Gun control and police brutality are topics that have gotten a lot of attention over the last couple of years. While heavy-handed methods used by some officers are a legitimate problem, the truth is that some think everything a police officer does is somehow brutality.

And then there’s the topic of gun control.

The truth is, a lot of people opine on both subjects without knowing what they’re talking about. Take this op-ed as an example.

A Duke University officer shot and killed a man at the Duke Hospital on Jan. 14. During a struggle, the man grabbed another police officer’s gun and fired shots in the emergency room. According to staff working in the hospital, the man was under medical evaluation after another altercation with Duke Police.

According to the WRAL article, Hannah Norcross and her 10-year-old son were shocked and traumatized by the killing. Norcross and her son were shaken knowing how close they were to the situation.

…

This killing brings into light many important questions about both gun control and police brutality. On one hand, many believe the Duke University officer shouldn’t have resorted to fatally killing the man when the situation arose, especially considering he was being held under medical evaluation. On the other hand, witnesses like Norcross and her son were scared for their life and believed the man was unstoppable with a gun.

It’s a sad reality we live in a country where far too many people have access to guns. According to a Small Arms Survey study, the number of guns in the U.S. outnumber American citizens. There are 393 million guns in circulation in this country, making 120.5 guns per 100 Americans. This is excessive and poses a grave threat to the lives of many Americans.

Wait…what?

The individual in question took the officer’s firearm. What in the hell does gun control have to do with anything?

And police brutality? He. Took. The. Officer’s. Gun.

For crying out loud, what was the cop supposed to do? Take two rounds to the chest just so people wouldn’t think he was being too mean?

The fact that someone is having a mental health crisis doesn’t somehow mean they should be permitted to do whatever they want. “Oh, sorry about that rape. Mental health crisis. You understand, right? No? Why are you so bigoted against the mentally ill?”

To quote the president, “Come on, man!”

But hey, maybe I’m being too hard on the writer. I mean, they do acknowledge that the individual was a threat. I’m sure further on, they recognize this stuff.

The officer shouldn’t have resorted to lethal force. There are many ways for one to subdue a person without killing them. Even if he had to shoot, doing so in a lethal manner was unnecessary and excessive. It is never okay to take a human’s life into your own hands, especially since the man was being detained for medical evaluation. He likely wasn’t in the right mental state.

Nope. She’s a freaking idiot.

People who watch a few YouTube videos where people disarmed “gunmen” think this is someone anyone can do safely. That’s not how it works. Especially in a hospital waiting room where innocent bystanders could be injured or killed.

And then you have this sentence: “Even if he had to shoot, doing so in a lethal manner was unnecessary and excessive.”

If you read no other words written by this woman, this should tell you just how ridiculous she is.

Police do not shoot to kill, they shoot to stop. How do you shoot to stop? You aim center mass. That’s because shooting people in the arm, shoulder, leg, or wherever else you want to name doesn’t have the same likelihood of ending the threat as shooting someone center mass.

Further, the human body is a mass of tissue. Running through every part of the body are these things called “arteries.” If you sever one of those with a gunshot, it’s often fatal. It doesn’t matter if it’s in the arm, the shoulder, or the leg.

But it’s not instantly fatal, which means they could still hurt a number of people before they succumbed to their wounds.

So, you see, the idea that you can shoot someone in a non-lethal manner and effectively end the danger is beyond ridiculous.

But there are a lot of people who don’t know anything about this, get their gun information from Hollywood, and then write op-eds all about how the officer should have done things differently because that totally worked in Hollywood Confidential.

No.

Just…no.

It sounds like the officer did precisely what he had to do. Now, are there questions about how the officer’s weapon was taken in the first place? Sure. But as for the shoot itself? None whatsoever.

Honestly, for a free speech absolutist, this kind of stupidity is almost enough to make me rethink that position.