This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
47% Chance of What? by Leroy Pyle The Lieutenant of Police told me that he and his department personnel
advise citizens that there is a 47% greater chance of their personal firearm
being used against them or a family member, rather than for protection. And he
prefers that citizens didn't own firearms. If owned, they should be kept
unloaded and locked safely away with the ammunition locked up separately. It was tough maintaining my smile while continuing the conversation. The
good Lieutenant had just advised me that his Chief of Police was a member of
P.E.R.F., Handgun Control's Police Executive Research Foundation, and the
department's Crime Prevention Officer who was assigned to participate in the
N.R.A. Women's Firearms Safety Seminar I was emcee'ing would be handing out HCI
firearms safety brochures! I was on my best behavior, though, as I was given a tour of the
department's facilities. The Lieutenant was very proud of the fairly new
facility that headquartered his 380+ force in a good-size Texas city, and it was
apparent that he played a big part in its administration. But I couldn't get
that 47% figure out of my head. He seemed an intelligent sort that had
contributed much to his department's law enforcement effort. I was there because
I had asked for a law enforcement representative to explain the State's firearms
laws to a group of women attending a firearms safety seminar in his city. He was
going to direct a Crime Prevention Officer to attend, but took the opportunity
of my visit to offer his opinions. It was apparent that he had read his share of
HCI literature, and agreed with their anti-gun philosophy. He went so far as to
express the opinion that law enforcement did not need pistol magazines exceeding
a 7 or 8 round capacity. He explained that cops were shooting more since the
conversion to high-capacity magazines, and hitting less. In as friendly a way as I could, I suggested to the Lieutenant that
bringing HCI literature to an NRA seminar would be like bringing ACLU material
to a meeting of police officers discussing Civilian Review Boards. No disrespect
to the ACLU attorneys, of course, but most would agree that the agendas don't
always match. He seemed to agree, but went on to explain that the ACLU made some
good points when it came to a civilian review board. I still couldn't get that 47%
figure out of my thoughts. 47%
of what? A Lieutenant of police was telling me something that made no sense! Am
I to expect that the guns of almost 300 of his gun owner officers are going to
be used against friend or family? How else can that be interpreted? I mean, a
gun owner is a gun owner regardless of occupation. Or does that 47% figure
really have any meaning? Do any of HCI's figures have any real meaning? And just
what has caused the police administrator to take up with a bunch whose primary
purpose in life is to deprive the honest citizen of the right to self-defense?
And what about constitutional rights? I had to be courteous at the time. I was in his city, a guest in his
department, and asking for the services of one of his officers. But I was angry
and disappointed to hear yet another police administrator mouth the
exaggerations, distortions and lies of the gun-control advocates. How many can relate to the police administrator who has taken the gun
issue to the press, waving about so-called 'ASSAULT WEAPONS'? Is there a real
policeman out there who believes there is a plastic gun? Is there a policeman
who is REALLY fearful of "semi-automatic" firearms? Or "Saturday
night specials"? Or "military style"? Is "rapid-fire"
really anything more than how fast a finger can pull a trigger? And as the
professional gun-owners in our society, do we really need police administrators
who publicly announce the only reason for these firearms is to "kill
people" and that his ? Think about how that may sound in court the next time a defense attorney
gets a SWAT‑officer on the stand who was the first-man-in-the-door and had
to use his weapon in self defense. Do we really need quotes by police
administrators on record that "the only reason for firearms (the very same
kind that POLICE OFFICERS CARRY) is to KILL people"? Is it necessary to promote personal politics by claiming "the police
are LOSING the battle against crime"? Or that the police "are
outgunned"? Is that the reputation that you prefer for YOUR police
department? What kind of hero would Eliott Ness have been if he hid in his
office and sniveled about Al Capone's machine gun? Today's law enforcement officer is more professional than ever. He does
not depend on brute strength any more than he requires the "biggest"
gun! The modern officer realizes that intelligence, skill, tactics, and planning
are his or her greatest STRENGTH! But can the same be said of the police administrator who parrots the HCI
lies? Has it ever occurred to any of our political chiefs that if the people are
ever disarmed, as in England, that the cops will be the next to be disarmed, AS
IN ENGLAND! What's worrying me is that this coziness between so-called police leaders
and our traditional political foes is causing many of our gun-owning friends,
our TRADITIONAL "NATURAL CONSTITUENCY," to raise loud voices against
ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT. And if you doubt it, you should read my mail, or look at
the hostile comments on the law enforcement computer bulletin boards. With the majority of recent anti-gun legislation carried on the backs of
law enforcement, and the press saying "police have joined the demand for
gun control", not only have these police administrators succeeded in
costing us much-needed support from our strongest supporters, they are
triggering active hostility toward police among gun groups. What happens if, in
retaliation for 'gun control' demands, the gun lobby decides to throw its weight
behind the decades‑old police disarmament efforts? If gun owners have to
give up their guns, or leave them locked up at ranges (as some have proposed AND
seems to be happening in New York City) how many of them are going to demand
that law enforcement officers leave duty guns in lockers when going off duty?
Police have a stake in the gun control fight. It's a big stake, and if
you are interested in participating, I can present options to save our
reputation and gain back the support of our long‑time allies. Contact me
at lpyle@PaulRevere.org. The Women's Safety Seminar was a complete success, by the way. The local
Crime Prevention Officer participated. He did a pretty good job, and did bring
the HCI literature along with other department handouts. I was very lucky to
have some experienced NTARC activists help with the sign-up table and hand out
literature. They told me later that the HCI stuff must have been great, because
it disappeared almost immediately! Leroy
Pyle is a career police officer, |
||||||||||
