The terror attack in Nice is still very fresh and the horror is at its peak. Other than to cringe in silence, what can one say?

It is early in the investigation and details are not yet known, but it is not too early to ask a very pertinent question which, although sounds ironic or worse, actually has a serious purpose to it.

France is a country without “civilian” guns. The law practically prohibits anyone and everyone from owning any type of gun (exceptions exist but are rare).

So how did that work out for them??

It did not stop the terrorists of Charlie Hebdo or Bataclan from getting guns and it did not stop this lone wolf (it seems) from finding an alternative to guns (although it seems he also had guns and other military hardware), as horrific and as “efficient” as a weapon of death as guns are.

But it did stop innocent civilians from protecting themselves.

Think what could have happened if a Nice-like attack occurred in the US or Israel where guns in the hands of civilians are prevalent?

It is very likely that, given the heightened tensions and risks of terror, many in the crowd would have carried their personal guns and would have intervened to cut short his one-and-one-quarter miles of murderous rampage. Even cutting it by only by half would have saved many lives.

Maybe Democrats should stage a sit-in in Congress to protest the ease with which we give driving licenses to everyone; including, by the way, to illegals in many Democrat-controlled states.

Just a thought.

It is terrorists that create acts of terror, not guns.