Three police officers were shot in a New Jersey police station by a domestic abuse suspect who somehow got a gun. The suspect was killed. One officer suffered abdominal wounds below his bullet proof vest, while the other two were grazed. All are expected to recover.
Yes, another senseless tragedy caused by a nutjob combined with a tragic screw-up.
But this incident shows how flawed the NRA's "more guns" idea is. A police station is the best-case scenario for the "protective" nature of guns. Everyone there is a trained professional. They know exactly who the bad guy is. Yet somehow he got a gun and shot three cops.
This is not the first time this has happened: it happened in Michigan in 2011, again in Michigan this November, in Virginia in 2006, and so on. Then there are the accidental shootings at police stations (Huntington Beach this July). And then there are the "freak accidents," like the woman was accidentally killed in Detroit when she hugged an off-duty cop.
We know with certainty that more guns in schools will result in some number of additional deaths each year due to accidental shootings and guns being wrested away from guards. The question is: will the deaths caused by the presence of armed guards outnumber the deaths that might be saved from mass shootings?
The NRA would like us to just write those accidental deaths and
injuries off as collateral damage, the same way we write off Afghan children killed by drones. Considering how rare school shootings actually are, starting a big program of volunteer armed guards would likely increase the number of deaths in schools.
But the fact is, even in the best-case scenario, an armed guard can't prevent anyone from ever being shot: the hope is that the guard will cut the carnage short by taking the shooter out after he's opened fire. It's the same rationale for banning large-capacity magazines and "assault" rifles: you can't completely stop the killing, but you can minimize it. The problem with the armed guard solution is the bad guys always get a preemptive first strike on the guard, and if it's successful you've just provided the shooter with additional firepower.
Putting real cops in schools isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it's very expensive and it's not a foolproof deterrent, as we saw in Columbine. If even a station full of armed cops can't protect themselves with guns, how can one retired NRA volunteer with a gun protect a whole school filled with kids? Especially if the shooter takes a first-grader hostage and uses her as a human shield while blasting away at the armed guard with a Bushmaster and a 100-round magazine?
The problem is not stopping crazy guys from shooting up schools. It's stopping crazy guys from getting guns in the first place.
13 comments:
But the fact is, even in the best-case scenario, an armed guard can't prevent anyone from ever being shot
Fact is, armed guards can't stop bank robbers either. Fact is, armed guards are deterrent for minor crime and not a foolproof way to stop crime. Fact is, legislation doesn't stop criminals. Otherwise, we wouldn't have drugs or organized crime, or anything else wrong in this country. Fact is, you are an idiot and continue to push an agenda that all objective research and facts show is wrong. Yes, your banning guns ideas are nothing more than a feel-good measure that in reality doesn't in any way address the issue. Congrats, you are a democrap!
all objective research and facts show is wrong.
Let's see it. Emphasis on the word objective
There is plenty of research on defensive gun uses.
If guns weren't useful for defense of self and others, why do cops carry them?
Of course if your objective is that nothing bad ever happens again, you can't really be satisfied with anything that would exist in the real world. So stick to your fantasies.
Why does it have to be ALL guns? Can't it just be SOME guns are alright for defensive of self and others?
Since you want to make the limitation - you make the argument. I don't have to fucking justify to you the status quo.
And now for something completely different - but utterly deserving of attention.
As the Senate debated the renewal of the government's warrantless wiretapping powers on Thursday, Republicans who have accused President Barack Obama of covering up his involvement in the death of an American ambassador urged that his administration be given sweeping spying powers. Democrats who accused George W. Bush of shredding the Constitution with warrantless wiretapping four years ago sung a different tune this week, with the administration itself quietly urging passage of the surveillance bill with no changes, and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) accusing her Democratic colleagues of not understanding the threat of terrorism.
But really, you should read the whole thing.
This is a fun one (off topic) too.
Barack Obama is a congenitally split personality. His interest in naming Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) to his cabinet demonstrates once again that he has no appetite for leadership on the life-and-death decisions presidents make since Congress ceded its war-making powers to the Executive branch after World War II.
Why does it have to be ALL guns? Can't it just be SOME guns are alright for defensive of self and others?
Lay out a listing of criteria that is important in a gun for defense of self and others - that needs to be done before you can randomly, arbitrarily and emotionally decide which ones are and are not 'alright'.
I'm with gd here - what is your proposal M? Is it possible for you to lay out something clear and free of fear?
I think we could use Israel as a blueprint for the changes made here. Here is what they do...
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/israel
Click on Gun regulation and tell me what you guys think.
Are you suggesting that as state or federal law? A state could potentially enact it, but there is no federal authority in the Constitution to do so.
I see the age cut-off as a problem: you are denying a right to a legal adult.
Are you going to tell me you are okay with the carry status (open and concealed)?
Oh, and I see no limitation on semi-auto rifles (or even full auto for that matter).
Yeah, don't think he's thinking that through.
Huh, a man overpowered a female police officer when (stupidly) given an opportunity when uncuffed and in close proximity, and "blazed away" with her gun, managing to injure 3 before being killed. What does this have to do with anything? Except that people armed with guns can quickly stop an armed man even when caught by surprise?
Methinks this story doesn't demonstrate what Nikto thinks it does.
Post a Comment