You know it will happen. Sure, right now the anti-gun crowd are fairly quiet, but it is only a matter of time before we hear, “we have to get the guns out of the hands of criminals.”
In case you are not aware of what I am writing about, a criminal on parole was pulled over for a traffic infraction. The criminal caught the police off guard and killed both officers. Fleeing from the scene, police are let to an apartment, a shootout ensues and two more police officers are killed in the line of duty. A fifth officer was wounded but is expected to recover.
Harry Harris, with the MercuryNews.com, wrote a good article about the Okaland Police Shooting. He wrote, “…Mixon stepped out and began shooting with an semi-automatic handgun, hitting Dunakin and Hege…”
While Mr Harris did not write words that were overtly anti-gun, he did use language that implys the type of gun made matters worse. What exactly is the different between a “semi-automatic handgun” and a “handgun”?
In an ABC report, Amy Hollyfield reported “[the salient]…used a handgun to shoot the motorcyle cops who pulled him over and an assault rifle at the apartment.” Again, not overtly anti-gun, but “assault rifle” starts to introduce emotion in the reporting.
At some point in the not so distant future, someone will suggest outlawing semi-automatic handguns AND assault rifles is in the public’s best interest. The suggestion will be that outlawing these guns would keep them off the streets. The problem with such an argument is the criminal in question was already breaking the law by possessing guns. He was on parole for assault with a deadly weapon. What makes any sane person think a criminal will stop breaking the law by passing another law?
Disarming law abiding Americans only serve to embolden criminals to further impose their lawlessness on society. The anti-gun groups are switching tactics and are now going after the ammunition. The site slogan states, “Saving lives one bullet at a time”
Stay tuned, you can almost hear the anti-gun chant starting.
Ed
