Reading this and the comments (I even made one) and I, again, wonder...
How often is the armed guard or uniformed cop capped before the crime gets going?
You'd think that would be easy to find, wouldn't you?
We know the adage that the bad guy stops once a good guy with a gun shows up, right?
We can't prove the negative, but how many crimes never happen because the good guy with a gun is openly and obviously there before the crime started?
One of the reasons that being a cop isn't a particularly dangerous occupation, despite the circles they run in, is they've all got guns and everyone knows they have guns.
I think we're overlapping our worldviews again.
If you're going to assault a location, it makes sound military sense to take out the weaponry of the opposition first.
But does it make criminal sense?
We equate the threat of violence with the use, because they're the same for us in the reply.
But the threat of violence is a means to an end for the criminal, as is its use. They seek the path of least resistance. Literally.
Click here to submit $0.00 US for a lifetime subscription
Posts
Comments
You make too much sense to be taken seriously by the PTB.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I can tell, despite the hype by cops, they are more likely to get hit by a vehicle when on the side of the road than by the driver of a car they pull over or the occupant of a premise they visit.
ReplyDeleteThe actual level of violence they face is much lower than they claim it is to justify their tactics.