Let the police do their job-- carry a gun!
It seems to be the mantra of the anti-gun left. "Let the police do their job." The implication here is, of course, that it is the job of the police to protect people against crime, not the job of those people themselves.
There is only one minor problem with that-- it's not true.
It is not, nor has it ever been, the job of the police to defend you, me, or any other individual. The "we serve and protect" slogan emblazoned on many police cars refers to the cop's employer-- the city, county, or state for which he works. He serves and protects his jurisdiction by arresting those accused of crimes, gathering evidence against them, and testifying against them in court. By doing so, he prevents them from continuing to victimize his jurisdiction.
Of course, in order to arrest someone accused of a crime, there has to have been a crime committed. For the person against whom that crime has been committed, it is too late for defense; the crime has already been completed. The police are a reactive entity-- they come to draw the chalk outlines and collect the evidence after the crime has been completed-- and all too often, after the victim has been raped, grievously wounded, or killed.
Think of all of the crime stories you hear about on the TV news... those episodes of "Cops" you saw. If you know a crime victim (or are one), think of that. How often did the police get there in time to stop the crime in progress? They often get there shortly after the crime is completed, and are able to catch the bad guys before they get too far... but that's still getting there after the crime is finished.
Think of the Los Angeles riots, where the police found it to be too dangerous and pulled out of the riot zone for days. Think of the lifetime gun-control supporters that hurried to gun shops to buy something they had been telling us for decades that no one needs, because the police are there to defend us. Think of their outrage to learn that they had to wait fifteen days before they could take a gun home-- laws they had helped to pass, but had long since forgotten about.
We like to tell ourselves that things like that can't happen to us, but they can, and for the people of Los Angeles, they did. And while high-profile, ongoing crimes like the L.A. riots are relatively rare, violent crimes as a whole are not. In the U.S. each year, more than five million people fall victim to violent crime.
If "let the police do their job" protected individuals against crime, there would not have been more than five million violent crimes last year, the year before, and the year before that. The cops can't protect you once the crime has started.
From the time that a criminal begins his assault to the completion of that crime is typically a very short time, ranging from several seconds to a few minutes on average. Even the best police department cannot get to crime scenes fast enough to help the majority of victims-- and that presumes you are able to call them right when the crime starts. More than likely, you'll be too busy trying to stay alive to do that.
The police do protect us all from crime. They put dangerous crooks in jail, where they cannot harm us. But for every one they get, there are many more they didn't, or that were released before they got too old to commit more violent crimes-- a function of our "revolving door" justice system. The officers would love to be able to get there in time to stop every crime before another innocent person is raped, maimed, or killed, but they can't. That is why the vast majority of street patrol officers wholeheartedly support the right of citizens to carry guns for their own defense.
Yes, you read right. Conventional wisdom says that "law enforcement" favors gun control, but rarely, if ever, do they interview the actual patrol officers to see what they think. Usually, what they mean by "law enforcement" is police chiefs and other elected officials-- otherwise known as politicians. The actual officers that see, day after day, people that were defenseless against dangerous criminals do not support gun control. They know all too well what happens when people are not able to defend themselves.
Carrying a gun for your own defense is not "trying to do the job of the police." You're not trying to seek out and arrest someone that has just committed a crime, nor are you gathering evidence to be used against him in court. That's the job of the police. What you would be trying to do is protect yourself from a criminal attack.
Being ready to defend yourself against a violent attack complements the work of the police. It prevents a successful crime in the cop's jurisdiction, and provides a living witness (you) to assist the police and prosecutors in putting your attacker in prison. There is nothing about being a willing victim that is helpful to the police in doing their jobs. You make a much better witness if you live to tell about the encounter.
While everyone gains safety (as proven by the U.S. Department of Justice/National Institute of Justice Crime Victimization Survey) by carrying a gun for defense, this effect is the most pronounced for women. It's not hard to imagine why.
