To save our country -- to prevent mass murders and school shootings -- some suggest we arm as many as possible. They suggest that if every place is saturated with weapons, regardless where a live-shooter shows up, there will be a gun to neutralize him.
Law enforcement by the body of the public, then. Instead of relying on police, let the general populace do the work.
But, I think we should point out that what is being advocated does differ from how we traditionally respond to crime. Is our defense against bank robbers the general public? Do we rely on concealed weapon holders, or open-carry weapon holders, to respond to bank robberies, or thefts or whatever other crime there is?
I mean, if this is the formula for fighting mass shootings, should it be the same defense system we use against all our crimes?
After all, you could organize it well beyond what it is. When a 911 call came in, it could ring through to a ready network of gun-holders, with which ever of them closest to the crime responding.
Who needs a police force? Your public is your police force. 911 reaches the nearest gun-holder.
Law enforcement by vigilante force.
Now, make no mistake: I am not advocating such a system. I am only suggesting that if we took what many gun advocates are recommending as an answer to mass shootings, and if we applied it to the whole of our response against crime, this is what it would look like.
No comments:
Post a Comment