Guns
I'm not going to talk about gun control. The issue is too divisive, and to be honest I can't make my mind up about it myself. (For instance, I think I should be allowed to carry a gun—but I'm not too sure about you.)
I've been trained to use guns. (And explosives, and rocket launchers and…). I've trained others to use guns. I'm in the military, yet I wouldn't trust a lot of my colleagues with fireworks, never mind firearms. It's not because of lack of training either, but lack of good judgement.
So if I find the training and judgement of even military personnel suspect, imagine what I think of average Joe Civilian.
I read stories like the one about those cops in New York a few months back in a shootout with an armed suspect who had just killed his boss. The headlines reported something like "Two dead, nine wounded in Empire State Building shooting." It turns out those "nine wounded" were all shot by the police as they tried to take down the gunman, who never even fired his weapon.
Again, this is by trained police officers.
When you're armed the use of lethal force becomes an option in any dispute (whether warranted or not.) I read about a military policeman who shot and killed two teenagers joyriding. They'd stolen a car. It turns out it was their mother's car, and she'd reported it stolen when they'd taken it without permission to teach them a lesson. They tried to evade the police instead of pulling over. The police called ahead to set up a rode block, and when the officer decided it didn't look like they were going to stop for it, he fired two shots through the windshield, killing the driver. The resulting crash killed the passenger. All for a stolen car. Had the police simply ceased pursuit, eventually the kids would have—well, ditched the car, at the worse. The cops knew who the thieves were and could have picked them up at any time afterward.
A man heard a noise coming from his front lawn at four in the morning. He spied what he thought was a burgler and shot him 14 times, with a 6 shot revolver. That means he had to reload, twice. Turns out it was the paper boy delivering the morning paper.
Nidal Malik Hassan opened fire on a military base (Fort Hood), killing 13 and wounding 29. He was eventually taken down by a base civilian policeman. Had the military personnel he shot been armed, the story would no doubt have ended with a lot fewer casualties. (Even so, a few reportedly charged Nidal and tried to disarm him even though they were unarmed themselves.) It should be noted, however, that even on a military base the average soldier isn't allowed to walk about armed, which may be oddly telling in itself.
I know there are times when an armed response has saved countless lives. I have been that armed response.
But given that I have little respect for the average Joe's judgement--especially in high stress situations--would I really feel safer knowing that Joe is armed in case of emergency? Or does Joe just become another shooter that I have to worry about.
The question then becomes who is allowed to carry, and why?
I don't have the answer to that.
I've been trained to use guns. (And explosives, and rocket launchers and…). I've trained others to use guns. I'm in the military, yet I wouldn't trust a lot of my colleagues with fireworks, never mind firearms. It's not because of lack of training either, but lack of good judgement.
So if I find the training and judgement of even military personnel suspect, imagine what I think of average Joe Civilian.
I read stories like the one about those cops in New York a few months back in a shootout with an armed suspect who had just killed his boss. The headlines reported something like "Two dead, nine wounded in Empire State Building shooting." It turns out those "nine wounded" were all shot by the police as they tried to take down the gunman, who never even fired his weapon.
Again, this is by trained police officers.
When you're armed the use of lethal force becomes an option in any dispute (whether warranted or not.) I read about a military policeman who shot and killed two teenagers joyriding. They'd stolen a car. It turns out it was their mother's car, and she'd reported it stolen when they'd taken it without permission to teach them a lesson. They tried to evade the police instead of pulling over. The police called ahead to set up a rode block, and when the officer decided it didn't look like they were going to stop for it, he fired two shots through the windshield, killing the driver. The resulting crash killed the passenger. All for a stolen car. Had the police simply ceased pursuit, eventually the kids would have—well, ditched the car, at the worse. The cops knew who the thieves were and could have picked them up at any time afterward.
A man heard a noise coming from his front lawn at four in the morning. He spied what he thought was a burgler and shot him 14 times, with a 6 shot revolver. That means he had to reload, twice. Turns out it was the paper boy delivering the morning paper.
Nidal Malik Hassan opened fire on a military base (Fort Hood), killing 13 and wounding 29. He was eventually taken down by a base civilian policeman. Had the military personnel he shot been armed, the story would no doubt have ended with a lot fewer casualties. (Even so, a few reportedly charged Nidal and tried to disarm him even though they were unarmed themselves.) It should be noted, however, that even on a military base the average soldier isn't allowed to walk about armed, which may be oddly telling in itself.
I know there are times when an armed response has saved countless lives. I have been that armed response.
But given that I have little respect for the average Joe's judgement--especially in high stress situations--would I really feel safer knowing that Joe is armed in case of emergency? Or does Joe just become another shooter that I have to worry about.
The question then becomes who is allowed to carry, and why?
I don't have the answer to that.
No comments have been added yet.
