(courtesy coldsmokeco.com)

There are Americans who long for European-style gun control. The correct response: the United States is not Europe. Americans have a Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms  — regardless of comparative arguments surrounding violent crime.  To suggest we should be more like gun control-heavy countries like France — which just extended the revocation of civil rights another 30 days after the Nice truck massacre — is insupportable.

But issues of Constitutionally enshrined individual liberty get shoved to one side when you’re hell bent on civilian disarmament. Writing for collective-evolution.com (what does that tell you?) California fitness writer Alexa Erickson gives us insight into the twisted mind of a Europhile gun control advocate.

Confrontation, sporadic violence, and arrests during protests continue to follow the surge of racially biased shooting in the United States. People are angry, confused, and above all, terrified of law enforcement. They have lost faith and trust in the justice system of a nation which prides itself on racial equality.

While it may be true that Americans have lost respect for their justice system, there’s no evidence to suggest that most people “live in terror” of police in the United States. No doubt referring to recent racially charged accusations against the police, Ms. Erickson clearly believes cops are to be feared, offering readers a textbook case of both anti-gun hyperbole and psychological projection.

[It’s also worth noting that people in Mexico do live in terror of the police force, and for good reason. Torture : American “nearly beaten to death”: and other recent torture stories at borderlandbeat.com proves the point. The fact that the Mexican government has disarmed its civilian population is entirely relevant to this discussion.]

In all the countries where police officers don’t cary guns, except Iceland, citizens don’t have access to guns either, which means police are rarely taken by surprise by a firearm. However, officers are typically trained to handle firearms when need be, and can respond to reports of a citizen with a gun by sending an armed police officer to confront them.

Gun violence is a thing in England, France, Germany, Italy and the rest of the Eurozone. Police in these countries may rarely be taken by surprise by armed criminals, but the average cops’ reliance on remote armed units gives firearms-toting criminals a key advantage, especially terrorists. The unarmed flics responding to the Charlie Hebdo attack springs immediately to mind.

Ms. Erickson’s mind doesn’t encompass ballistic outliers, no matter how deadly. To her way of thinking, the presence of guns in the hands of police — never mind law-abiding citizens — is a bad, bad thing.

Is the driving force to keep society in check the threat of an armed officer? When walking down the street of a peaceful neighborhood, standing outside a grocery store, or walking through a restaurant, a U.S. officer’s gun in sight is certainly off-putting, if not outright frightening for many, especially given the statistics. Can we trust that, if a situation escalates, innocent bystanders won’t be in the way of unnecessary gunfire?

Off-putting for whom? Hoplophobes like Ms. Erickson. To the point where she considers police gunfire “unnecessary.” To make that case, she found an academic who shares her anti-armed police point-of-view: Paul Hirschfield, associate professor of sociology at Rutgers University,

Hirschfield says that in Finland, officers must get permission from a superior officer before shooting. In Spain, they must fire a warning shot, then aim for non-vital body parts, before resorting to lethal shooting. “In the United States, you only shoot to kill. You only use deadly force,” he explains.

Wrong. Police — like their non-law enforcement civilian counterparts — are only legally allowed to shoot to “stop a threat.” They are not executioners, unless you’re determined to see them that way.

The law in the U.S. doesn’t make it all that hard for police violence to occur without repercussions. In fact, while under the European Convention of Human Rights, police are only permitted to shoot if it’s “absolutely necessary” in order to achieve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, in the U.S., police officers can shoot if there’s “reasonable” perception of a grave and imminent threat. The latter is entirely subjective.

“What defines reasonable?,” questions Hirschfield. “We have a society where it’s often considered reasonable to take a black person reaching into their waistband as a threat. The whole legal framework for determining whether lethal force is legal or not is premised on a flawed assumption that officers can determine what is reasonable.”

Wrong again. An officer’s decision to use lethal force is always subject to legal review. His or her superiors, a prosecutor and/or judge or jury must then objectively decide if a “reasonable person” would have used lethal force in the same situation. Did the person shot pose an imminent, credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm?