A typical unarmed man easily can overpower a typical unarmed woman. Even if that woman is armed with a knife or other such weapon, the typical male criminal is more than a match for her. Pepper spray may or may not work-- if it does, great-- but if not, the chances of serious injury just got worse.
Of course, of the criminal has a gun, he easily has a huge edge on her. No matter what non-gun defensive weapon she has, the typical unarmed male is still more than a match for even an athletic, fit woman.
If a woman has a gun, though, the worst things can be for her is an even match for the bad guy. The gun does not depend on strength to be effective, so the male/female differences are wholly negated (women, in fact, are often better shooters than men). And if her attacker has a knife or just his bare hands, she's better armed than her attacker. That is why resistance with a gun is by far the safest option when confronted by a violent criminal (again, from the government's Crime Victimization Survey.)
Larry Elder put it succinctly: "A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders."
Taking responsibility for your own safety is not "trying to be a cop." It is not uncivilized or morally inferior. It is a just and noble thing-- and if every good person was equipped and ready to repel violent crime, there would not be any violent crime. Would you want to be an armed robber, a rapist, a murderer, if you knew that nobody was willing to be an easy, passive victim?
When a criminal attacks, he intends for it to be your life that is risked, not his own. When his chosen victim produces a concealed handgun, that all changes. Now he is not concerned with robbery, rape, or murder-- he is concerned with survival. He didn't count on that-- he counted on YOU being the one fearing death, not him, and he does not like it.
Criminals are generally cowards. They work hard to pick out people that are weak and vulnerable. They are not looking for a fair fight. They want to overpower and dominate you, not fight you. When their minds switch from "attack" to "survive," criminals will usually have a sudden moment of clarity. That's why most defensive uses of guns end with the attacker running away, no shots fired.
A lot of people claim that guns are no good for self-defense, that they just make things worse, but I strongly doubt that any one of those people would truly rather not have one when they see that shadow approaching them in a dark parking lot, without a cop or passer-by in sight. It happens, even when you think you've done all you can to prevent it. Criminals are experts in picking out situations where their victims are at a strong disadvantage. It's what they do. Unfortunately, if a person needs a gun now and does not have one, s/he may never need one ever again.
There is only one minor problem with that-- it's not true.
It is not, nor has it ever been, the job of the police to defend you, me, or any other individual. The "we serve and protect" slogan emblazoned on many police cars refers to the cop's employer-- the city, county, or state for which he works. He serves and protects his jurisdiction by arresting those accused of crimes, gathering evidence against them, and testifying against them in court. By doing so, he prevents them from continuing to victimize his jurisdiction.
Of course, in order to arrest someone accused of a crime, there has to have been a crime committed. For the person against whom that crime has been committed, it is too late for defense; the crime has already been completed. The police are a reactive entity-- they come to draw the chalk outlines and collect the evidence after the crime has been completed-- and all too often, after the victim has been raped, grievously wounded, or killed.
Think of all of the crime stories you hear about on the TV news... those episodes of "Cops" you saw. If you know a crime victim (or are one), think of that. How often did the police get there in time to stop the crime in progress? They often get there shortly after the crime is completed, and are able to catch the bad guys before they get too far... but that's still getting there after the crime is finished.
Think of the Los Angeles riots, where the police found it to be too dangerous and pulled out of the riot zone for days. Think of the lifetime gun-control supporters that hurried to gun shops to buy something they had been telling us for decades that no one needs, because the police are there to defend us. Think of their outrage to learn that they had to wait fifteen days before they could take a gun home-- laws they had helped to pass, but had long since forgotten about.
We like to tell ourselves that things like that can't happen to us, but they can, and for the people of Los Angeles, they did. And while high-profile, ongoing crimes like the L.A. riots are relatively rare, violent crimes as a whole are not. In the U.S. each year, more than five million people fall victim to violent crime.
If "let the police do their job" protected individuals against crime, there would not have been more than five million violent crimes last year, the year before, and the year before that. The cops can't protect you once the crime has started.
