Emeryville California Police Chief Ken James claims that guns are not defensive weapons. If true then why do police carry them?In the 1940s and 50s famed Author George Orwell surmised that both the English language and civilized society were in decline.
After a press conference held last week by Emeryville California Police Chief Ken James its easy to see a decline in both language and critical thinking skills in our country. And as Orwell thought indeed civilized society may very well be in jeopardy.
It happened on February 14th. Taking to the microphones and cameras in his suburban San Francisco community Chief James stood at a podium with the requisite group of serious-looking professionally dressed pouty-faced people standing behind him (it appears that Emeryville Mayor Kurt Brinkman was one of them). In part the Chief said one issue that always boggles my mind is that the idea that a gun is a defensive weapon. That is a myth. A gun is not a defensive weapon."
From there Mr. James went on to say that a gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power. Police officers dont carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner and face any oppositions 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 two months of this year so far we have lost two officers to gun violence in the state of California alone."
So how shall we begin to analyze the logical fallacies here? Lets start with this: a gun is an inanimate object. A gun doesnt think; it doesnt feel; it has no intentions or aspirations; and despite what the Emeryville Chief of Police says a gun does not have offensive" or defensive" tendencies.
In this regard guns and footballs share something in common. Neither a gun nor a football is offensive" or defensive" in its essence. Yet each of them can be utilized by a human being for either offensive or defensive purposes. In short whether a gun or a football is used for offensive or defensive purposes depends on who possesses it.
Having established this consider these words again: a gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power. Police officers dont carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner and face any oppositions we may come upon."
Really Mr. James? I wont bother doing grammar police" work here (oppositions" is not a word and placeing we" and they" as the subject of the same sentence is problematic as well).
But seriously does Chief James believe his own definition of a gun? If a gun is nothing more than something used to intimidate and show power" then why would police officers carry them? And is it the role of police officers to intimidate?" Is it ever the job of a cop to show power?"
I would answer both these questions with an emphatic yes." At times police officers absolutely need to show power" and to appear intimidating in the face of lawless threats and I suspect that most cops if they were honest would agree.
Yet James probably would not want to publicly say our job as police officers is to intimidate" especially not in Californias very left-wing Bay Area because he would steer himself in to yet another public relations debacle appearing as though hes making excuses for police officers displaying excessive force."
But if James assertions are true and a gun is merely something used to intimidate and show power" and can never be used for defensive purposes then police officers should abandon them immediately. Law enforcement officers should be about the business of defending property themselves and the citizens they serve. If a gun isnt helpful for those types of efforts as Chief James insists then its time for his police force to hand them in.
And heres another implication of Chief James illogical remarks: If a gun was really something to be used for defensive purposes then cops would never get killed. Well in a perfect world maybe this would be true. But in the real and imperfect world in which we all live (and this would include Chief James) even the best defensive plans sometimes are insufficient to save a life.
I mean no disrespect here to law enforcement officers or to Chief James. On the contrary I respect the profession of law enforcement enough to point out the recklessness of this mans words.
I also realize that we live in a time when logic critical thinking communication and the ability to draw inferences and to consider the implications of ones words are skills that are in short supply. Yet the demand for them has perhaps never been greater in our nations history.
A gun in the hands of a criminal is a dangerous thing. The power of law enforcement in the hands of people who cant think or speak logically is perhaps even more so.