Why do cops carry guns? Is it to protect innocent people from being preyed upon by criminals? Or is it to defend themselves from criminals? It’s both, actually. Of course, the rhetoric right now is that it is neither of those—that it is for cops to carry out their homicidal rage on unarmed people. The statistics and the truth just don’t support that rhetoric. Annually, something like 30 unarmed people are shot by police in the US. That’s out of a country of well over 300 million, so that math comes out to less than one in every 10 million people. And of the 30 people, the latest was that just nine were black, though news organizations worked hard to try to recharacterize those 30 unfortunates so a few more might be deemed black. Oh and unarmed is not synonymous with harmless. Hop yourself up with about five hits of meth, or maybe five of PCP, or maybe both, and just see if other people tend to get on your nerves. It’s a crazy world and cops get to meet these people with regularity. Better the cops than you.
The complained-of epidemic of offensive use of guns by cops is not an epidemic in any way and seems to be quite a rare malady by the numbers. In reality, the reason cops carry guns is for defensive reasons—protecting you and themselves from the criminal element. Anyone who has ever watched more than 30 minutes of Cops or Live PD or even Dragnet 1967 knows that domestic incidents and traffic stops are as dangerous as any homicide apprehensions, yet the latest brainstorm of the Left is to give these over to unarmed social workers.
So let’s see, the same badass with a stolen Glock is in the car whether it’s pulled over by an armed police officer or an unarmed social worker. The domestic couple has the same revolver and deer-skinning knife whether the person responding is armed or not. Who would want to do the same job the cops have to do with these people, but without a gun?
Hey mom, I know you wanted me to use my social work degree in the school lunch program administration in the capitol building, but I have a real opportunity to help people in the inner city by pulling them over for burnt out taillights and lapsed registrations. A gun? Of course not—you know I don’t want anything to do with guns! I’m going to use my psychology class as my weapon!
Is there anyone foolish enough to have that conversation? And then to go on to actually take the job doing the stops, or refereeing the domestic disputes? That’s a job with a risk profile similar to Alaskan fishing boat crew, asbestos worker, or security patrol in Afghanistan.
Does the Left understand this won’t work? The people at the top aren’t stupid, so they surely must. The people further down the line will be their dupes. Some will be sacrificed to achieve the real goal—no more traffic stops, it’s too dangerous! We tried it both ways! Naturally, the whole time the real reason to stop is that it’s too racist, because minorities are disproportionately caught in the web.
The domestic disputes are tougher. You can decide to halt all proactive traffic stops, but you can’t keep family members from fighting. Somebody has to respond before they kill each other. Right? Here the goal will be to bring a police officer along, but the police officer will serve as the bodyguard to the social worker and take orders from them.
Who can trust cops? Some may not even have a degree in psychology, or have read a self-help book! The Left to the rescue!