This isn't just about The Murderers led by Dupnik, though. This post is about being armed. Police organizations nationwide take stances against open and concealed carry. They claim that they do this because they believe in safety. This is a stupid argument.
Police treat everyone they meet as though they are armed--it's why they stand just behind you when they pull you over, and why they will often have 1 or 2 backup cars show up for a highway traffic stop. Thy treat everyone as though they are armed for the officer's safety. This makes sense. Police can't tell by looking at you if you are a law-abiding citizen or a criminally insane psychopath. It's why they carry guns--so that if they need one, they have one.
However, police organizations don't want you, the law abiding citizen to have that same protection--to be able to defend yourself, and others, if that psychopath goes on a murdering rampage. It wasn't a cop who stopped Jared Lee Loughner's murderous rampage, it was a citizen. It wasn't a cop who stopped terrorists on flight 93 from flying their airplane into the Capitol, it was a group of citizens.
Even if every state passed laws forbidding gun ownership, let alone the carrying of guns, every time you ran into a cop, they would still treat you as a potential threat. Do you know why? Because they know that criminals, being criminals, are pretty unlikely to obey gun laws; and they are unable to tell just by looking at you if you are a criminal or not.
So why shouldn't you have the same protection that police have? As an unarmed citizen, do you have some magical power that allows you to tell who the criminals are and avoid them? Are you able to raise a magical force-field when you get attacked by a criminal? Or are you supposed to call a cop, who has a gun, while the criminal waits around to not attack you?
You have a right to defend yourself, and you have a right to have the means with which to defend yourself. Carrying a concealed weapon doesn't make you more- or less-likely to commit a crime. Carrying a weapon openly doesn't make you more likely to be targeted by a criminal--a predator looks for the weakest member of the herd, not the ones with the means to kill him. Carrying concealed, on the other hand, relieves the section of the population that pees their pants and screams for the police at the mere sight of a holstered weapon. This alleviates the police having to respond to 911 calls from them. Of course, a 911 dispatcher who answers the phone could alleviate it by asking some simple questions. Here's an example of how that call should go:
911 Dispatcher: "911, what's your emergency?"
Caller: "OMG, there's a person here with a gun! Help!"
911 Dispatcher: "Is this person doing anything with their gun? Is he acting violent?"
Caller: "Um, no... not yet. But he could. He's wearing it right on his hip, and he doesn't have a badge!"
911 Dispatcher: "So this person is simply carrying a gun?"
Caller: "Yes! And it scares me!"
911 Dispatcher: "Would you feel safer if this person put the gun underneath their shirt, so you couldn't see it right away?"
Caller: "Certainly I would. I don't want to see those evil murderous things."
911 Dispatcher: "Okay--here's what you need to do: Close your eyes and turn around. Then open your eyes. You now are unable to see the person with the gun. Do you feel safer?"
Caller: "Are you crazy? He's STILL THERE!"
911 Dispatcher: "Of course he is. If you left, would you feel safer?"
Caller: "What? I have a right to be here!"
911 Dispatcher: "So does he. He still isn't doing anything dangerous, is he?"
Caller: "Um, no. Not YET."
911 Dispatcher: "Okay. we'll send a car over as soon as we're done dealing with the people who are actively trying to hurt someone. Until then, I would like you to hide under a nearby desk, or in a closet. If you can, leave the area and get to your local gun shop, where you can purchase your own gun. That way, if you feel threatened, you have the means to defend yourself.
Caller: "Okay. Wait. What?"
911 Dispatcher: *Click*
Police should be wary every time they pull over a car... and they should be wary every time they raid a house. They should worry that the person on the other side of that door has the means to defend themselves, and they should worry that if they are at the wrong house, (it has happened more that you'd care to believe) that the person on the other side of the door has the means to kill them like they would any other intruder.
And in the instance of a raid at a mistaken address, where a police officer is killed by an armed citizen, then a parade should be held for that citizen. If a police officer kills a citizen at a mistaken address raid, or while executing a warrant-less search, or a search like the one in Arizona that cost a young Marine combat veteran who had committed no crime, had no criminal history, was a decorated veteran, family man and hard-working employee his life--because the police lacked the most basic firearms discipline, had a negligent discharge, and responded to their own weapon going off by firing 70 rounds--and killing a Marine who had committed no crime.
That's a really long run-on sentence to say this: Every cop who raided that house should be put on trial for murder. Plain and simple. They violated his rights, they raided his home, and their own ineptitude caused his death--all by actions which they initiated.
Armed societies are polite societies. If you treat everyone you meet as though they have the means to kill you, and they do likewise, it's amazing how fast petty crimes cease. It's even more amazing how fast violent crimes drop. And police, believing that every citizen really does have the means to defend themselves, will be far more likely to consider whether they want to diffuse a potentially dangerous situation.
--Chuck
No comments:
Post a Comment