Not much to say today. Just a small
comment.
Well, there's been another shooting and
something I've come to expect is people wondering if this is evidence
that we require stricter gun control laws. Considering that it
appears the NYPD inflicted more casualties taking down the gunman,
I'm not sure we want to get into the weeds of that argument.
Honestly, the calls for stricter gun
control every time there's a shooting is starting to get really
boring. This time around, such calls are ironic,
considering the shooting occurred despite some of the strictest gun
control laws in the country.
Remember something people: if someone
wants to commit a gun crime, no amount of legal wrangling is going to
stop them. Particularly if they have no prior criminal record. It
seems far wiser to put guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens,
giving them a chance to protect themselves from gun-wielding nutcases
and perhaps stop them before much, if any, harm can be done.
On the final paragraph: Law enforcement is the responsibility of the police force and not armed vigilanties, just as killing is the job of the army and not the police force. The deregulation of gun laws will inevitably lead to private disputes where one cannot assert as to who the instigator is, it would also lead to more people being injured or killed by citizens, for example:
ReplyDeleteA bulgular unlawfuly enters private property and is armed with a fire arm. The owner of the property is alerted of the entry and grabs his own fire arm. After a comical search the two parties meet eachother across the room. The owner of the propert, noticing that the other man is armed, decides to present his weapon and fire thus killing the man. Is that considered self defense seeing as no offense was made by the burgular. If such a situation were to arise without the involvement of guns then the bulgular would most likely run away and the police alerted.
The average man should not be given the power to enforce the law. Unlawful killings done in the name of self-defense would inevitably take place even if the 'offending' party was not breaking the law, seeing as instinct would lead the 'defender' to fire the gun rather than ask about the person's situation beforehand, the person may be completely free of any breach of the law. But then again, who would be able to justifiably blame them? Afterall, it would in compliance with standard US Police Policy - Shoot first, ask questions later.