Last night I respond to a disturbance call. I find one of the parties involved away from
the scene. The guy is huge so as I am
talking to him I put on my carbon fiber knuckled gloves. The poker match had started, and me by
putting on my gloves it was like I threw a big ass bet down after looking at my
cards. I did not know at the time but he
was an old school criminal and he knows the rules of the street. He metaphorically looks at his cards and
folds. He knows respect gets respect and
static gets static. He politely tells me
he has served five different prison sentences for nearly 20 years and knows the
rules and does not want trouble. This
means he has at least once, been at the crossroads of “The easy way and the hard
way” with the cops before, so he knows the pain that comes with the hard way. He knew the cops had been called so he was
smart enough to not have any weapons or contraband on him since he was
expecting to get contacted by the police and being a seasoned professional in
the justice system knew the situation would likely not lead to his arrest.
Now just because we are using please and thank you’s and I
am not kneeling on his head with him spitting out blood does not mean I am not
aware that this is a person to keep my guard up and never turn my back
too. History has shown it could pop off
at any time and just because he is being cool now, doesn’t mean that he isn’t
in his head, planning to hurt or kill me.
I know that as I am talking to him I am envisioning scenarios of things
he might do to attack me and what my response will be. Our interaction is congenial and in the end
he is released because the disturbance has not risen to a criminal level. As he is starting to leave (me still watching
him until I am safe to stop) he asks “So what do you think of all of these new
gun laws” Earlier in the day President
Obama presented his first 23 steps to reduce gun violence. I responded “well I like the fact that they
are looking to tie the mental health to background checks and stiffer penalties
for lying on the application and such, but banning high caps and assault
weapons is not going to be terribly effective.
In the end I’m still gonna have mine and your still gonna have yours”
and I chuckle. Understand that this is a
person who has been prohibited from firearm possession since his first felony
conviction in 1990. Him having a single
bullet is a crime. He chuckled “well…you
know how it is” I quipped “so will you start obeying the new and improved laws”
he laughed “You know the laws don’t make no difference to me” My response “tru
dat”. Then we went our separate ways.
So later the same night around 2300 hours and I am finally
getting a chance to eat my Double Double with grilled onions. I hear a shooting call come out. I cram into my gullet as much as I can and
run out to my car. I respond to the
scene which ultimately ends up being a murder scene. I am tasked with certain tasks which I
complete and report back to the scene supervisor so he can brief the homicide
detectives when they arrive. Not to toot
my own horn but beep beep, I’m kind of an intel expert and have access to more
databases than the average officers from my time as a criminal intelligence
detective and the scene supervisor recognized this so I get those tasks. The last few hours on the call I am stuck
freezing my nuggets off in the uncharacteristically cold weather on the outer
perimeter. Since its 0200 in an
industrial area there isn’t much traffic to move along so my duty is pretty much
raise the crime scene tape when the detectives arrive and let them into the
crime scene.
It’s during this mindless time that my mind wanders to try
and comprehend how the new gun laws announced earlier today will impact this
crime that I am standing at right now.
The gun used here was not an assault weapon and it didn’t appear to be a
high capacity gun either. It was a small
caliber, pistol most likely based on the spent casings found. The victim was a lifelong criminal with a
longtime addiction to illegal drugs.
Statistics will ultimately bear out that he knew the suspect and they
too were a criminal and probably a 90% chance that this was a “drug deal gone
bad” and the suspect was a prohibited possessor of firearms. So
what has changed?
It got me thinking, so banning high caps from law abiding
citizens that haven’t done anything wrong yet is kind of nutty. I hear the common phrase that normal people
don’t need them so they shouldn’t have them.
It seems to be a common belief that only Military and Law Enforcement
should have high capacity mags and assault weapons. Okay, so let’s dissect this. It’s likely that there are people bad enough
in the world that cops and military need to be armed up to deal with them. But the average citizen that hasn’t done
anything wrong shouldn’t. For demonstrative
purposes I will use hyperbole to illustrate this.
When I am at work in uniform or when I was in the military I
am fully capable of possessing these tools to defend others, but when I want to
defend myself at home in my jeans and T shirt I should be limited to low
capacity mags and no assault weapons. So
when I am willing to die to keep others safe it’s okay but not when I am off
duty at home. Well guess what I am still
willing to die to protect myself and family.
And if my NFA registered SBR with a 30 round magazine is the first
weapon I grab, I will use that tool off duty as well. So when I am not at work
I am now not worthy or capable of buying or possessing these weapons because
what? I may go on a shooting spree in my
civilian clothes? Or I may go in a
shooting spree because I have 30 round mags and I won’t if I have 10 round
mags? I can’t be trusted when I am off
duty but I can when I am on duty. So we will take away the ability of those that
don’t commit the crimes to posses these tools because we don’t want criminals
to commit crimes. Right?
Look, I am more motivated than the average person to keep
guns out of the hands of criminals and nut jobs but this makes no sense to
me. I am all for linking mental health
to the background checks and actually prosecuting those that lie on the
applications. What is tragic is that it
took a tragedy like Sandy Hook to make this happen. I just don’t see how restricting those that don’t
commit crimes will solve the problem. In
fact I am going out on a limb and going to call it now. The ban will go into effect and there will be
another tragic school shooting. There I
said it. Does anyone besides me find it ridiculous
that David Gregory committed a crime by showing a high capacity magazine on
TV? That makes sense to someone? How about making it legal for David Gregory
to show the magazine on TV (as long as he doesn’t use it to commit a crime, he
is sane and not a felon) and lock Mr. 5 trips to prison up forever instead. What is the likely hood that David Gregory is
going to feloniously kill people or steal from them or assault them? Just guessing not very high. How about Mr. 5 trips to prison? What are his chances to commit those
crimes? Based on his violent history, I’m
going to say pretty good. You, Mr.
Gregory and everyone else including Mr. 5 trips to prison is not going to be
allowed to posses high cap mags, which in the group do you think will obey
this? Who is going to follow the rules
of society and who is going to follow the rules of the street?
So standing there in the cold I had to wonder how any of the
proposed gun legislation would have kept my dead dude from getting dead.
No comments:
Post a Comment