After Dallas, after Baton Rouge, after so much violence, can we put the myth to bed that keeps telling us that all that is needed is “a good guy with a gun.”

I am sure these officers were well-armed. Their guns didn’t do them a lot of good, did they? The officers are still dead.

The platitude and slogans have to stop. Wayne LaPierre is simply not correct. A good guy with a gun isn’t an instant cure for the violence in this country.

18 thoughts on “Police officers ambushed and killed in Baton Rouge

  1. Kelly_3406

    Here is another way that your paragraphs above could have been written:

    After Nice, France, can we put the myth to bed that keeps telling us that gun control can prevent lone wolves from inflicting mass casualties?

    The platitudes and slogans have to stop. Barack Obama is simply not correct. Gun control is not an instant cure for violence in this country or the world.

    1. I prefer my way. A stupid slogan should be called out.

    2. Steve Thomas

      @Kelly_3406

      The only answer for “Truck Violence” is more gun control.

      1. That isn’t really what we are talking about. I don’t think guns would do much good against 747’s either. That doesn’t mean that there is not a solid use for guns in law enforcement. (as well as other tools, both offensive and defensive)

  2. ed

    The 2A advocates that say gun ownership is required to preserve freedom by keeping an unjust and abusive government at bay is now aghast when shown how that philosophy works in real life. They attempt to divert attention from the fact that their political viewpoint is naked nonsense by blaming Obama.

    Gun control will come because racists will want to disarm black Americans. They’ll do it while preserving the 2A for white people by trashing the equal rights part of the 14A: classifying all Blacks (and Muslins) as members of a terrorist organization by virtue of race and/or religion. Therefore gun ownership and stockpiling will be a crime for selected and dis-favored groups in this country.

    1. Steve Thomas

      @ed

      Ed, what is “naked nonsense” is your pointing the finger at an organization that has nothing to do with this, while ignoring the organizations that have everything to do with this.

      If you wanted to point at Law Enforcement (as has been your habit in the past), and blame them for the state of relations between the Black community, and the police…you might have arguable points.

      If you were to point at the so-called leaders of the Black community, and blame them for their divisive rhetoric over the last several years…you might have arguable points.

      If you were to point at the administration, and blame the lack of leadership in the face of these events, you might have arguable points.

      Instead, you blame the NRA. You are ridiculous.

  3. Steve Thomas

    Moon,

    Respectfully, you are wrong. The only defense society has ever had against evil, if for good men (and women) to confront it, with the weapons available at the time.

    To point to the “slogan” (as you call it) and say that an ambush murder of multiple police officers, by those intent on evil, PROVES that “good guys with guns” are not answer to “bad guys with guns”, ignores history, reality, and logic…also, it ignores the fact that in Orlando, Dallas, AND Baton Rouge, the attacks were ended when “good guys with guns” were finally able to overcome the tactical advantages the killers had. The killers had this tactical advantage because they were able to choose the time and place for their rampages, and used surprise to gain the advantage. The police were reactive…and they are always reactive. But in all three cases, the attacks were ended, when the perpetrators were no longer physically able to continue…because they were dead. Same applies to NICE.

    And these guys were Cops. Authority figures. State-sanctioned gun-carriers. Are you saying that because someone has been so poisoned with rhetoric spewed by race hustlers and radicals that they feel justified in murdering cops, that a “good guy with a gun” is not the answer? So what do you propose, beyond trying to play “gotcha” with the NRA?

    I’ll cut you some slack, as I doubt you make a habit of monitoring news reports of Justified Defensive Gun Use. I do. Every single day “good guys with guns” defend themselves and others from evil people intent on doing evil things. Just a few days ago, a legally-armed private citizen took down a man robbing a Waffle House, and its patrons. The “good guy” was armed with a pistol. The bad-guy was armed with an AK-47. The bad guy won’t be committing any armed robberies in the foreseeable future. Here’s a link to an “acceptable” news source. More and better detail can be found at other sources… http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/waffle-house-customer-shoots-robber_us_57863511e4b08608d3324059

    1. I have given “good guys with a gun” more thought. I stand by it being a stupid sound-byte, in my opinion. It is a great over-simplification of a serious problem. If we want to avoid living in a wild west shoot-out weekly, we are going to have to keep some folks from having weapons of mass destruction.

