Page 1 of 1
Posted on January 9 at 12:46 p.m.
Your long form version of your resume didn't leave much room to point out other credible research. Refer to two policy reports by the Cato Institute: "Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens," and "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America." The former studies the use of statistical data like yours, and concludes how it cannot be relied on because it misleads both sides of the debate. So the Cato Institute gathered all armed self defense incidents going back 8 years and studied it independently. Their findings prove many of your “facts” to be merely myths.
It is counterfeit to relate POST standards to citizens who arm themselves. Citizens have a right to self defense, and that does not translate into needing certifications to the do the complexities of armed police work.
The latter unveils an unsettling rise in the use of SWAT. 30 years ago, SWAT was used rarely and reserved for the most risky operations. Today over 40,000 SWAT raids happen each year, and it is being more commonly used for routine police work like serving misdemeanor warrants and going after non-violent suspects. The phenomena has resulted in officers dressed not as police, but as soldiers who target wrong addresses and injure or kill dozens of innocents.
Ironically, a weapon commonly issued to police for public safety, which is also the weapon of choice for SWAT, is the AR-15. The very weapon that you said is “a perfect, personal weapon of human mass destruction.”
Our modern military does not have the police powers granted to the British Army in 1775, and today we have real municipal police departments employing over 1.2 million officers who police our civilians AND military personnel. Compare that to the 1.4 million military personnel who do not share off duty arrest and firearm carry privileges granted to police. Tyranny is possible today as it was in 1791. But instead of coming from the military, it’s more likely to come from police who willingly follow unconstitutional orders of a local politician, police chief, or sheriff. Imagine the power of Sheriff Arpaio if he could disarm his citizens. In order to satisfy “necessary to the security of a free state,” mentally sane, law abiding citizens have a right to arm themselves to the same degree that police officers find fit to arm themselves from criminals, and the most powerful weapon in the police force arsenal is no longer the musket or revolver. It is the so called “assault weapon.”
I too am a former Marine and 18-year law enforcement officer (federal) who shares a lot of the training and experience outlined in your resume. But I also remember taking an oath to defend the Constitution. In order to serve nobly, one must carry out that oath without prejudice. It is not the peace officers’ position to choose what parts of the Constitution we want citizens to follow while reserving the rest as a special privilege for ourselves.
On On Guns and Safety