Self-defense – Cops
Armed suspect shot while attempting to rob off-duty D.C. cop
(Guns.com)

Mama’s Note: But of course, if the intended victim had not been a cop “only one,” they would probably be dead or at least robbed because they could NOT carry a gun. The aggressor is a lovely specimen of humanity, for sure – that pouty look of outraged entitlement. What I want to know is why it makes any difference at all if the cop used his “service pistol,” or if the criminal got  his gun “legally.”  The latter certainly doesn’t seem likely.

Nathan: True, some animals are more equal than other animals.

Until police are recognized either for what they are (a military occupation force) or forced to become what they should be (armed civilians like the rest of us, whose job is to investigate and solve crimes and in some circumstances provide limited security), they will be treated as if they are above the law, or have some special sort of limited submission to it.

In the eyes of the media, the status of the cop’s gun and the robber’s gun is important, because they can imply that most all other guns are gotten “illegally.”  And even hint that cops themselves shouldn’t have anything but their “service pistol” (as they publish more stories about magic devices that keep anyone but the registered owner from firing the weapon and which NEVER fail to work).  For Guns.com, this is probably important because (a)it again lets them point out the wrongful special status of cops, and (b) that limits on gun purchases do not prevent robbers from getting weapons, any more than they prohibit the first-time killer from getting a gun.

Indeed, it is this aspect that demonstrates the foolishness of limits on buying guns, and is seldom discussed.  Supposedly, waiting periods for buying guns (you have to wait 48 or 72 hours after buying the gun to get possession) is supposed to reduce the likelihood that the gun will be used in a “crime of passion.”  This is based on some very dubious psychology and there are many ways around it.  But the idea that we can prevent crimes by preventing people who have criminal records or have been determined (however dubiously) to be a risk is crazy on the face of it.  It is based on two false assumptions: one, that a person who will commit a crime with a gun has already not just committed a crime, and two, has been tried and convicted of that crime.  Of course, it also assumes that a person who committed any sort of crime (there are some restrictions) will use a gun to commit a crime: again, an assumption that has been proven false time and time again.  And of course, it also takes away the God-given right of self-defense (or certainly limits it significantly).  We do not steal their rights of free speech, or religious freedom, or right to trial and counsel and all the rest; how can we justify taking away the right of self-defense?  The answer is that we cannot.  We do so only at peril to our souls.

One final thought: given the extremely high quality of police officers these days, how do we know this guy actually tried to rob the cop?

Mama’s Note: I hadn’t thought of that last, but I suspect if the cop did the attacking that the “perp” would be very dead. Why in the world leave him alive to tell a different story?

Self defense NOT – Government-run, tax-funded schools
Missouri: Senator Says Teachers Should Defend Against Shooters With Pepper Spray
(Fox 4 News, Kansas City) “Teachers are human beings, there’s a chance that a loaded firearm could end up in the hands of a student and then you have catastrophic consequences,” Senator Holsman told Fox 4 News. Holsman, whose wife teaches at a local elementary school, argued that teachers can protect children from a shooter by spraying multiple cans of bear mace into school hallways simultaneously, creating a hazardous barrier outside classrooms. “These six-ounce canisters of bear spray shoot 30-feet in a ten-foot wide radius. It is conceivable that you could blast the hallway, if it was on lockdown and if the perpetrator was to run into that mist, it would disable him,” Holsman said.

Nathan: This man either has an effective IQ approaching single digits, or is laughing up his sleeve.  As the story and other commenters point out, the “bear mace” can be as easily stolen and used to harm (or even kill) students, there is no consideration of the impact of filling rooms and corridors with the nasty stuff on the health of students, much less the impact on first responders.  I suspect that training the teachers would be a real bear, and that it is relatively easy to defend yourself against the spray if you know what to expect.  This is even more stupid than Biden’s shotgun remark.

And I am reminded by the old hoary story about rangers advising hikers to wear bells and carry pepper spray to protect against bears, and to be able to recognize bear scat, to distinguish between relatively safe brown bears and grizzly bears.  When asked how to tell the difference, the rangers tell them that the grizzly scat contains bells and smells like pepper spray.

Mama’s Note: I always get a laugh out of that story, but the people who think bear “spray” is effective have never encountered a real bear, as I have. And those who think nobody needs a gun has never actually encountered someone who intended to kill them… as I have.