      Having said that, “good guys with a gun” ignores the fact that we have a serious problem in this country. I have no problem with more good guys with guns. I have a problem with bad guys with guns and we are going to have to start factoring the bad guys with guns into the equation and decide what to do about them and how we cut down on their easy access to said guns.

      1. Steve Thomas

        @MoonHowler

        “f we want to avoid living in a wild west shoot-out weekly, we are going to have to keep some folks from having weapons of mass destruction.”

        “Wild West Shoot-Out”

        “Weapons of Mass Destruction”

        “Good Guy With A Gun” is a stupid sound-byte? “Good Guy”…means a person lacking evil intent. “A Gun”…means a tool, an amoral inanimate object that cannot harm unless action is initiated by the person possessing the object. Put the two together, and you have a pretty accurate word-picture. A person lacking malicious intent, using an object to confront another, possessing malicious intent and the means to act.

      2. I simply don’t think you can justify that slogan as a solution to many Americans.

        There are lots of us out there who see solutions somewhere between arming every man, woman and age of consent child and rounding up everyone’s guns.

        You leave no room for moderates. You leave no room for people who believe in the right to bear arms within reason.

      3. Steve Thomas

        @MoonHowler

        “You leave no room for moderates. You leave no room for people who believe in the right to bear arms within reason.”

        I wouldn’t say that. If someone doesn’t want to keep or bear, that’s their right, and their choice.

        What I don’t leave room for is people who blame inanimate or amoral objects or use them as an excuse for the actions of sentient beings, as if murder, suicide, or negligent homicide didn’t exist prior to the invention of gun-powder.

  4. Ed

    We don’t know if someone with a gun intends to do good or evil but we know they have the means to do evil.

    To kill someone is evil and to kill someone who is presumed evil in order to protect the virtuous is still in itself an evil act (albeit more easily forgiven.) The only virtuous self defense is applying non-lethal force to neutralize a person thereby preventing them from following through on their evil intent.

    Police can do their jobs without guns and we would have fewer deaths at the hands of police if they were trained in always applying less-than-lethal force.

    1. Police can do their jobs without guns? Yea, sometimes. What about the times they can’t? You would have them be cannon fodder?

    2. Steve Thomas

      @Ed

      “To kill someone is evil and to kill someone who is presumed evil in order to protect the virtuous is still in itself an evil act (albeit more easily forgiven.)

      I know some WWII and Korean War veterans who would disagree with you. I know some Holocaust survivors who would disagree with you. I know some police officers, and pastors, and private citizens who would disagree with you. I disagree with you. To kills someone in defense of your life, or the life of others, is not evil.

      1. I would even justify killing over property, in some cases. (I know the law doesn’t, but that’s not what I am talking about.)

      2. Steve Thomas

        @MoonHowler

        Nor would I, unless the threat that accompanied this taking of property rose to the level of deadly force. For example: If I look out my window, and see someone trying to steal my car, I call the police. If I am in my car, and someone attempts to take it by force or threat of bodily harm, I’m not protecting property…I am protecting me.

      3. What if someone were rustling your cattle or your prized horses?

  5. ed

    There is no end to killing if you believe that killing someone else in the name of good is somehow justified. Good will always be redefined to justify more killing.

    I don’t accept just war theory.

    There is a moral difference between actively shooting someone in a preemptive strike and having them kill themselves while trying to breach one’s defensive line. IOW, some military action is acceptable without being evil. If one can’t retreat and it is either kill or be killed, then killing is forgivable. I don’t forgive use of lethal force for stand your ground or defense of property.

    That’s the ideal. My practical, utilitarian side doesn’t always agree.

Comments are closed.