Led Around By Our Emotional Nose

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

I’m trying to break down the anti-gun logic, hoping to find a clue how to convince them to see reason.

Should police be allowed to carry guns in public?

Yes, to defend themselves.

Whose life is more valuable: a policeman or a 26-year-old Black woman?


Should she be allowed to carry a gun in public?

No, she has no need.  The cop must go into danger, she need not.

What if she lives in North Minneapolis, works as a waitress and walks home after her shift ends at night?

Even if she has a need, she has no training.  She’ll use a gun wrongly.

Suppose she just graduated from the two-year program at Hibbing Community College and aced her POST boards, but has not yet received a job officer so she’s not yet a sworn officer.  She’s as well educated as the law requires to be a police officer.  Should she be allowed to carry a gun?

No, she doesn’t have the practical experience.  She needs to serve a probationary period under the supervision of an experienced officer to learn when and how to use her weapon.

So a person who has the education and the practical training will never use the gun wrongly?

No, even experienced officers still can make mistakes.  But the odds are better they won’t.

Suppose she was a cop but is taking a couple of years off to raise her daughter as a single mother.  She’s fully trained.  Now can she carry a gun in public?

If the answer is still no, then it’s plain the objection is not education or experience or need, the objection is emotional and irrational.

Irrational behavior should not set public policy.

Joe Doakes

And yet it drives half of our body politic almost exclusively, and a majority of the other half on way too many issues.

That train left the station.  Not sure it’ll ever come back.

2 thoughts on “Led Around By Our Emotional Nose

  1. I keep reading the 2A and find NO reference to any POST requirements. I read 1A and note “Congress shall make no law”. As I read the other BOR amendments I read that constraints made therein apply to government.

  2. First, as was again demonstrated at Berkeley last week, police have no duty to protect you. They can legally walk away from a confrontation, leave you to your fate and you have no recourse.

    Second, the homicide rate for the concealed carry population is lower than the population of police officers. An armed civilian will walk away from a confrontation if allowed where a police officer will shoot your stupid snowflake ass. The proper response to the training and experience argument is “organic fertilizer”.

    Finally, just why are you are so emotionally committed to disarming your neighbors? You either have no idea of the existing laws or you are hoping that the criminals murder you last. Neither situation recommends any legislation you propose.

Leave a Reply