Something strikes me as odd about law enforcement officers supporting "conceal carry".
If they think that Grump E. Guy with a "conceal carry" permit and a firearm is qualified to decide when to draw and fire a weapon to prevent a crime, what's this say about their understanding of law enforcement?
Do cops think that the training associated with a "conceal carry" permit is equivalent or approximately as good as that law enforcement officers receive?
Do cops think that the average citizen has the judgment to make a life-and-death decision under stress? It seems like these issues are kinda complex. Again, it seems like law enforcement officers are dissing themselves as professionals to say that any old person should be empowered to make the call.
Here's what I suspect is going on: many cops have a world view that separates the world into "good guys" and "bad guys". So, if "good guys" have guns, this is empowering good in the world. And if "bad guys" get shot, this decreases the evil in the world.
The way more sophisticated people see the world--yes, I'm making a value judgment--no person is incapable of making mistakes. And rarely does one encounter a situation that can only be resolved by deadly force. And among the people who do practice "conceal carry" are jackasses who shoot people in situations where there was no threat to anyone's well being, except that somebody with poor judgment had a firearm.
If the law enforcement community sees themselves as professionals devoted to reducing crime, supporting "conceal carry" makes little sense. If members of law enforcement see themselves as deputized by God to kill as many "evil doers" as possible, well giving firearms to the George Zimmerman's of the world makes sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment