On February 14, 2013 California Police Chief Ken James issued a statement regarding the use of firearms as a protective device. This is a clear example of using vocabulary to control the discourse of a subject, and attempting to lead the listener into a conclusion based on something other than facts. The whole quote can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdqWI8HCNf8&feature=player_embedded
And a transcript of the video:
__________
One issue that always boggles my mind is the idea that the gun is a defensive weapon. That is a myth. A gun is not a defensive weapon. The gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and to show power. Pol ice officers do not carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner, and face any opposition we may come upon.
If it was a defensive measure, why did we lose 55 officers nationwide last year to gun violence? And unfortunately in just the 2 months of this year so far we’ve lost 2 officers to gun violence in the state of CA alone.
We deal with gun violence on a daily basis. We are asking, and have been asking, for reasonable regulation. Not that are going to impact the legal gun owner. We’re asking for reasonable gun regulation that will keep our communities and officers safe. -California Police Chief Ken James
__________
Using the vocabulary of knowledgeable personal protection sources, we will analyze this press statement and separate fact from fallacy.
One issue that always boggles my mind is the idea that the gun is a defensive weapon. That is a myth. A gun is not a defensive weapon. The gun is an offensive weapon.
Chief James is absolutely correct. There is nothing ‘defensive’ about using a chemical explosion to hurl a mass at high speed into the body of another person. It is a purely offensive action. That does not, however, mean that the intent of discharging the firearm is offensive; the intent may be purely protective. Per the California Penal Code 197:
197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
By stressing the firearm is an offense-only weapon, Chief James obfuscates the use of firearms in a protective role, and implies that firearms are only used offensively for little or no protective effect. In fact, firearms are used daily by average law-abiding citizens to deter or eliminate unlawful force being used against them.
The gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and to show power.
I would argue that in the role of a police officer, Chief James may be partially correct. Police have the responsibility to enforce law and apprehend criminals for justice. In this case, the firearm is an effective tool to assert power over a volatile situation and display clear and convincing consequences to a criminal who may refuse to obey that authority.
However, in the hands of a non-LEO civilian, the firearm is not for intimidation and control, it is to protect one’s own life or the life of those nearby (“in defense of himself or the state”). The non-LEO civilian has no duty to apprehend criminals, and no authority to exert his will over others. Therefore, the role of the firearm in the hands of an LEO and non-LEO are quite different. By failing to make this clear distinction, or even recognize it, Chief James implies that the role of the firearm is inherently limited to assertive control by force. The average law abiding citizen does not seek to assert force in this manner.
If it was a defensive measure, why did we lose 55 officers nationwide last year to gun violence? And unfortunately in just the 2 months of this year so far we’ve lost 2 officers to gun violence in the state of CA alone.
Chief James uses a completely fallacious argument here. Because firearm-based protection, just like any form of personal protection, is not 100% effective and reliable, Chief James concludes it is not defensive in nature. As an example, in hockey, goalies are an inherently defensive player. Because goals are occasionally scored against the goalie, does this mean the goalie’s role has somehow changed to the team’s offense? No. The fact that goals are scored, just like (sadly), officers are killed in the line of duty, does not change the role of the firearm.
In truth, no system in nature is 100% effective. Certainly no man-made system is 100% effective. In 2006, there were about 800,000 police officers employed by city, county, and state. If there were roughly 55 officer deaths that year as well, then using fallacious logic like this could state that the firearm is 99.993% effective as a defensive weapon. (This too is fallacious because some rural officers may never have to unholster their weapon while urban officers may have to numerous times each year.)
We’re asking for reasonable gun regulation that will keep our communities and officers safe.
Reasonable gun regulation has been asked for, and granted, hundreds of times in our nation’s history. From heavy restrictions on fully automatic weapons, draconian regulations on firearm sizes and dimensions, ineffective import regulations, a federal gun sales system, to outright bans in some areas, government has repeatedly asked for ‘common sense gun regulation’. If your freedom was a $1 bill, and someone asks you for 5 cents enough times, you will be broke. This is the end game of politicians and would-be tyrants: total gun confiscation. The same officials that ask this to help keep you safe are the same ones that have asked for infringement after infringement in the same vain.
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't there. -Dianne Feinstein February 5, 1995
We who train in personal protection do not believe in the ‘common sense’ of those that would disarm us and make us vulnerable to our attackers. We believe in access to the proper tools and training that, when used in a morally and ethically justifiable way, help ensure we and those we train are not victims to criminals.
We reject the fallacious notion of ‘reasonable’ compromise to our safety. We reject the ill-thought label of ‘common sense’ when seeking further infringements on our rights. We reject giving up effective tools for ourselves and shifting the responsibility for personal safety to the police, who are under no legal compulsion to provide it.
Comments