From the time that a criminal begins his assault to the completion of that crime is typically a very short time, ranging from several seconds to a few minutes on average. Even the best police department cannot get to crime scenes fast enough to help the majority of victims-- and that presumes you are able to call them right when the crime starts. More than likely, you'll be too busy trying to stay alive to do that.
The police do protect us all from crime. They put dangerous crooks in jail, where they cannot harm us. But for every one they get, there are many more they didn't, or that were released before they got too old to commit more violent crimes-- a function of our "revolving door" justice system. The officers would love to be able to get there in time to stop every crime before another innocent person is raped, maimed, or killed, but they can't. That is why the vast majority of street patrol officers wholeheartedly support the right of citizens to carry guns for their own defense.
Yes, you read right. Conventional wisdom says that "law enforcement" favors gun control, but rarely, if ever, do they interview the actual patrol officers to see what they think. Usually, what they mean by "law enforcement" is police chiefs and other elected officials-- otherwise known as politicians. The actual officers that see, day after day, people that were defenseless against dangerous criminals do not support gun control. They know all too well what happens when people are not able to defend themselves.
Carrying a gun for your own defense is not "trying to do the job of the police." You're not trying to seek out and arrest someone that has just committed a crime, nor are you gathering evidence to be used against him in court. That's the job of the police. What you would be trying to do is protect yourself from a criminal attack.
Being ready to defend yourself against a violent attack complements the work of the police. It prevents a successful crime in the cop's jurisdiction, and provides a living witness (you) to assist the police and prosecutors in putting your attacker in prison. There is nothing about being a willing victim that is helpful to the police in doing their jobs. You make a much better witness if you live to tell about the encounter.
While everyone gains safety (as proven by the U.S. Department of Justice/National Institute of Justice Crime Victimization Survey) by carrying a gun for defense, this effect is the most pronounced for women. It's not hard to imagine why.
A typical unarmed man easily can overpower a typical unarmed woman. Even if that woman is armed with a knife or other such weapon, the typical male criminal is more than a match for her. Pepper spray may or may not work-- if it does, great-- but if not, the chances of serious injury just got worse.
Of course, of the criminal has a gun, he easily has a huge edge on her. No matter what non-gun defensive weapon she has, the typical unarmed male is still more than a match for even an athletic, fit woman.
If a woman has a gun, though, the worst things can be for her is an even match for the bad guy. The gun does not depend on strength to be effective, so the male/female differences are wholly negated (women, in fact, are often better shooters than men). And if her attacker has a knife or just his bare hands, she's better armed than her attacker. That is why resistance with a gun is by far the safest option when confronted by a violent criminal (again, from the government's Crime Victimization Survey.)
Larry Elder put it succinctly: "A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders."
Taking responsibility for your own safety is not "trying to be a cop." It is not uncivilized or morally inferior. It is a just and noble thing-- and if every good person was equipped and ready to repel violent crime, there would not be any violent crime. Would you want to be an armed robber, a rapist, a murderer, if you knew that nobody was willing to be an easy, passive victim?
When a criminal attacks, he intends for it to be your life that is risked, not his own. When his chosen victim produces a concealed handgun, that all changes. Now he is not concerned with robbery, rape, or murder-- he is concerned with survival. He didn't count on that-- he counted on YOU being the one fearing death, not him, and he does not like it.
Criminals are generally cowards. They work hard to pick out people that are weak and vulnerable. They are not looking for a fair fight. They want to overpower and dominate you, not fight you. When their minds switch from "attack" to "survive," criminals will usually have a sudden moment of clarity. That's why most defensive uses of guns end with the attacker running away, no shots fired.
A lot of people claim that guns are no good for self-defense, that they just make things worse, but I strongly doubt that any one of those people would truly rather not have one when they see that shadow approaching them in a dark parking lot, without a cop or passer-by in sight. It happens, even when you think you've done all you can to prevent it. Criminals are experts in picking out situations where their victims are at a strong disadvantage. It's what they do. Unfortunately, if a person needs a gun now and does not have one, s/he may never need one ever again.
posted by Porcupine Nine at 2:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home