As I’m certain you’ve heard, two are dead, multiple people were injured and some shot after a disgruntled former employee killed a co-worker in New York City and walked away. Two police officers were notified and followed. The man drew his weapon, turned it towards the two officers and they responded with 14 rounds, some of which hit the target and killed him.
[I’ve buried the led on this story … please keep reading through the point of my post at the end. I just needed to provide some background.]
Unfortunately, other rounds missed – or passed through the man’s body – and continued on to injure nine bystanders. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly mentioned, with my emphasis.
“These officers … had absolutely no choice,” Kelly said. “This individual took a gun out very close to them and perhaps fired at them.”
New York City, as you know, is the safest big city in the country, and we are on pace to have a record low number of murders this year, but we are not immune to the national problem of gun violence.
For some reason, Bloomberg is fixated on the “gun” part of the violence. Violence is violence, and I have one question for Bloomberg. If this guy used a large hunting knife – which from within close-quarters could have easily killed Steven Ercolino with one or two strikes – and then turned on officers and charged with that knife, would Bloomberg had mentioned the national problem of knife violence? Doubt it.
I want to point out here that neither of Bloomberg’s proposed gun control measures – bringing back the assault weapon ban and eliminating the private sale of firearms – would not have stopped this shooting.
In an article in January, I wrote about the proposed 10 round magazine capacity limit and how 10 rounds may not be enough in a self-defense situation.
In stressful shooting situations, most studies show “hit rates” of less than 50 percent. A New York Times article from Dec. 2007 noted the hit rate for law enforcement in the city was 17.4 percent in 2005 and 28.3 percent in 2006. Los Angeles law enforcement shot placement was better than New York’s in 2006, with a 40 percent hit rate. Keep in mind these are law enforcement officers, who partake in regular training.
Sixteen rounds were fired by law enforcement on Friday morning, but we do not yet know what the hit rate was. Any speculation is just speculation, but onward to …
… the point of this post
Imagine if two private citizens were walking in New York city and this guy turned and pointed a gun at them, would the private citizens – who quickly pulled their own weapons and dispatched this zero after shooting 16 rounds – be in jail? Maybe yes, maybe no, but hasn’t the anti-gun crowd been complaining that more guns would cause innocent bystanders to be shot and “caught in the crossfire?”
That’s one of the primary complaints when the anti-gun crowd (anti-self defense crowd) mention self-defense in public places … innocent bystanders. What’s the difference between private citizens defending themselves and the police in this type of situation?
Kelly specifically stated police had absolutely no choice but to fire. Bloomberg assumedly feels the same way. What would their opinion be if private citizens shot this attacker and innocent bystanders were shot?