Tammy Bruce: But I Thought DC and Chicago Were Gun Free Zones

But I Thought DC and Chicago Were Gun Free Zones

So why do the police need assault rifles? Weird.

The Metropolitan Police Department has joined other major U.S. cities in arming patrol officers with assault rifles to protect them against criminals with high-powered weapons, weeks after being released from a federal program that monitors the use of excessive force.

"We want to be as accurate as possible and have more stopping power," Assistant Chief Patrick Burke said yesterday...The Chicago Police Department is making similar plans and the City of Miami Police Department is already using such weapons.

"We need to be equally equipped with the firearms that are being used against the police," said Monique Bond, a Chicago police spokeswoman. "If officers cannot protect themselves, they cannot protect residents." [Wait, wait, you mean guns in the hands of the right people is a good thing and protects people!?!?!? Is it possible?!?!]

Last month, Chicago had one of the most violent crime waves in recent history — 36 shootings in which nine people were killed and an AK-47 assault rifle was used to shoot up a plumbing-supply store...

Now just wait one second. We're talking about "gun violence" and guns are illegal so what are the police talking about!? Uh, and what is this about police not being able to protect the citizens? I mean, is it possible that "gun violence" is out of control because law-abiding citizens aren't allowed to protect themselves?

I can already feel a headache coming on I'm so confused.

Posted by Tammy · May 8, 2008 11:59 AM · Permalink
Crime | Incompetence | Politics | Second Amendment

Comments

More guns, less crime. It works everywhere it is put to use. High and low population density, urban and rural. Criminals (convicts) say they avoid homes with any sign that the owner may be armed, such as a pickup in the driveway with a gun rack, or and NRA or Police booster sticker on the car.

Posted by: mrfixit at May 8, 2008 01:30 PM

Let us not forget that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to protect any citizen. The police exist only to, by their presence, deter crime for the public at large and to investigate criminal offenses after they occur. This issue is well settled law, having gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. It's the law of the land.

It may, at first, seem outrageous, but it is not only rational, but necessary. If individuals could sue the police for failing to keep criminals from harming them, no city could afford a police force. Most citizens would be utterly shocked to learn how few police officers are patrolling their cities at any time of the day or night (hint: Very few during the day, more during the night hours). And while the police absolutely love catching bad guys in the act of harming good guys, any honest cop will tell you that sort of thing is, sadly, rare.

There is no reason police departments shouldn't have AR-15 class rifles and similar weapons. There are, indeed, more accurate, particularly at ranges exceeding 15 yards, than any handgun. Let's keep in mind two facts: Firearms are tools, and different types are needed to effectively perform different tasks. And we have always been and always will be responsible for our personal safety and the safety of those we love. Those who wish to deny us the ability to assume that responsibility should be seen as the dangerous fools and demagogues they are and promptly run out of office. They work for us, not the other way around.

Posted by: Mike at May 8, 2008 09:24 PM

By Category

By Month

But I Thought DC and Chicago Were Gun Free Zones

Comments

Post a comment