Typical Anti-Logic
Found this in an editorial at the LA Times:
It’s a typical American response to an all-too-typical American incident of gun violence. It is also a striking example of the disconnect between our desire to feel safe and our insistence on loose gun laws that make us less so. The murdered officers were armed, well trained in the use of their weapons and wearing bulletproof vests. It didn’t save them.
Two things …
First, WOW, what a great point! If officers remain unarmed and unprotected, they’ll be safe! Or something. How do people make this argument with a straight face? As if being unarmed would have somehow helped them survive? That tactic didn’t work so well for anyone at Fort Hood, by the way.
Second, readiness. Most people are not constantly aware of the signals around them that could indicate danger. Having a badge, a gun, or years of training won’t make you immune to danger. All their sidearms did in this instance is give them the ability to fire back.
Most of the anti-gun crowd would rather have you unarmed and fumbling to dial 9-1-1 as you’re getting shot which is exactly why these types of ridiculous arguments make zero sense.