I’m not saying justice is always done, but what other standard should be applied?Ms. Erickson and Mr. Hirschfield assertion that “absolutely necessity” is a higher standard for the use of lethal force than the officer’s reasonable belief is an invitation to hang ’em out to dry, regardless of circumstances.

In 2016 alone, the U.S. has had considerable cause for mourning, and anger has led to retaliation, as the police killings in Dallas demonstrate. But while police officers put themselves in the way of great personal risk, more training may allow them to minimize this risk, both for themselves as well as the public they are protecting.

While more police training is a good thing, Ms. Erickson’s diatribe indicates that she feels the Dallas police shooting was justified. It wasn’t. Neither is her obvious desire to disarm everyone in the United States — including law enforcement officers. But when your mind is set on a gun-free utopia, you can justify just about anything. And do.

Recommended For You

88 Responses to How Police Handle Violence in Countries Where Officers Don’t Carry Guns Inside the Twisted Mind of a Gun Control Advocate

  1. I want the cops to have guns. I see this as a partnership between the cops and the general public. But I also want the man on the street to be armed.

    There is no reason for a mad man in a truck to have to face ONLY police guns whens he’s running at men, women and children.

  2. Can we trust that, if a situation escalates, innocent bystanders won’t be in the way of unnecessary gunfire? Most places outside of N.Y.C.

  3. “California fitness writer”

    Stopped right there. All I needed to know. I will read the rest of the article to humor myself, but I really don’t think I need to in order to get the gist of it.

  4. I openly carried on duty for 21+ years. I could go anywhere. I did not perceive any reaction from people in eateries, stores, etc, regardless of race. They didn’t react to my sidearm. The only reaction I saw in their eyes was recognition of me and my uniform. I carried so much equipment I would wonder if they could spot my weapon without lengthy scanning. Remember, because some of us are left handed and others right handed, the firearm is not always on the same side. It is mixed in with a radio, baton, flashlight, one or two pair of handcuffs, keys, tape recorder (in those days we carried tape recorders and recorded the exchanges we had with people in the same way they want cops to wear cameras today). In many cases, I would say that a cop entering presents a sense of security that nobody would be stupid enough to try anything while cops were there.

    The only period where things were different would, in my opinion, be between the mid 1960s to mid 1970s, when friction between Blacks and Whites was at a high level. Then is was not fear but antagonism.

  5. While she doesn’t stand alone, thankfully Ms. Erickson does not represent the view of the majority of Americans. There are people such as her, utopian minded, who believe in a world where all get along and violence is a vague historical memory, hence justifying/demanding the obsolescence/prohibition of firearms. Kumbaya is but a dream………yet, it is what it is.

    • Utopia minded?? Who’s utopia? It is more like living in a world of fantasy that I might consider a kind of hell. Guns are not violent or prone to violence, just like trucks don’t kill- followers of true islam do.

      • You should read “Ameritopia” by Mark Levine.

        Every Utopia considered, philosophized about or actually tried upon this Earth must, by its very nature, reject dissent (which makes it from the first a fascist state) and must sooner or later become an autocracy that actively suppresses any resistance to its dictates.

        Utopias, as the unicorns and rainbows crowd envisions them, cannot exist in in a world (universe) of liberty and free will.

        Fascism: “We (or I) have decided what is best for all of you. If you know what is good for you then you will not resist us.

        • It’s actually worse than that. All societies that are not build on individual liberty and limited government are fundamentally Utopian. That is to say if we are giving the state all this power it’s always about moving in some way to a point where the state is able to create this great society that individual liberty cannot do itself. All governments will work towards this end, always.

          And it’s always a lie, as you observe. The state always takes the power for itself and in the end will subjugate and punish the very people that make the products and services that create society in the first place.

          One can only conclude from this that while a state is necessary, we can only prosper by valuing individual liberty and do whatever is necessary to keep the state limited in power.

          Our constitution was an attempt to do this very thing. Has it failed or not… I don’t know but I can’t think of many alternatives. And the individual right to keep and bear is foundational to maintaining this limited government, and of course why getting rid of it is target number one for the statist of today.

