l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 Gun control advocates refuse to properly assess human vulnerability.
by
Jack Dunphy
December 26, 2012 - 12:19 am
On the evening of December 14, when the horror of Sandy Hook Elementary
School was quite rightly the only subject on everyone’s minds and lips, I
was in my car listening to talk radio. I tuned to one station and then
another before choosing Dennis Miller’s program. I was eager to hear Mr.
Miller’s take on the day’s sorrows, but I was astonished to hear him and
his guest (I’ve forgotten who) discussing … the fiscal cliff. How could
this be? It was as if the massacre hadn’t happened.
It took me a few seconds, but then I remembered that Mr. Miller broadcasts
live from Santa Barbara, CA, in the morning, but here in Los Angeles his
show airs on tape delay in the evening. And so for those fleeting moments I
was taken back, in a way, to the time before I or Dennis Miller or his guest
or anyone else outside of Newtown, CT, had heard of Sandy Hook Elementary
School. How pleasant it all seemed that morning, how trivial were my own
worries, and how horribly, horribly different the day would turn out to be.
That fiscal cliff seems not to be such a big deal after all, does it? And
now we have all but abandoned talk of fiscal cliffs and begun our “
conversation on guns.” Or have we?
Based on what we’ve heard so far, this “conversation” amounts to little
more than an attempt by one side to shame the other into silence and
acquiescence. If you refuse to admit that you, the gun owner, are part of
the problem; if you dare to suggest that the public at large would not be
less safe but safer if more law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry
concealed handguns; if you refuse to acknowledge what is so patently obvious
to your enlightened betters living in colonies along both coasts — which
is that firearms are inherently evil and have no place in a civilized
society — then you are an abettor in the slaughter of children and
deserving of public scorn if not imprisonment and even death.
Indeed, this “conversation” has been marked by ignorance and emotionalism
on the part of those who would see Americans surrender their guns in
advancement of the utopia envisioned in such places as the Upper West Side
of Manhattan. Manifesting this ignorance and emotionalism for all to see was
CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, who, while engaging in what was purported to be a
“conversation on guns” with economist John Lott, seemed gobsmacked when Mr
. Lott presented an argument in favor of fewer restrictions on citizens
carrying concealed weapons — an argument based on his own extensive
research. “I have to say,” stammered Ms. O’Brien, “your position, your
position completely boggles me, honestly. I just do not understand it.”
That she did not understand Mr. Lott’s position was obvious, as she was so
completely boggled that she failed to address even a single one of the
points he made, instead veering off on tangents that did little more than
reveal her own lack of knowledge on the subject at hand.
But Ms. O’Brien was the very picture of professionalism when compared to
her CNN colleague Piers Morgan, who embarrassed himself and his network
while in his characteristic high dudgeon during a “conversation” with
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. Like John Lott, Mr
. Pratt is well versed in the research involving gun crime in America, and
he attempted to present this information to someone he must have assumed
would be willing to hear it. Mr. Morgan was deaf to it all, resorting to
language that revealed him to be not only supercilious but boorish as well.
“You’re an unbelievably stupid man, aren’t you?” he asked Mr. Pratt.
Some who view the exchange might come to a different opinion as to which of
the men is stupid.
All the heated rhetoric that has followed the horrors of Sandy Hook obscures
the legitimate questions we so yearn to have answered: could the gunman
have been stopped, and can future madmen be prevented from carrying out
similar crimes? Is there a law that might have been passed, are there steps
that might have been taken, could anything have been done to protect those
precious children and those who cared for them?
I suspect that those who seek a legislative solution to crimes such as this
one are on a fool’s errand. It would be difficult to tabulate the number of
laws the gunman broke in the course of his murderous spree that morning; to
think the enactment of one or a dozen more would deter such a man is to
engage in childish fantasy. And talk of banning “assault weapons” is
equally naive, not least for the fact that the very term has no real
definition other than to describe rifles that some people find scary-looking.
I am neither a member of the National Rifle Association nor an avid shooter.
But I have carried a gun as a tool of my trade for more than 30 years, and
have come to appreciate the advantages of being armed in those moments when
a deadly threat presents itself. That said, I am not among those who would
place a weapon in the hand of every teacher. For one thing, not every
teacher is qualified to handle one. There is no shame in this. Using a
firearm for self-defense requires a certain mindset and level of proficiency
that few teachers — indeed few people in most professions — possess. (
Though I suspect the number of teachers hoping to achieve that mindset and
level of proficiency has just increased.)
But the mere possibility that one or two staff members at a school might be
armed may offer just enough deterrence to inspire second thoughts in any but
the most determined assailants. And if such a determined assailant proceeds
with an attack, is it beyond the pale to hope for intervention by an armed
teacher? Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) appeared on Fox News Sunday on December
16, and he was widely derided (here, for example) for expressing the wish
that the principal at Sandy Hook, who died in the attack, had “an M-4 [
rifle] locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn’t
have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands and takes him out and
takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids.”
For those who find that absurd, a question: is that scenario not preferable
to what actually occurred?
There are limits on what the law and government agencies can do to protect
the public. Though I’ve been a cop for 30 years, nearly every day of which
has been spent on the streets of Los Angeles, I can recall only a handful of
times when I was able to interrupt a violent crime in progress, either by
responding quickly to a radio call or by coming across it randomly while on
patrol. You’ve heard the expression: when seconds count, the police are
minutes away. It’s trite but no less true.
But there are some things the government can do, and it’s all the more
unfortunate when laws already on the books are ignored to result in tragedy.
Such was the case in Los Angeles recently, when a failure in the criminal
justice system had fatal consequences. On December 2, four people were shot
to death in Northridge, in L.A.’s San Fernando Valley. A suspect was
identified and arrested, and detectives learned that by all rights he should
have been in jail at the time of the killings.
The suspect, Ka Pasasouk, had been arrested for possession of
methamphetamine, a felony in California, and an officer for the L.A. County
Probation Department wrote a report outlining why Pasasouk was ineligible
for probation or a drug diversion program: he had an extensive criminal
record, including an arrest and conviction for robbery. Given these facts,
Pasasouk should have been prosecuted for the drug charge and sent to prison.
Instead, a deputy district attorney offered a plea bargain that put
Pasasouk back out on the street. Two months later, the D.A.’s office now
alleges, he shot and killed four people.
Even when the criminal justice system is functioning optimally (but does it
ever?) these lapses can occur. We in the trade have a name for people who
rely on the police and the justice system to keep them safe: we call them
victims.
It may sound uncivilized, but so be it. When the Bad Guy shows up with a gun
, there are just two questions to be asked: where is the nearest Good Guy
with a gun, and how long will it take him (or her, as the case may be) to
arrive, get a sight picture, and if necessary squeeze the trigger?
Everything else is wishful thinking.
“Jack Dunphy” is the pseudonym of an officer with the Los Angeles Police
Department. The opinions expressed are his own and almost certainly do not
reflect those of the LAPD management. |
|
