2nd Amendment Thread

[Muda69]

Witnesses, Video Suggest Stunning Inaction From Uvalde Cops During School Shooting

https://reason.com/2022/05/26/witnesses-video-suggest-stunning-inaction-from-uvalde-cops-during-school-shooting/

Quote

Cops waited outside while shooter killed students. In yesterday's Roundup, I suggested that while everyone was looking for larger forces to blame, the only real villain in the shooting at a Uvalde, Texas, elementary school that left more than 20 people dead was the shooter himself. But I was wrong. Video and witness accounts from outside Uvalde's Robb Elementary School suggest local police officers not only failed to try and stop the shooter for an unconscionably long time but also actively prevented parents from trying to save their kids.

The shooter—Salvador Ramos—was inside the school for 40 minutes or more while police stood around outside, the Associated Press reports. "Frustrated onlookers urged police officers to charge into the Texas elementary school," but the officers reportedly waited outside until a SWAT team was ready.

How many lives could have been saved if the cops had acted sooner? If they had bravely put their lives on the line instead of letting elementary school children and teachers fend for themselves against an armed madman for nearly an hour?

Instead, witnesses say the cops stood guard outside the school, preventing parents from rushing in to try and stop the shooter themselves:

Javier Cazares, whose fourth grade daughter, Jacklyn Cazares, was killed in the attack, said he raced to the school when he heard about the shooting, arriving while police were still gathered outside the building.

Upset that police were not moving in, he raised the idea of charging into the school with several other bystanders.

"Let's just rush in because the cops aren't doing anything like they are supposed to," he said. "More could have been done."

Video taken by Hugo Cervantes shows cops corralling parents outside the school, even pinning one man down. (It's unclear at what point in the ordeal this video was taken.)

This video make so much more sense now. The cops literally stopped parents from helping their kids. pic.twitter.com/zhQfUjlpjd https://t.co/DqgZUH3uCC

— Matt Novak (@paleofuture) May 26, 2022

 

Keeping people from rushing into an active shooter scene is typical police practice, of course. But it takes on a sinister tone when police themselves are failing to intervene.

It is possible that if parents rushed in it would have led to more deaths.

But nothing about the way the police handled the situation seems like they were competently handling it. Just obstructing any chance for rescue. https://t.co/C6nOWu3Le0

— Cathy Gellis (@CathyGellis) May 26, 2022

 

A school cop allegedly encountered the shooter on his way into the school but was unable to stop him.

"Officials say [Ramos] 'encountered' a school district security officer outside the school, though there were conflicting reports from authorities on whether the men exchanged gunfire," notes the A.P.

From inside, Ramos shot at and injured two officers outside the building, according to a Texas Department of Public Safety official. ("Officials have said repeatedly that they sustained just minor injuries," notes Vice.) After that, local police apparently decided to wait until a tactical team could be put together before going in.

I don't claim to be the bravest gunfighter in the long history of gunfighting, but I am flabbergasted that police thought confining the shooter inside a classroom with children was "mission accomplished" until SWAT arrived. WTactualF. https://t.co/dPyLXXQmXr

— Andrew Exum (@ExumAM) May 26, 2022

 

In the wake of tragedies like this, people often suggest that what we need is more security—more police in schools, more police in general. But this isn't even the first school shooting where school law enforcement failed to act. How can more school cops help if we can't even trust them to do their jobs when they're needed most?

Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw said somewhere between 40 minutes and an hour went by between the time Ramos encountered the school security officer and when he was killed by the tactical team that included Border Patrol agents. ("But I don't want to give you a particular timeline," McCraw told reporters.)

Over the course of those 40 minutes to an hour, Ramos barricaded himself inside a classroom and started shooting those within it. All of the children and teachers Ramos killed were in that one classroom, a Department of Public Safety spokesperson told CNN on Wednesday morning.

"A law enforcement official familiar with the investigation said the Border Patrol agents had trouble breaching the classroom door and had to get a staff member to open the room with a key," the A.P. reports.

Uvalde is a town of just 16,000 people. But it apparently has a SWAT team.

We're regularly told small towns need SWAT teams so they can quickly respond to events just like this. The killer was in the building for an hour. https://t.co/lsa2ACcnS8

— Radley Balko (@radleybalko) May 26, 2022

 

Uvalde is a relatively small town—just 16,000 or so residents. Yet it has its own SWAT team, as Radley Balko pointed out on Twitter. Police departments justify the need for such heavy-duty teams by warning about scenarios like this and the need to act quickly in them. And yet here we are.