  6. She is just putting out her view of a utopian society. It would be nice, tho not realistic any time soon. Human beings thrive on struggle, uncertainty and violence. It’s very human. Just turn on your tv. If violence wasn’t popular all the channels would have “Leave It To Beaver” on.

    Police brutality is a thing. Is police disarmament the right thing? I don’t think it would work with Americas diverse population. Most countries antigunners like to compare America too are more like Maine.

    The US population is a lot larger than any one European country. Not to mention the history of America is vastly different then these predominantly white single religion and cultural countries. They were settled centuries before the US with a single population. Not stolen through force from a people with a vastly different culture.

    Then slaves were brought in then segregation and many different periods of immigrants from all over the world. It’s just not logical in anyway to compare the US to any one European country.

    We are more like Mexico than Europe. Why aren’t we compared to them? They are a “1st” world modern democracy like the US. They have tight gun laws. But that wouldn’t fit for them with all the gun violence there.

    • You have a point. I expect Europe will have lots of armed cops soon and the citizens will be demanding liberalized access to firearms (I really loved that phrase, should hack off the libtards of this country too). Within 5 to 10 years the non-Muslum population will be fighting a loosing battle to hold on to their country all across Europe. In 20 years Europe will be the European Caliphate.

      • Not necessarily. Nationalist political parties, opposed to immigration, are gaining strength. If the parties now in power don’t bend to the mood of the people, they will be replaced in future elections. Now that the people see the problems associated with immigrant groups that refuse to or can’t assimilate, they are becoming disenchanted with multiculturalism as defined by leftists.

        The United States has always been multicultural in a way. Look at the Mexican, Italian, Irish and other festivals. However, they are Americans who remember their origins, not foreigners trying to transplant their culture into a new setting.

        • Italians, Irish, Poles were not Muslims. For a true Muslim first is the Law of Allah and then the Law of the State, it’s called Theocracy, which is incompatible with Democracy. The multicultural society is a utopia with Muslims, in Europe, many people don’t want to understand it.

      • You seem to be assuming that those in power in Europe right now will give up their power, convert to Islam, and profess devotion to the caliphate rather than change their ways and go for extermination of the muslim religion. I will have to see that to believe it. I see genocide in the global future, in 10 years or so, one way or another. Keep your ammo stock up.

  7. Traveling the last two weeks I saw several instances of heavily armed “anti-terrorism” response officers ~~ Times Square 7/4-5, Buffalo Airport and Atlanta Airport this week.

    Body Armor, single point harness slings securing AR’s (10’s? 15’s?) and tactical shotguns, helmets, large fit men with a no shit taken mien. Serious sidearms; Glock, Sig, M&P.

    I felt more reassured that a rapidly radicalized anti-Western mayhem-ist would meet with appropriate levels of threat assessment and management. At least we’d have a chance.

    Sorry if that ruins your iced, latte, soy, coconut water chai, and your preoccupation with your pocket technology, but people hate you for who you are, what your civilization stands for; in short they consider the “general faceless you” as anonymously non-human and fit only for horrific death because you don’t pray to their god, whether secular corrupt criminal mammon or an avenging god who demands the sacrifice of unbelievers.

    I’ll take the no-shit taken 1st responders (and wonder if they’re outfitted with Daniel Defense, Mossberg, Sig, Colt, or something custom) and leave Euro-topiast disarmament for those with no knowledge of the destructive power of ruining your upperclass self absorbed dreamworld.

    • While seeing such things is reassuring that reassurance is false.

      Those guys are not going to be able to rapidly and effectively deal with anything other than a shooter or knife attacker. A OKC style bomb going off in a truck that just rammed it’s way into the terminal and you’re just as dead, so are they and a hell of a lot of other people.

      The fascination with firearms on both sides needs to stop. A gun is not evil the way the grabbers suggest but it’s also not some magical protective shroud.

