Now that the surge in gun violence seems to be getting worse while the spread of Covid-19 seems to be getting better, I’m waiting for my friends in Gun-control Nation and my friends in Gun-nut Nation to come up with a new theory as to why so many Americans are walking around shooting at so many other Americans on a daily basis.
Here’s the basic argument that divides the two sides: More guns mean more gun violence versus more guns means more people can protect themselves from violence. So, either we take the guns away from people who use them to commit violence, or we take guns away from people who use them to protect themselves from violence.
But the one group whose access to guns has never previously been questioned, and this group happens to use guns for both purposes, are the cops. After all, cops use guns to shoot people, which is the definition of gun violence, and they also use guns to protect themselves and others from people who would commit violence, right?
It turns out that this question has now become an issue in the heated New York City mayoralty campaign when Maya Wiley, the ‘progressive’ candidate, who has been endorsed by that Communist or whatever-she-is rabblerouser, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, stated in a debate that she ‘wasn’t sure’ whether NYPD officers should be walking around with guns.
Wiley got slammed by all the other Democratic candidates who couldn’t get over their joy in being able to shit attention away from having to explain exactly how they would go about cleaning up the mess that has been created by eight years of Bill DeBlasio’s tenure in City Hall, with our friend Eric Adams saying how ‘alarmed’ he was that someone would want to take away the tools needed by the cops to deal with the ‘thousands’ of guns flooding the city’s streets.
The only problem with what Adams and the other mayoral candidates is saying is that it’s really not clear whether there really is a connection between the cops protecting the city from crime and the cops walking around with guns. The idea that a cop needs to have a Glock on his hip while he stands in the middle of an intersection directing traffic has never been questioned except there have just been too many recent incidents where cops shot the wrong people with their guns.
So far this year, at least 400 people have been shot and killed by cops, although the rate of cop shootings is actually slightly lower than it has been in any year since 2015. So far in June, there have been at least 20 fatal cop shootings around the United States and in only one case was the shooting caught by a body cam, so we have to rely on the account by the shooters themselves as to what actually took place. And I hate to say it, but why should we assume that how a cop describes why he shot someone is necessarily more accurate than how a civilian describes doing the same thing?
My friends who do research on gun violence are always quick to trot out the idea that we suffer so many shootings because we are the only country which gives all law-abiding residents access to guns. Wouldn’t the same argument apply to cops?
The United States has a rate of cop killings which is 10 to 20 times higher than any other country in the OECD, which is about the same difference in the number of guns floating around between the U.S. and the rest of the OECD.
The cops will tell you that the reason they need to carry guns is because all the ‘bad guys’ out there have guns. But there have just been too many cop shootings recently, like the shooting of Patrick Warren in Killeen, TX where the victim was completely unarmed.
I know cops have a tough job. I know they are underpaid, underappreciated, and usually undertrained. But that doesn’t change the fact that a Glock in anyone’s hands is a threat to public safety, okay?
Jun 14, 2021 @ 10:34:10
And there is this one. I didn’t see why the guy had to be shot by the cop when he was shot. He had a gun, was waving it at the sky and telling the cops to shoot him. Warning. The ending is not pretty.
https://www.abqjournal.com/2399062/apd-releases-details-of-ventana-ranch-police-shooting.html
Jun 14, 2021 @ 13:12:50
Antigun people tend to use “Glock” as a shorthand for “evil scary concealable handgun.” Anyone else notice that?
Jun 14, 2021 @ 16:10:17
A Glock in anyone’s hands is a threat to public safety…that’s why I only have two Glock pistols. I keep them locked up so that the threat is minimized.
This is another good reason why I have several Sig Sauer pistols and have found them to be no threat to public safety. My Sig Sauer’s have never even had negligent discharge.
Jun 15, 2021 @ 10:19:33
Glocks seem to be ubiquitous out here. The Los Alamos and Santa Fe P.D.s issue them. I got my FS-92 half price when a security firm replaced its Berettas with Glocks. It does seem to be the gun analog of “Xerox this paper”.
Jun 15, 2021 @ 13:53:41
The only threat to public safety either I see or the founders saw is gun control and government.
What do you think the odds are that the founders of a great country who researched and debated every right are wrong and the delusional mentally impaired promoters of gun control are right.
People who without fail blame guns as the cause of crime no matter what their mealy mouthed excuses are. If gun don’t cause crime as they agree, on what excuse do they want to endanger innocents citizens lives by disarming them? They are innocent citizens because those they disarm are free citizens with all rights. So it is gun control that is public enemy number one endangering citizens lives. Who in their right mind would think disarming the victims of crime will make them safer. There is nothing more dangerous than ideologically driven nut cases willing to without thought endanger the lives of all including woman and children by removing the only protection they have.