Politics

No, Anti-Gunners: Examples of Inept Policing Are Not Arguments for More Gun Control


I have been swimming in a sea of silly arguments for restricting gun ownership in the wake of the tragic mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. From telling me that hardening schools isn’t 100 percent guaranteed to stop shootings to pretending that banning AR-15s will stop shootings, they have pretty much run the gamut of ludicrous claims. But one of the more braindead pro-gun control arguments I have encountered over the past couple of days is related to the abysmal performance of the law enforcement officers who failed to stop the Uvalde shooter from murdering 19 children and two adults.

Law enforcement has been receiving heaps of criticism over its handling of the shooting. As more information emerges, it paints an even worse picture of the police response to the incident. During a new press conference Friday, Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven McGraw admits the reaction to the assault was deeply flawed.

McGraw acknowledges that officers made the “wrong decision” by failing to enter the school as the gunman shot the children and teachers inside a classroom. He confirmed that there was a 40-minute gap between the time law enforcement arrived on the scene, and when they finally entered the classroom and confronted the shooter, who was killed in the classroom. However, the agents who stopped the gunman were Border Patrol agents, not members of local law enforcement.

The DPS director explains that the delay was the result of the commanding officer on the scene believing they were no longer dealing with an “active shooter.” However, this explanation is contradicted by the four emergency 911 calls that were made by children from inside the school. McGraw also admits that as many as 19 officers were gathered outside of the classroom, but they did not attempt to gain entry

They believed “no [more] kids were at risk” at that moment, and that “there was time” to obtain keys to the classroom from the janitor.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why the anti-gunners believe that more gun control is the only way to minimize mass shooting fatalities. They argue that this, and the ineptitude of the officer who responded to the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, four years ago proves that good guys with guns cannot stop school shooters. Those taking this position are essentially arguing that because of these two examples of law enforcement failing to save lives, there can never be a situation in which heroes with firearms can stop, or prevent, a school shooting – or any other type of mass shooting for that matter.

Of all the arguments the anti-gunner lobby is making, this one might be the easiest to debunk.

Yes, there are plenty of situations in which police fail to do their jobs properly. Indeed, this reality is one of the strongest arguments in support of personal gun ownership for self-defense. As they say, when seconds count, police are only minutes away, right?

However, this ignores the fact that there have been plenty of situations in which police – and even civilians – have stopped active shooters. The Washington Examiner reported:

According to the FBI, there were 61 active shooter incidents in 2021, with 103 people killed and 140 wounded. Twelve of those met the definition of “mass shooting.”

In the 61 shootings, 30 perpetrators were apprehended by law enforcement, 11 shooters killed themselves, one died in a vehicle crash, one is still at large, and 18 were killed by someone else — including four citizens.

There are several stories in which school resource officers have stopped mass shootings at their campuses. But these situations never get national coverage from the activist media.

I wonder why?

But the fact remains. Armed officers can stop mass shootings. Yes, there is no guarantee they will be able to save lives in every single, solitary situation in which a crazed gunman decides to commit mass murder. Nobody is arguing that. But this does not seem to bother those pushing for gun laws that would do far less to save lives than having armed security protecting children.

As I pointed out recently, there is a reason why we rarely hear about mass shootings in courthouses, at sporting events, or inside city council buildings and other government edifices. It is not common for us to see news stories about mass shooters killing dozens of students in urban-area schools. This is because each of these provides armed security, metal detectors, surveillance cameras, and other methods to keep these areas secure. At this point, anyone arguing for more gun control and against hardening schools should not be taken seriously – their focus is disarming the public, not saving lives.




Source link

Related Articles

Back to top button