Most people are upset to learn of an officer being shot and killed. These are men and women who put their lives on the line day in, day out, with the intention to try and keep people safe. While the Supreme Court has ruled there is no obligation for them to do so, most officers really take the phrase “To protect and serve” to heart. Our world tends to be diminished when we lose someone like that.
However, it annoys me to no end when liberals try and use officer deaths to justify pet issues, like gun control. That’s exactly what an editorial in the Las Vegas Sun tries to do.
Although the number of police officers killed in the line of duty dipped last year, and it appears the same could apply to security officers, it’s clear that the glut of firearms in the nation has put them at extreme risk in carrying out their duties.
Meanwhile, it’s difficult for law enforcement departments to advocate for gun safety measures. Doing so raises the risk of upsetting some of their most ardent political supporters, who tend to be conservative/NRA types. It also can spark backlash from gun-rights zealots who see any move to increase gun safety as an attempt by the government — and its police forces — to take their weapons and subjugate them.
Witness what happened when former Dallas Police Chief David Brown, discussing the July 2016 attack in which five of the department’s officers were shot and killed, said Texas’ open-carry laws added to the difficulty of responding to chaotic situations. Right-wing critics said law-abiding citizens with guns weren’t the problem.
But Brown was right. Here’s what he said: “It is increasingly challenging when people have AR-15s (a type of rifle) slung over, and shootings occur in a crowd. And they begin running, and we don’t know if they are a shooter or not. We don’t know who the ‘good guy’ versus who the ‘bad guy’ is, if everybody starts shooting.”
The glut of guns, combined with lax regulations, puts all Americans in danger — especially police.
Except, they don’t. Not even close.
Chief Brown highlights one hypothetical scenario where there might be a problem, a scenario that just doesn’t happen. That’s why he was attacked.
However, this op-ed misses a fundamental point regarding firearms, a fundamental point that I repeat here so much that I feel like a broken record much of the time. Criminals don’t obey gun laws.
Stiffer regulations will not make officers safer. It’ll simply make the rank and file citizen less safe.
Regardless of what laws get proposed, criminals will carry their guns anywhere and everywhere they want to and won’t hesitate to take an officer’s life if they so desire. They are already breaking laws as an integral part of their chosen way of life. What’s one more criminal act?
Those are the people who gun down police officers.
Those are also the people who will victimize the newly disarmed citizenry. The people the police will then have to face, just like they do today.
The only difference is that the average American won’t have the means to protect themselves when the police can’t be there in an instant.