“W-III” (a screen name that combines his initials with an affinity) must not have gotten word from the Brady Campaign that I “denigrate law enforcement.” A retired peace officer, he corresponds with me frequently and cordially, offering tips and comments, or to let me know he’s shared a link to one of my columns with his friends. He even freely uses the term “Only Ones” to describe those in his former profession who do not share his support for an armed populace–funny how the only ones that angers are authoritarians who don’t think “We the People” can be trusted…
Last night he called my attention to an FBI/Justice Department report from a few years back, “Violent Encounters: A Study on Felonious Assaults on America’s Law Enforcement Officers.” The entire thing is broken into several PDF files hosted by the American Firearms Institute. Click here to access them all.
The document I’d like to talk about today is Chapter 4, “Weapons,” and specifically two aspects of it. First, let’s address the whole basis for the “Only Ones,” the claim that police are simply better trained than the rest of us as a condition of employment.
The report discusses a study where:
All of the 50 law enforcement officers…had to qualify with their firearms at least once each year, averaging 2.5 qualifications per year for an average of 14 hours of sidearm training per year…28 officers had an interest in firearms or practiced shooting in addition to their required firearm qualification training. Of those 28 officers, 22 hunted and occasionally practiced with shotguns or rifles. None of the 22 reported practicing with handguns in non-duty-related activities.
The second point involves the effectiveness of “gun control” laws:
To protect all Americans, the federal government has passed many laws to restrict and limit firearm purchases. The offenders in this research, however, stated that none of these laws or statutes deterred them.
Remember–this report was put out by the DOJ. They can’t say they don’t know “gun control” doesn’t work. So when Eric Holder comes out saying we need to ban “assault weapons” to fight Mexican crime, or establish a “No Guns” registry for people on government’s black…uh…watch list, he knows these will not stop even one evil, determined person from committing a violent act–but he wants to do it anyway.
Still, some inane authority worshiper will no doubt point out how guns are being put “on the street” through burglaries. If there were no guns in people’s homes, the argument will go, there would be no guns to steal and then misuse.
I hope someone does. After all, what good does closing the so-called “gun show loophole” do when that only accounts for a tiny fraction of “crime guns”? How could it be logically consistent to not demand shutting off the main source of supply–the home? It would sure be helpful if some in the enemy camp were stupid enough to drop the mask and argue that (some are).
Guns exist in the world. And with the right incentives, the people who the state wants to have them will find a way to get them to the people who want them badly enough to pay top dollar. It’s not like we don’t have plenty of evidence to back that up.