      It occurred to me some years ago standing in a security line at MIA around Christmas that the guy’s with the UMP45s in full battle rattle were basically theater. A remotely intelligent “cell” could case the place, dispatch them and then go on with their mayhem or simply strategically insert a few suicide bombers into the security line and kill virtually everyone.

      We need to look at people not weapons.

      • And while we are looking at people, it helps to have weapons (and the folks trained to use them) close by, not waiting on Hondo’s SWAT panel van to show up and deploy.

        The Kibbutz residents slung with UZI’s may not stop a car bomb, but they do give the terrorist class an additional point of consideration in choosing their targets – a preschool where half the Dad’s dropping off children are armed Army reservists, or a French beachside resort on a festive night.

        While I am not thrilled with seeing Hard Men with Sharp Sticks at every gathering a la the Middle East, it is the world we have inherited – asymmetrical warfare on a Demi-religious footing.

      • The driver in Nice would not have been able to travel 2 kilometers on the sidewalk had French civilians been armed.
        Discuss.

        • I don’t know if people on the ground had sufficient warning, but at least one motorcyclist was riding alongside trying to stop the truck & was crushed. A gun in his hand would be both willing and able to shoot at the driver.

  8. “In all the countries where police officers don’t carry guns, except Iceland, citizens don’t have access to guns either, which means police are rarely taken by surprise by a firearm.”

    I would tend to believe that in countries where citizens are not permitted by their government to exercise their natural right of self protection with a firearm the police would be taken by surprise EVERY TIME they are confronted by a firearm wielding criminal.

    In those countries where the police themselves are also not allowed to carry firearms the surprise would be even more disconcerting.

    Just sayin’.

    • You mean like the unarmed cops who ran away from machine gun wielding muslim fanatics in the Charlie Hebdo massacre? I recall the video shot from a rooftop of the killers just wandering around the street with no concern at all, looked like they were trying to figure out who to kill next, and thinking with my concealed compact 9mm, I would have popped a few off at them just on general principles. Looked like 100-200 yards, essentially looking for a lucky tag, but the streets were deserted so why not? At least make them duck. But of course, everyone had an iphone, but nobody had a gun.

  9. “California fitness writer Alexa Erickson”

    “California fitness writer” kinda tells you everything you need to know.

    Next up, Alaska dog trainer Whip Snidely with a great article on nuclear fission.

    • I dunno. I think I would rather tackle the nuclear reactor than try to train the dang Huskies. I can deal with the Malamutes okay, just not the dang Huskies.

  10. “The whole legal framework for determining whether lethal force is legal or not is premised on a flawed assumption that officers can determine what is reasonable.”

    This right here is the main point. She thinks she’s a better judge of what is and what is not reasonable than the people in the situation. She starts from the assumption that she is, or should be, the arbiter of reasonableness. It’s the height of arrogance but that’s common among grabbers. This is a person who comments on YouTube videos knowing much more about the situation than the cop in the video did. It’s obnoxious but what do you expect from arrogant asses?

    Not to be crass here, but I suspect her opinion that others should decide the reasonableness of violence, while basically ignoring your input, when they weren’t there would change drastically if she was confronted by a home-invader rapist with a knife. I’m not wishing it on her in any way. I’m just stating that she would likely change her views if in such a situation it was deemed by others that pushing the guy down the stairs was “unreasonable”.

    • More importantly, if she had the opportunity to get to a phone, would she be upset that the responding officers were carrying firearms?

      Would she require those officers to wait until she personally thought it was “reasonable” before they shot the rapist son of a bitch?

  11. https://youtu.be/sWGqo5LBBCw

    A few examples of when keepin it unarmed goes bad. I’ve explored this issue in detail. My conclusion is that we have the most determined criminals. Whereas their criminals give up easily, ours fight to the death. And it bears out; American police are 10x as likely to be assaulted than euro or Asian, and likewise 10x more likely to kill a suspect.