As of now, no one has any idea why Ramos went on this abominable rampage, leaving 21 people dead and at least 17 others injured. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said Ramos was not known to have a criminal record or mental health issues in his history.

....

 

[Robert]

34 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Statistically, I know I know, folks who have a license to carry a hand gun commit crimes at a rate lower than law enforcement. But every “solution” to gun violence will only affect the people who commit the least amount of crime. 
 

Just out of curiosity have any of you ever tried to get psychological help for someone? If you have you know. 

I know, I know.  Statistics...  Curiosity...I know, and that person CAN get a gun. 

18 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Witnesses, Video Suggest Stunning Inaction From Uvalde Cops During School Shooting

https://reason.com/2022/05/26/witnesses-video-suggest-stunning-inaction-from-uvalde-cops-during-school-shooting/

 

Sickening.  I believe our SROs may have acted differently, but I don't know what they're supposed to/trained to do.  

[DanteEstonia]

4 hours ago, swordfish said:

I can buy into that, but I think the problem isn't guns - it's people.

 

3 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Just out of curiosity have any of you ever tried to get psychological help for someone? If you have you know. 

Maybe if we had Medicare for All, we could have avoided this "mental health crisis". 

[Muda69]

16 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

 

Maybe if we had Medicare for All, we could have avoided this "mental health crisis". 

I doubt it.  Typical progressive liberal thinking, believes that throwing taxpayer money at a problem will always fix it.

[Impartial_Observer]

21 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

 

Maybe if we had Medicare for All, we could have avoided this "mental health crisis". 

 Sure, Obamacare fixed everything. 

[DanteEstonia]

34 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Sure, Obamacare fixed everything.

You're the one complaining about getting someone psychological help. Psychological help costs money.

It would just be easier/cheaper to pull high-capacity mags and ar-15s off of store shelves. 

[Impartial_Observer]

55 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

You're the one complaining about getting someone psychological help. Psychological help costs money.

It would just be easier/cheaper to pull high-capacity mags and ar-15s off of store shelves. 

My comment about accessing mental health had nothing to do with insurance or payment.  
 

You’ll be happy to know I just brought home my latest acquisition, a Magnesium AR upper and lower finished in sniper gray. But the best part is the serial number is my birth year. 

 

[Robert]

16 hours ago, Muda69 said:

I doubt it.  Typical progressive liberal thinking, believes that throwing taxpayer money at a problem will always fix it.

Darn other progressive nations of the world and their higher taxes, better infrastructure and healthcare....Darn!

[Muda69]

46 minutes ago, Robert said:

Darn other progressive nations of the world and their higher taxes, better infrastructure and healthcare....Darn!

Yes.  Government providing services that should  be left for the free and open market to provide.

 

[Muda69]

Police Botched the Uvalde Standoff. Now Gun Controllers Want to Give Police More Power.

https://mises.org/wire/police-botched-uvalde-standoff-now-gun-controllers-want-give-police-more-power

Quote

First it was Columbine. Then it was Parkland. Now, we learn that at Robb Elementary School, police officers again stood around outside a school while the killer was inside with children.

NPR reports today:

Frustrated onlookers urged police officers to charge into the Texas elementary school where a gunman's rampage killed 19 children and two teachers, witnesses said Wednesday, as investigators worked to track the massacre that lasted upwards of 40 minutes and ended when the 18-year-old shooter was killed by a Border Patrol team.

"Go in there! Go in there!" nearby women shouted at the officers soon after the attack began, said Juan Carranza, 24, who saw the scene from outside his house, across the street from Robb Elementary School in the close-knit town of Uvalde. Carranza said the officers did not go in.

Others have reported that parents attempted to go into the school themselves, but were prevented—sometimes violently—by police.

According to the New York Post:

While he anxiously watched the officers standing outside his daughter's school, [Jacinto Cazares] suggested storming into the school building himself along with other civilian bystanders.

"'Let's just rush in because the cops aren't doing anything like they are supposed to,'" he said he told other onlookers….

"There was at least 40 lawmen armed to the teeth but didn't do a darn thing [until] it was far too late," Cazares, the father of 10-year-old victim Jackie Cazares, told ABC News.

This video from the scene shows police pinning one person—presumably a parent—to the ground while other officers have drawn their tasers in order to further threaten and intimidate the parents who begged the police to take action.

