Since the gun was stolen from police, we obviously need to find a common sense way of reducing the number of weapons in the hands of police.

    Sounds like the the attacker was violent and crazy, and getting more crazy:
    http://www.philly.com/philly/n…..oting.html
    http://www.philly.com/philly/n…..quot_.html

    According to his mom:
    She said that Archer had suffered head injuries while playing football for Pennwood High School and in a moped accident several years ago.

    “He’s been getting worse,” she said. “He’s been talking to himself . . . laughing and mumbling.” She said that he thought he was being targeted by police.

    According to court records, he was scheduled to be sentenced Monday in a Delaware County case. He was found guilty in a November non-jury trial of forging documents, careless driving, driving with a suspended or revoked license and other related offenses.

    In Philadelphia, he was sentenced in March to nine to 23 months in jail and two years probation in an assault case.

    He was charged with aggravated assault, conspiracy, firearms offenses and terroristic threats for a January 2012 incident but pleaded guilty to simple assault.

    1. Reminds me of this guy. All that’s preventing this from being national news is the missing allahu akbar.

  33. Luckily, the new mayor of Philadelphia stated today that “Islam has nothing to do with what happened, This is a criminal with a stolen gun. has nothing to do with being Muslim” So that clears everything up. the mayor’s remarks have nothing to do with his pledge to the Al-Aqsa Islamic Society, which he signed in July.

    1. So what was the mayors pledge to the Al-Aqsa Islamic Society? Got a link?

    2. Local Philly news broadcast almost immediately switched to officials calling for gun control. I’m waiting for one government official to say, “You know, actually the best way to stop most of the the shootings in this city is to confiscate the guns of all black males.”

  34. Anyone seen Bearodinson around lately?

    Unarmed militia groups calling themselves “Soldiers of Odin”, wearing black jackets and hats marked “S.O.O”, have sprung up in several towns in Finland where asylum seekers are housed, claiming they want to protect citizens from “Islamic intruders”.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..eport.html

    1. And it begins. *sharpens axe

    2. Odinism is basically right wing nationalism.

      Black Metal legend Varg Vikernes is an Odinist, going back to his far right roots from his upbringing. They go Odinist because they see Satanism as a reactionary form of Christianity/Judaism/Islam.

      That’s not to say that all Norse pagans or even Odinists are right wing racists, but there’s a division between them over that issue.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Heathenry_(new_religious_movement) #Racial_issues

  35. Police also said that the attacker told authorities he pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.

    Which means the guy probably just pledged allegiance to Bill Cosby. The fuzz like to exaggerate.

  36. to bad there is no mental health and background checks for islam? otherwise this might have been prevented

  37. Jim Kenney is a union sucking asshat.

  38. A Muslim terrorist tries to murder a police officer and the Democratic mayor plays the emperor’s mew clothes in denying Islam has anything to do with the attempted murder. Islam has everything to do with the attempted assassination. The Democrats who deny this have a great psychological affinity with activist Islam while the Libertarians who support the Muslims and want the destruction of Israel are doing it for antisemitic reasons. Instead of gun control, we should have Islam control and ban Islam according to a proposed amendment: A proposed constitutional amendment to ban Islam

    “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here.”

  39. so we find a gun stolen from a cop used to try and kill someone (I’l leave aside for now that that “someone” is another cop). Until the mayor and new commissioner can provide the details of how and when that gun “escaped” control of the police and “jumped” into this perp’s hands, he’d better be quiet when it comes to demanding more federal laws to control our guns. Seems the perp could just as easily stolen a car and used iit in a suicide ramming of the first cop car he coud find. Probably would have been more effective….. so in that way I’m glad the clown used a gun. Or tried to.

    Can anyone tell me just what new “common sense gun laws” could possibly have prevented this crime? What, is that crickets I hear?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.