First off, these two things aren't even close to the same thing. But they do have something in common, as with all shooting events when it comes to gun control discussions spawned by them.
Around here it's commonly accepted and pretty much not questioned that in both situations, the presence of one or a few armed civilians would have resulted in much less gruesome outcomes.
Yet, people make the argument that it would have been worse, imagining that panicking civilians would just start shooting haphazardly and result in more innocent casualties.
Here's the difference. The "well trained, hardened, disciplined" police have protection. So THEY CAN do this, and will get away with casualties caused by them.
Civilians that hit unintended targets are subject to investigation for assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, attempted murder, and actual murder. They don't take shots lightly and are even encouraged and taught to first make an attempt to flee from danger first if possible.. sometimes to complete safety, or sometimes a position where they can make a safe shot if still necessary. Not only that, but they have the advantage of the first responder- an eye witness who observed a situation's development from the start unlike the police who arrive 5 to 15 minutes after the fact, with possibly bad information from phone reports, and have to sort through a bunch of chaos after arriving.
As gun owners, enthusiasts of the 2nd Amendment, self protection, we know the statistics are there. They spell out that (while not all the time) generally speaking casualties spike when police get involved compared to the same incidents where they don't get a chance to. I've observed discussions about this and was not able to articulate this point at the time and it has been bothering me.
Original Page: http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/ysymv/something_bothering_me_i_have_to_get_off_my_chest/
No comments:
Post a Comment