This video make so much more sense now. The cops literally stopped parents from helping their kids. pic.twitter.com/zhQfUjlpjd https://t.co/DqgZUH3uCC

— Matt Novak (@paleofuture) May 26, 2022

There are conflicting reports over whether or not the police waited more than an hour to confront the gunman, or if they waited "only" forty minutes. So far, the only rationale offered by the police for the long waiting period is that the officers were waiting for a SWAT team to arrive.

It remains unclear how the shooter got into the school at all, since he was apparently confronted by law enforcement before he entered: 

When police finally did enter the scene—after forty or sixty minutes of protecting themselves—many of them ignored the shooter in order to find their own children, as admitted by police personnel on the scene—who also repeated a propaganda line about "those brave men and women."

If it is indeed found to be true that law enforcement officers protected themselves while people nearby were being killed—it certainly wouldn't be the first time.

"Officer Safety" Is What Matters to Police

At the Columbine massacre in 1999, the shooters roamed the school for nearly fifty minutes. Police waited outside for a SWAT team to arrive in order to minimize the risk to themselves. Columbine is now almost universally regarded as a case of police incompetence and inaction. In response, police agencies claimed they had adopted a don't-wait policy for engaging shooters. But apparently many police agencies haven't gotten the memo.

At Parkland, a law enforcement officer specifically assigned to the school, Scot Peterson, ran away from the school and hid behind outside structures. Sheriff's deputies did the same. Law enforcement's behavior at Parkland was so inept and so cowardly that in the spring of 2019, the victims' parents sued the Broward County school board and the sheriff's office for failing to take timely action against the shooter who killed seventeen people in February 2018. According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, police officers repeatedly sought to protect themselves rather than the people in the school. An analysis of communications among the law enforcement officers at the site of the massacre confirmed there were "at least two times a Broward deputy urge[d] another officer to protect themselves, not confront the killer."

As is so often the case, "officer safety" was police's real concern, not public safety.

This appears to have been the case at the Uvalde shooting as well. 

Police Have No Legal Duty to Protect You

But don't expect the police to face any repercussions or be held to account. It is now a well-established legal principle in the federal courts that in spite of the marketing gimmick motto of "Protect and Serve," police are not actually under any obligation to protect the public from harm.

In the cases DeShaney v. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court has ruled that police agencies are not obligated to protect citizens. In other words, police are well within their rights to pick and choose when to intervene to protect the lives and property of others—even when a threat is apparent.

In both of these court cases, clear and repeated threats were made against the safety of children—but government agencies chose to take no action. The public is generally unaware of this, and taxpayers continue to pay handily for the nonprotection they receive from police. In Uvalde, Texas, for instance, police "services" constitute nearly 40 percent of the city budget. Meanwhile, according to Salary.com, a sheriff's patrol sergeant in Uvalde makes up to $85,400. That's nearly double the local median household income of $45,936. In Uvalde, the police are well paid to stand around.

Gun Control Is about Placing More Trust in Police

Even while police make it clear—yet again—that trusting the police to provide protection is a fool's game, gun control advocates want to disarm law-abiding private citizens.

This, after all, is the fundamental equation behind gun control. More gun control means the centralization of coercive (and defensive) power in the hands of the police. This means when gun control is imposed, the police become relatively powerful while law-abiding private citizens become relatively powerless. But gun control also concentrates coercive power in the hands of non-law-abiding citizens. One effect of this—among others—is that the public must then look all the more to the police to provide defense from violent criminals, who increasingly outgun law-abiding residents. 

In other words, a key equation in getting the public to accept gun control is to convince them that they don't need guns. But what is the reality? Police officers will spend immense amounts of time harassing peaceful suburbanites suspected of smoking marijuana. They'll break the arm of a little old lady for "stealing." They'll shoot a woman in her own living room with no warning because the officer "feared for his life."

But when it comes to actually confronting an armed maniac? Well, then it's time to wait around outside until they can ensure "officer safety."

Considering these facts, one would have to be thoroughly irrational indeed to surrender self-defense rights to the same people who are so thoroughly uninterested in stopping violent felons.

Gun control advocates, of course, don't see it this way. They apparently believe that gun control legislation just magically makes guns disappear. In the real world, however, gun control requires enforcement. And who is in charge of enforcement? The police—who will bring the same level of competence to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals as they bring to school shootings. 

Having apparently not noticed the existence of the drug war and its collateral damage, gun control advocates believe that this week's police incompetence means "yes, we absolutely should put the police in charge of more gun prohibitions." The logic here is incoherent, but many no doubt find it compelling.

