Of course, I have to say that “moderate” is in quotes because on this issue, I think he has verged over to right-wing in his approach. On many issues, I agree with his take, but definitely not on this one.

First, let me describe what he suggests. He suggests that police persons no longer have handguns but two tasers (at least that would remove the excuse of getting the taser and the gun confused). Ok, even I am not willing to go that far in terms of what they already carry. However, his solution is to give them M8s in the car. Then if the police personnel saw it as a deathly situation, they would retrieve the M8 and stot, one assumes with deathly force. He does stipulate that the police would need to have good training.

Now there is where the problem comes in. How many police persons have shot civilians because “they were afraid” or some other excuse? Are we naive enough to assume that because the training, hopefully fairly thorough, that they have received so far was not enough to stop these senseless murders by police, then suddenly with this new policy the training would be enough? No, I see this as another way of increasing the number of deaths that are unnecessary. Perhaps, the courts might be persuaded to rule against the policeman, but that is not going to bring the dead person back.

Now, what is an acceptable killing by a cop? Well, the George Floyd killing was NOT. It’s funny watching people who fight and scream about stopping women from getting an abortion because “it is murder” turn around and support a policeman killing a person that, on that day was guilty of at most passing a fake bill and selling single cigarettes (which by the way I see happening every day that I am and see nothing wrong with). They love to point out the canard about a rumor that he might have been violent in the past. That’s not the point, he didn’t do a thing that day to deserve death. Whatever violence he may have displayed, it wasn’t that day. That crap ended up actually being by another commentator, who is a former “friend”. I am the pro-lifer in that I want EXISTING human beings to live as long as they can…fetus are not yet functioning human beings in many opinions, not just mine.

The biggest problem I have with this suggestion, however, is that in essence, I see it as advocating for more available and spread of what is at fault…ie military-style guns in civilian hands. As a matter of fact, his entire thesis is “forget about gun control or stopping the tendency to gun violence. That is paramount, in my not so humble opinion, to ok’ing the massive shootings that have been happening in this country.

With that strategy, how many George Zimmermans will there be, killing a Trayvon Martin for jogging through a neighborhood or Rittenhouse taking the law into his own hands and shooting three people during a mostly peaceful protest…and don’t talk to me about property damage like that is justification for death. (jail time yes, death no)

So what should happen? Well, first of all, our politicians need to stop catering to the gun lobby, represented by the NRA. Then, the gun and ammo manufacturers need to be forbidden from selling either military-style guns like AR-!5 or the ammo for them to any civilian. The only persons that need such weapons are the military and possibly police for mass shooting incidences when I agree, it is acceptable to kill the shooter but, even then, I think it might be better to have a swat team reserved for events like that and have them be ready to move immediately when something goes down.

I wish I could have been in the protesting group sending a message, as these thousands did, to the gun lobby/NRA that the death cult they give voice to is not accepted by all of us. I was certainly there in spirit.

***you will note, I said nothing about people with handguns in their homes for protection or shot guns for hunting, AR-!5s are not good for either scenario

http://www.reuters.com/world/us/protesters-holding-photos-shooting-victims-gather-outside-nra-convention-texas-2022-05-27/

Post A Comment