Today's JPFO Alert notes that although the slippery slope of "gun control" always remains a threat, for some gun ban zealots, that process is too slow.
No. If the government's hired muscle is shooting too many people, too indiscriminately, the answer is
not to voluntarily surrender the means of defending against them. If they are unnecessarily shooting people out of fear, it's well past time for them to stop shooting, out of a much greater fear of the consequences of such shootings. That greater fear can only be imposed by people equipped to make shooting citizens unnecessarily a terminally dangerous activity.Anything less is surrender.
And as always, if you haven't seen all the great JPFO Alerts written by David, Nicki, Claire, and Mama Liberty, you owe it to yourself to fix that.
Stumble it!
3 comments:
So: if we outlaw the private possession of guns, then police will not be afraid. When they arrest a criminal, or when they question a suspect, or when they make a traffic stop, they will know that the person is unarmed. So, when you reach in your pocket for your driver's license, the cop will not have to worry that you might be drawing a gun. Therefore, the cop won't panic and shoot you.
News flash: criminals don't obey laws. In that leftist Utopia, where the whole world is a gun-free zone, a police officer could be sure that you did not have a gun that you bought legally in a sporting goods store. That's all. He still can't be certain that you are unarmed. You might have an automatic pistol stolen from a National Guard armory. Or a homemade zip gun. Or a switchblade knife. Or a kitchen knife, or a box cutter, or a razor. Or do we outlaw all of those things, too?
Re: the Ferguson case, all of the evidence indicates that Brown attacked the cop, and that the shooting was in self-defense. And there is no reason to think that the cop shot Brown just because "I thought he had a gun," or "I thought he might have a gun." Brown was 6'4" and weighed over 290 pounds. The cop was injured. That "disparity of force" justified the shooting, whether Brown had a gun or not.
It was only a matter of time before the media tried to blame the shooting on a lack of gun control. In 1990, a tourist from Utah was stabbed (repeat: stabbed) to death by muggers in a New York City subway station. The mayor, police chief, and news media responded by calling for...yes, you guessed it: more gun control laws.
You've summed it up nicely, Anon.
The latest issue of The Economist has a cover story saying that police are out of control, that they are shooting innocent black victims right and left, that cops are racist, and that our high rate of civilian gun ownership makes cops fearful and prone to shoot first and ask questions later.
Naturally, Michael Brown and Eric Garner are portrayed as martyrs. Brown was shot "in murky circumstances." (No incident was ever so thoroughly investigated as that shooting. And the evidence led inescapably to the conclusion that Brown attacked the cop, who was forced to shoot him in self-defense.) And Garner was "killed" by racist cops. (Garner was not choked to death. He died of a heart attack, brought on by the strain of the encounter. The cops are not responsible for his diabetes, obesity, and heart condition.)
I believe the Obama administration, and their cheerleaders in the media, want to promote a meme that local police are all trigger-happy, brutal, and racist. That way, they can justify more and more federal control over city and county police and sheriff's departments. Eventually, they want to abolish all state and local law enforcement agencies. Then the FBI and/or Homeland Security would take over all law enforcement duties, from murder investigations to parking tickets. And, of course, "gun control." After confiscating your guns, they will come for your computer and cell phone. After all, any source of information and communication is potentially an instrument of Sedition and "hate speech." ("Hate" means any disagreement with the PC party line.)
And, supposedly, police are jumpy because civilians (aka "the policed") are armed. Yet every opinion poll, such as the one by PoliceOne.com, shows that police are overwhelmingly in favor of private citizens owning guns for protection. That is, when you poll the real cops, who actually patrol the streets and arrest criminals, as opposed to the chiefs and commissioners, who have desk jobs.
And "Progressive" writers always second guess the cops and honest citizens. Zimmerman shouldn't have followed Trayvon Martin; Wilson shouldn't have chased Brown; the NYPD cops shouldn't have confronted Garner.
How about: Martin should not have been trespassing in people's yards, or looking in their windows. And he should not have gone back and attacked Zimmerman. Brown should not have robbed that store, and he should not have attacked Wilson. And Garner should not have escalated a minor altercation into a fight.
The Economist article also claims that blacks are more likely than whites to be shot by police. Even if that were true, it could simply mean that more blacks than whites assault police officers, forcing the cops to shoot them in self-defense.
More men than women are in prisons, and more boys than girls get disciplined (detention, suspension) in schools. That is not because the courts and schools are persecuting males; it's simply that more men than women commit violent crimes, and more boys than girls misbehave in school.
Or maybe the "Progressives" think that, every time a cop shoots a black armed robber in a gunfight, another cop should shoot an unarmed, innocent white guy, to balance the books?
Post a Comment