Read More:

• Police Have No Duty to Protect You 
• Police: We're the Experts—Don't You Dare Criticize Us 
• Lack of Police Accountability Shows the "Social Contract" Isn't Working

Yep. Cowardly police very well may have been a contributing factor to this sad, sad event.  Yet gun control advocates sill want to gut the 2nd amendment or get rid of it entirely.   But the old adage still ring true:  "When guns are outlawed outlaws will still have guns."

 

[Muda69]

[swordfish]

[Robert]

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Yes.  Government providing services that should  be left for the free and open market to provide.

 

Oh, yes, police, fire, other protection, too, parks and museums!  Darn!

[Muda69]

3 minutes ago, Robert said:

Oh, yes, police, fire, other protection, too, parks and museums!  Darn!

Yep, all could be provided by the free market.

 

[swordfish]

Too sad....

[Bobref]

The debate around gun violence is another one I find fascinating, in no small part because the issue has become so weaponized in the political arena. But it also seems to me that the debate is largely irreconcilable because there are actually two separate issues being treated as one. You can’t expect the same solution to work for two separate “problems.”

The first problem can be described as the “violent crime” problem. Some might phrase the problem as too many guns, involving too much firepower, being too available, with the result being a lot of people getting shot.

The second problem is the “active shooter” problem: Firearms winding up in the hands of a mentally unbalanced person, who subsequently is involved in a mass shooting.

These are two distinct problems which call for distinctly different solutions. The first problem is typically addressed through legislative efforts to impose restrictions on certain types of weaponry and the transferability of weapons, as well as tracking of weapons ownership through registration and licensing requirements. Historically, these are the cases that have tested the boundaries of the Second Amendment. The “pro-gun” folks routinely oppose any expansion of government in this area. And you can see why it is in their interests to do so.

The second problem is addressed wholly differently, through the analysis of information about an individual, often in the form of background checks, criminal history, and other information, in an effort to identify the people we don’t want to have access to firearms. Certainly, there can be legitimate concerns about the nature and extent of the information necessary, the manner in which it is acquired, how it is used, etc. But the basic premise is one on which we should all be able to agree: it is not in the best interests of society to arm crazy people. Yet, the “pro-gun” people continue, for the most part, to oppose any extensions of this information-gathering process, in the misguided belief that it represents the same sort of threat to their “rights” as gun owners as the solutions used to address problem #1. That’s wrong, and the only argument mustered in favor of that misguided stance is the dreaded “slippery slope” argument. Can we just stop with using that illogical and intellectually lazy rationale to justify otherwise speculative conclusions? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

[Muda69]

[Impartial_Observer]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

The debate around gun violence is another one I find fascinating, in no small part because the issue has become so weaponized in the political arena. But it also seems to me that the debate is largely irreconcilable because there are actually two separate issues being treated as one. You can’t expect the same solution to work for two separate “problems.”

The first problem can be described as the “violent crime” problem. Some might phrase the problem as too many guns, involving too much firepower, being too available, with the result being a lot of people getting shot.

The second problem is the “active shooter” problem: Firearms winding up in the hands of a mentally unbalanced person, who subsequently is involved in a mass shooting.

These are two distinct problems which call for distinctly different solutions. The first problem is typically addressed through legislative efforts to impose restrictions on certain types of weaponry and the transferability of weapons, as well as tracking of weapons ownership through registration and licensing requirements. Historically, these are the cases that have tested the boundaries of the Second Amendment. The “pro-gun” folks routinely oppose any expansion of government in this area. And you can see why it is in their interests to do so.

The second problem is addressed wholly differently, through the analysis of information about an individual, often in the form of background checks, criminal history, and other information, in an effort to identify the people we don’t want to have access to firearms. Certainly, there can be legitimate concerns about the nature and extent of the information necessary, the manner in which it is acquired, how it is used, etc. But the basic premise is one on which we should all be able to agree: it is not in the best interests of society to arm crazy people. Yet, the “pro-gun” people continue, for the most part, to oppose any extensions of this information-gathering process, in the misguided belief that it represents the same sort of threat to their “rights” as gun owners as the solutions used to address problem #1. That’s wrong, and the only argument mustered in favor of that misguided stance is the dreaded “slippery slope” argument. Can we just stop with no using that illogical and intellectually lazy rationale to justify otherwise speculative conclusions? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

I think you are oversimplifying Red Flag Laws. I would characterize myself as pro-2A, and while I don’t speak for anyone but myself, I think most rational folks like myself don’t necessarily have an issue with Red Flag Laws, in fact would characterize myself as pro RFL. Don’t misunderstand opposition in implementation with opposition to the methods which are employed. 
 

