Disarm the Police?

Read article here: NYPD: 9 shooting bystander victims hit by police



Last Friday, a disgruntled employee, in a city that has all but made guns illegal, used a gun (illegally) to kill a former colleague.  When police engaged the criminal, he pointed his gun at them, so they shot him... along with NINE INNOCENT BYSTANDERS!

NYC already has some of the most draconian gun laws in the country.  The criminal in this incident violated several of them.  As a result, one person was killed.  Police responded legally, and not only was one more person killed, but several others were injured.  Who's guns were more dangerous?  The criminal's?  Or those of the police?

I used to compete in PPC, a shooting sport developed by police to encourage the development of shooting skills.  Competitions were generally organized by police and held on police ranges.  Private citizens competed directly against police officers.  And we were better.  Every department had skilled shooters who would score with our best, but the average officer's shooting skills were far inferior to those of the average shooting enthusiast.

If gun control advocates believe the presence of a firearm is inherently dangerous, why do we arm police?  How is a gun in the hands of a police officer somehow safer and more beneficial than one in the hands of a private citizen?  Are police officers more responsible?  More ethical?  More rational?  In my experience, they're certainly not better trained.  Friday's incident supports that observation.

I'm not suggesting we disarm police officers.  What I am suggesting is that gun control advocates consider the possibility that their position on firearms is based more on emotion than fact.  To consider the very real possibility that their solutions to gun violence are ineffective.  To admit that they may be wrong.