People who want to take guns away from citizens often argue that it’s dangerous for citizens to have guns. They will say, “innocent people will get shot in the crossfire” in the event an armed civilian uses a gun to stop an armed criminal.
I wonder what they’ll say about what just happened in NYC?
According to reports, a laid-off women’s clothing designer named Jeffrey Johnson, 58, decided to shoot his ex-boss. He pulled out a .45 pistol and did so – and was himself almost immediately gunned down by a gaggle of city cops. Problem is, the cops ending up shooting more people than the gunman. Eight people were shot – by the cops. (news story here.)
Will the people who demand citizens be disarmed because “innocent people might get caught in the crossfire” now demand that cops be disarmed, for the same reason?
If not – why?
Will the “reckless” cops – who clearly can’t shoot straight – be held civilly and criminally responsible for shooting innocent bystanders – as a citizen surely would be?
If not, why?
Don’t forget that cops – as a matter of law – are under no obligation to protect any individual from harm. They are law enforcers – not protectors.
Protection – of our individual persons – is ultimately up to us.
Provided, of course, we are permitted to do so. And provided, of course, that we aren’t caught in a cop crossfire.