For me, there has to be a hard time limit where the accused, with counsel, may confront the accusations. 
 

Indiana has a decent law, that continues to be tweaked. But it still didn’t stop the Fed/Ex shooter, because the Marion County Prosecutor failed to do his due diligence. But sure, what we clearly need are more laws. 

[swordfish]

Isn't a law breaker.......that? .......a law breaker?

Look at the City of Chicago and the States of California and New York.......Strictest gun LAWS in the country - highest gun criminal activity. 

BR is right - Good people with guns are not the problem, bad people with guns are.  You have to keep guns from the hands of bad people.  So what is the right answer?  BOTH sides WILL have to compromise.  YOU can't take my guns or keep me from getting more if I want to, but I (and my side) have to be willing to let the government (shudder, shudder) control a little more....... 

[DanteEstonia]

On 5/26/2022 at 2:05 PM, Impartial_Observer said:

accessing mental health

Access is tied to money. 

On 5/26/2022 at 2:05 PM, Impartial_Observer said:

You’ll be happy to know I just brought home my latest acquisition, a Magnesium AR upper and lower finished in sniper gray. But the best part is the serial number is my birth year.

You must need a lot to compensate for.

[Muda69]

46 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Access is tied to money.

So it should all be "free"?

 

[Impartial_Observer]

12 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

Access is tied to money. 

When I said if you know, you know, you clearly don’t, that’s when most people with a clue keep their mouth shut. 

[DanteEstonia]

2 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

you clearly don’t

I know more than you; because your only goal is preserving your penis-size compensation hobby (the gun purchases) and not improving mental health. 

Access=financing. 

[Impartial_Observer]

On 5/28/2022 at 10:09 AM, DanteEstonia said:

I know more than you;

Sure you do Scooter. 

[Muda69]

Uvalde's Biggest Mistake Was Trusting the Police to "Keep Us Safe"

https://mises.org/wire/uvaldes-biggest-mistake-was-trusting-police-keep-us-safe

Quote

The Uvalde police have helped demonstrate, yet again, what has long been clear: when you’re facing a maniac with a gun, don’t count on the government’s uniformed bureaucrats with badges to help you. As we learned this week, not even a child begging for help on a 911 call will get the police to confront a shooter. 

Moreover, given the lack of competence and effort consistently displayed by police in cases where they face real danger—as at Columbine, Parkland, and Uvalde—it's clearly a matter of chance as to whether the local police in whatever town are willing to risk "officer safety" for the sake of public safety. 

Contrary to what gun control advocates think, this reality sends a powerful message against gun control: we can’t trust the government’s armed enforcers to provide any measure of safety, and we absolutely need a right to private self-defense, to private security, and accountable trained professionals who are not the bloated, overpaid, branch of the government bureaucracy known as “law enforcement.” 

“Back the Blue” Plays into the Hands of Gun Control Advocates

When it comes to evaluating the disastrous police cowardice and incompetence in Uvalde’s Robb Elementary last week, those who blindly defend the police are essentially making the same argument as those as those who want to destroy the right to private self defense: “the police did as much as they could, but a single untrained teenager with a gun is just too much to handle for 20 or more trained police officers who are armed to the teeth.”

For gun controllers, the takeaway from this is “see, these guns are so powerful, the cops were left impotent in Uvalde.”

The police defenders can only shrug and admit the same thing: “our heroic men and women did all they could do! That guy was just too tough, fast, and smart for us!”

This sends a message to casual observers of the gun debate—which is most of the public. It suggests those “assault rifles” the Left is always talking about are really “weapons of war”, and allow a single person to outgun an entire police force. Many people will ask themselves: why would any person need such a thing?

But what retort can the police defenders offer to this? It seems they can only repeat something about how our selfless heroes are beyond criticism and that we should trust keep trusting the regime, its police, and its schools to “keep us safe.” 

Meanwhile, gun control advocates are mocking the old conservative line that “a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun.” It’s difficult to mount an effective response to this if one is committed to the idea that the Uvalde police were even remotely competent or conscientious in their work. If it’s true that Uvalde police were in any way doing their best, then an entire department of “good guys with guns” could truly do nothing to stop one person with an AR-15.

