Details of a sad story in San Diego were released today. A confrantion between a mom, Silva, and an off-duty cop, White, turned violent. See the story below.
It seems like the mom, Silva, was in the wrong and is at fault. However, the situation turned lethal when a gun was introduced. It seems in that terrible moment of fear and uncertainty (an adrenalized moment with tinted windows and high tension) that a gun pushes a tense situation over the edge.
This is what the statement, based on a “preliminary investigation,” says happened:
White, 28, was driving with his wife south on Old Grove Road about 9:15 p.m. Silva, whose son was in the front passenger seat, was leaving a Shell gas station onto Old Grove at the same time.
An independent witness said that Silva's car nearly ran into White's, and he swerved to avoid an accident. White continued along Old Grove Road and pulled into the Lowe's parking lot.
Another witness said Silva was “tailgating White's car, revving the engine, and yelling and screaming as she followed” White's black Mercury sedan into the parking lot.
White's wife called 911 “to report an aggressive driver.” White stopped his car, and Silva pulled her Honda to the left side of his car.
White displayed a handgun, and then backed away from Silva's car and stopped.
Silva called 911 and reported that there was a man with a gun. She then “reversed her vehicle in the direction of the Whites' car, sideswiping it.” White then fired five rounds into Silva's Honda.
The statement described the front passenger window of Silva's car as “closed” and “darkly tinted.”
After returning from China, where there are no guns, I am just struck by the ridiculousness of an America where so many insist it to be a good thing for every citizen to be armed with a handgun. If a well-trained police officer, when put in a tense situation, is capable of blasting an unarmed (though seemingly disturbed) mom and her son, should the rest of be trusted to show better judgment.
My conservative friends all point out that while China doesn't have guns, it also doesn't have other things like, say, freedom of speech, expression, or religion. Must we tolerate handgun violence if we are to avoid political repression? I don't think so. Places like Norway, where not even the police carry guns, seem to still encourage political enfranchisement from multiple sides.
So why not us? I'd love to hear what people think. Am I missing something here?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
As someone who lives in one of the only places where owning a handgun is illegal, I have to agree with you. Anyway you look at it, the "need" to carry a gun is a part of a culture of fear. Just watch the news--it's one "scary" story after another. Owning a gun is generally a high risk way to protect against a low probability event (an intruder, an assault in the home--that would be "resolved" with a gun in the homeowner's "favor").
For all sides of the debate, I'd suggest taking a look at the briefing in the current case challenging DC's handgun ban. http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/
You will probably find more statistics/data in the amici curaie (friends of the court) briefs.
It is likely that the Court will find the 2d Amendment provides an "individual" right to own a gun (re read the text of the amendment sometime and you'll see this is a somewhat debatable point), and the court will likely divide as to what level to review to apply to regulations which infringe upon that right. (And SOME infringement will be allowed--I can't imagine the court will employ reasoning that would lead to striking down assault weapons bans, etc.)
We don't have guns in England either, but unlike China we do have democracy. I agree with you. Theres no real need for guns if you have a decently trained and funded police force to keep you safe and uphold the rule of law. I feel like guns can so easily fall into the wrong hands, with devastating consequences for everyone. Your story made me very sad, people do crazy things they regret when they are angry - its human nature. The problem is, I guess, you can't really apologise if you shoot someone dead in a fit of pique.
I disagree with everyone so far. Unless the government can somehow collect ALL guns and destroy them, which to me seems unlikely, then criminals are going to get their hands on guns and use them to commit crimes even if it is illegal to have a gun. Criminals don't care if it is legal to own a gun or not. So in this case, gun-toting criminals know that the law-abiding citizens will not have a gun to protect themselves. Allowing law-abiding citizens the opportunity to legally own and carry a concealed handgun should deter at least some of these criminals from victimizing people. The criminals will not know who may have a concealed weapon on them or in their house for protection.
Brent, in the case of your news story, obviously that off-duty police officer was not using his gun legally which is pretty scary. I realize this is the point of your post, but I think the problem here is when guns get in the wrong hands and not with guns period. Guns are going to get in the wrong hands, and we should have the right to protect ourselves from these people.
I used to be on your side of this argument. My husband's opinion and my job have changed my mind. I do find it interesting that the police in places like Norway don't even carry guns. I don't see how that works at all, but apparently it does. I'll have to research that more!
Interesting post, Brent. I hope more people reply with their opinions.
Clarifying... Fortunately, the woman and her son were not killed in the incident. She is pondering legal action at this time, though I would encourage anger management counseling while she is at it...
Great comments - Esp. the DC angle - I listened to a some of the Supreme Court debate, which was fascinating.
Post a Comment