Columns

Would Civilians Be Safer if We Stripped Guns from Cops?

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print
Advertisement

The Left seldom uses the same logic on gun control that it applies to incidents of police shootings of unarmed civilians. Not even the most doctrinaire progressive suggests we should make civilians safer from police gunfire by taking guns away from all cops.

Most Americans recognize that guns are a necessary tool for the great majority of police officers, though a few irresponsible operators may deserve to lose both gun and badge. Civilian gun-owners should get the same approach: it makes no sense—practically or ethically—to strip guns from law-abiding, good citizens who want their weapons for self-defense.

Instead, we should concentrate on the few criminals, gang members and mentally disturbed individuals who deserve no weapons of any kind. For civilians, as well as for cops, it’s the human being wielding the weapon, not the weapon itself, that provides the real threat to our safety.

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print

Comments (11)

Leave a comment
  1. Ty needs counseling  •  Apr 10, 2018 at 11:05 pm

    Michael, I think you give libtards too much credit. I am sure that there is a sizable percentage who would go for the idea that the police should not be armed. After all, a bad guy could grab their gun and use it against them or steal it from their home or car. Guns are just too dangerous to exist.

    • Mark Schaffer  •  Apr 20, 2018 at 3:32 pm

      "libtards" puts you firmly in the juvenile out of touch with reality category.

      • Rizzo  •  Apr 23, 2018 at 10:47 am

        No… He's correct. It's an honest and true observation of the left.
        And, it's a term that is totally accurate and appropriate.

  2. Ty  •  Apr 11, 2018 at 7:36 pm

    We definitely can't take guns away from cops in this country where gun nuts run wild and free across the land. This kind of reaction from police in the UK would never happen here, since they know there is a higher chance of someone packing heat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY

    The rules of engagement are different in the US, because conservatives love giving police officers a longer leash and they are so filled to bursting with fear over criminals, they are more tolerant of some extra innocent people getting gunned down by cops rather than raising the standards of lethal force. After all, by raising the standards of lethal force, some extra cops might be killed instead for not firing first.

    This is true. And hard line conservatives have made their choice. They side with the attitude of kill first because you felt fear rather than holding back to make a clearer assessment. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, isn't that right guys?

    More on this in the next section.

    • Ty  •  Apr 11, 2018 at 7:53 pm

      https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/us/west-virginia-officer-lawsuit-settlement-trnd/index.html?nav-edition=on

      What's endlessly fascinating to me about this case is that it gives insight into the different standards many of our own military members have when dealing with FOREIGN populations of people compared to our own citizens.

      "Mader told CNN last year that Williams was "visibly choked up" and told Mader to shoot him. As a Marine veteran who served in Afghanistan, Mader told CNN that he concluded Williams wasn't a threat and so he tried to de-escalate the situation.
      As Mader was trying to get Williams to drop his gun, two other Weirton police officers arrived. Mader told CNN that Williams raised his gun and was immediately shot and killed by one of the other officers. A state investigation found the officer's actions were justified."

      Mader was former US military, and was trained NOT to just kill first and ask questions later, it suggest an attitude aligned with counter insurgency of trying to get people on your side by NOT being too aggressive and killing innocents rather than treating the populations like throw away refuse where the ONLY life that needs to be considered is the life of the officer/solder.

      Maders fellow officers were enraged at him for not shooting and telling his side of the story to the press. Note the focus there, they were mad at him for NOT killing that guy trying to commit suicide by cop. They were mad at him for being a BETTER officer and not just going RIGHT for the kill.

      Remember that charge I make against conservatives that I'm sure you all despise and think is unfair? That you care more about the old law adage flipped?

      Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man punished? flipped to Better 10 innocent men stay CHAINED than allow one guilty man to go free?

      That latter attitude, held by more conservative souls, is what allows the kill first if scared attitude to thrive. That is what keeps the rules of engagement for lethal force to be as lax as they are. Your HATRED of the criminal is stronger than your desire to protect the innocent.

      To the non feces throwing conservatives, this is something to look out for inside yourselves, and your peers. Note how easy it is for some people to discount the lives of others if they are outside the circle of concern. I have a hunch Mader would have made a terrible Israeli border guard too.

      • Ty needs counseling  •  Apr 15, 2018 at 11:30 pm

        Did you say something? I missed it. I just heard something that sounded like wretching.

      • Ty needs counseling  •  Apr 17, 2018 at 11:34 pm

        I just skimmed your post, but it appears that you have done another Ty Special. You came up with a story that supposedly makes conservatives look bad, the truth of which is probably completely distorted by yourself, and then you attempt to broad brush it onto all conservatives. Do you think the same could not be done all day long to your regressive comrades? Other than logical fallacies, do you perform any other tricks?

    • Mr. Deelive  •  Apr 17, 2018 at 11:29 pm

      I thank you for being honest and admitting that you support changing the rules on lethal force so that more cops are killed. We now know where you stand on two issues – (1) you think we should change the rules so that more police are killed in the line of duty and (2) you think that israel should sacrifice its own security because not all Palestinians are bad.

      • Ty  •  Apr 18, 2018 at 7:29 pm

        I think more Israelis should get rid of hair triggers to some agitators on the border that are not a direct threat to them. If they have been infected with high enough levels of dehumanization, like calling the palestinians muzzrats, that their lives are literally seen as something closer to rodents, then one would have less restraint in putting one down running over some border line (but far away from a wall). And don't bother telling me the Palestinians are worse, and that Hamas and the palestinians say worse things about Jews even down the the cartoons they show. I know. And no one ought to set their standards for their own behavior that low into the gutter.

        But if you want to have standards in the gutter, I guess that is a hallmark of a modern conservative. Congratulations.

        As for changing the rules of lethal force, yes, I want them changed so that merely being afraid is not grounds for not having any criminal consequences.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUUx0jUKxc

        Having a hair trigger of fear is NOT acceptable for officers. That cannot be the standard that the rest of society has to just tolerate and be ok with.

        Perhaps if I treated EVERY LIFE that was on the opposite end of an officer talking to them as throwaway like you seem to, it would not matter. But I think you have your dials set WAY too far towards anything goes as far as police behavior regarding the rules of engagement.

        But your consequences are not far off. I have no doubt these changes, even if subtle, could very well lead to higher officer death totals. And I also think we'd get fewer false executions by cops.

        And here is the rub, that highlights a core difference down to your rotten soul. You elevate the value of the life of an officer FAR over and above the life of the person the officer is talking to. I understand the discounting of value when it's CRYSTAL CLEAR there is an assault about to take place, but when it's incredibly unclear, you want to err on the side of kill first, worry about whether the danger was real or imagined later, not like those other lives had value anyway. What's it to me, my enforcers are of prime importance.

        It's like seeing the reincarnation of Torquemada on visible display.

        I need to amend the flipped law adage just for you. Better 10 innocent men stay chained (or DIE), than allow one guilty man to go free or place an officer in greater danger.

      • Ty  •  Apr 18, 2018 at 7:33 pm

        Here is something we'd NEVER see in the UK if Deelive was even ONE of those officers in the video.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY

        That guy would have been put under in seconds.

  3. Rizzo  •  Apr 23, 2018 at 10:45 am

    Libtards always side with the bad guys.
    They are always on the wrong side of nearly every issue.

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.

Medhead

Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertise with us Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices
Advertisement
Advertisement
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn
Advertisement