The reality, however, is that the Uvalde police were most certainly not “good guys with guns.” They are cowards clad in impressive looking taxpayer-funded gear who made the situation worse. As their own supervisors admit, they sat around waiting for backup because had they actually tried to stop the shooter, the police “could’ve been shot.” 

The police at Uvalde were not just useless in terms of public safety. They actively got in the way of public safety. When a group of parents—some of whom were likely armed—attempted to intervene in the school themselves, the police literally assaulted the parents. Witnesses report police at the scene tackling women, pepper spraying men, and drawing their tasers in order to further intimidate the parents. The police did this while the killer was rampaging inside the school. Naturally, the police, swaggering around in their cowboy hats and body armor, didn’t like being shown up by the uppity private citizens of the town.

Enforcing Gun Laws Also Requires “Good Guys with Guns”

Repeated displays of incompetence from police agencies also calls into question the idea that these same bureaucrats could effectively enforce gun prohibition laws.

A longstanding problem with prohibition—whether we’re talking guns, drugs, or alcohol—is that it tends to be only effective in keeping prohibited objects out of the hands of relatively law-abiding citizens. But when it comes to real criminals, it’s a very different story. 

In the case of drugs we've seen this many times over. Ordinary people often avoid drugs because they don't want to get in trouble with the law. The professional criminals are a totally different story, and law enforcement has never managed to keep committed drug runners from plying their trade. 

Similarly, it’s easy for police to target ordinary law-abiding people when it comes to gun prohibition. These people are unlikely to buy or sell guns in the black market, or employ connections with illegal gun runners to get the guns they want. Thus, it’s a safe bet that new gun prohibitions will disarm peaceful people, but it's not at all a safe bet that violent felons will be equally disarmed. 

Confronting depraved and violent criminals requires real work and real danger. Enforcing laws against those people ultimately requires “a good guy with a gun.” When it comes to government police, however, we’ve seen at Uvalde and Parkland the quality of work we should expect. We’ve seen that when it comes to doing dangerous work, police are often uninterested.

Gun control advocates are now highlighting police inaction when it comes to shootings like Uvalde. They think it helps their case. Yet the same people continue to cling to the unwarranted notion that police would be competent enforcers of gun laws. The fact is we have every reason to assume police will be often unreliable in both cases.

The Right to Bear Arms Is Rooted in Opposition to Regime Power

It’s always an odd mix when advocates of the right to self-defense also profess to enthusiastically support government police. Historically, the philosophy behind private gun ownership has always been a philosophy of strong skepticism of a government’s ability or inclination to “keep us safe.” 

Certainly, in the late eighteenth century and throughout the nineteenth century, legal protections of gun ownership were rooted in the assumption that the governments’ “public safety” personnel were inadequate to the keep the peace or provide safety. Local police forces were viewed as corrupt and as partisan hacks who served only elected officials and party machines. Professional military personnel were viewed as people who were too lazy to make a living through honest work. There was fear that granting greater military or policing power to the state would result in abuse of that power. 

This is why Americans before the twentieth century relied largely on private security and decentralized militias.

Much of the debate revolved around the balance between private coercive power and the state's coercive power. It was understood that granting more of this  power to government personnel necessarily decreased the relative strength of the private citizens' coercive power. That is, if the police are better funded and more well-armed than private citizens—this puts the private citizen at a disadvantage.

The state, after all, is fundamentally built on the idea of securing a monopoly on the means of coercion. The more power given to the police, the more complete this monopoly becomes.

Gun Control Tips the Balance Toward More Relative Power for Felons and for the Regime

Out of fear of private sector criminals, ordinary law-abiding people have repeatedly granted a stronger and stronger monopoly on coercion to governments over time. Police budgets are now immense, law enforcement agencies are flush with cash and fond of buying military-style equipment for use against the public. Adopting new gun control measures would further tip the balance toward greater government monopolies on coercion. But, given what we’ve seen from police in Uvalde, we have no reason to believe this ever-increasing enhancement of the state’s power would actually translate into more public safety.

Nevertheless, in the wake of the Uvalde massacre, NRA chief Wayne Lapierre was still beating the same old tired drum, claiming—contrary to all the evidence—that the nation’s police departments need even more tax money. It’s not surprising that this is the only “idea” they have to offer. When one’s alleged commitment to private gun ownership is bundled with unqualified support for government police, it’s impossible to argue the obvious: that private self defense is essential because the government has repeatedly shown it has little interest in providing public safety. 

....

Mr. McMaken knocks it out of the park with this commentary.