    Now think about this; if just half of all shoots were good (meaning legitimate threat of death averted) and guns were taken away, there could be up to 1000 additional police deaths per year. What I am saying is that the reason police deaths only number in the 10s, despite contact with an abnormally criminal populous (compared to the “developed world”) is that THEY HAVE GUNS. It proves that guns are the most effective tool for self defense. That’s the right way to look at this, IMHO.

    • Not to mention that there are huge cultural differences. I recently read an interesting article written from the perspective of a cop in the UK, and how they handle policing. It’s actually an interesting question, and I’ve always wondered how cops project authority if they don’t have the hardware to back it up.

      From that, my personal conclusion is that the U.S. simply has a different class of criminals than any European nation. Defiance is a MASSIVE part of the American ethos, way more so than any other nation on Earth. And it’s my (non-professional) opinion that even European criminals can be made to comply without too much hassle, because defiance is simply not ingrained into them the way it is ingrained into us.

      Now, that defiance is arguably the best part of the American spirit, and a tremendous amount of good has come from it. But the fact is that it does play into the criminal culture as well, and I honestly think that’s the biggest difference between America and the UK, from a standpoint of policing/ public safety/ gun control. And it’s one that absolutely nobody even acknowledges.

  12. She’s exactly as she appears to be…a cartoon character.

    I’m not sure she even rises to the level of a response.

    • Not just the border, also includes airports. Over half our population lives in a “warrant-free zone.” And Americans accept it because “muh law and order”.

  13. A counterpoint: I’m all for a well-armed populace, but I’d prefer unarmed police. Contra the mythos, police do not spend most of their time defending life or property. Most of what they do is raising revenues for the state.

    They’re basically Lois Lerner with a mustache and roid rage–should we really let them have arms? If they run into a legitimate situation where they need force of arms, let them call on the militia.

    For all you folks who claim to love the Constitution, what do you think the Framers would have thought of the occupying armies we accept in our cities, all in the name of tax revenue? One of their greatest fears was that a standing army would become the enforcer if tyranny.

    • I am entirely in favor of gun control…for law enforcement officers.

      By mandate no police officer while on duty should be allowed to carry any sidearm other than a .38/.357 revolver of six shots or less, and one speed loader for same. A police vehicle should be limited to either a standard 12 gauge shotgun with a 5 round maximum load or an AR-15 type rifle with a fixed 10 round magazine, no bullet button or any other fancy reload gimmick.

      While off-duty LEOs would have exactly the same 2A rights as every other civilian.

      The value of this is to ensure that LEOs do not develop a sense of superiority over the people they are charged to “serve and protect”. They would approach every potentially hazardous encounter with much more caution and understanding of their limitations on the use of force. They would remember their position as servants of the people, not enforcers for the government.

      Police need the ability to project lethal force when it is appropriate. They do not need the option of appearing to the public as though they have overwhelming force immediately at their disposal.

      The majority of police departments, even in the largest cities in the U.S., managed with six-shot Colts and S&Ws and 12 gauge shotguns for many years before the switch to semi-auto pistols and “patrol rifles”. Community-police relations do not seem to have improved since the up-arming of law enforcement. JMO.

      • Yes! I agree! My dad had been involved in private armed security and law enforcement training. He said the same things and more. Demilitarize the police on Local/city/state levels. Remove the Sandinsta police-commando attitude that comes with paramilitarized organizations. Defund police departments that endanger, or frighten the general public. Full Independent civilian review boards for all rank and file LEO’s. Standard uniform dress attire. No SWAT or military styled BDUs…Pressed shirt, dress pants, tie, shoes, proper insignias of rank and station.
        A professional with a community attitude.
        Remove profiteering from local / city / state police departments. Ticket Quoters, or fine schemes —a crime. Under the RICO act.

      • Law Enforcement Agencies stopped using double action revolvers for the same reason most civilians have: they are slow to reload and have a limited capacity. And patrol rifles started to become regular issue when Officers were being outgunned by criminals. When you show up to a crime in progress, and the bad guy has an AK, and all you have is a .38 special and a 12 gauge shotgun, you’re gonna have a bad day. “They would approach every potentially hazardous encounter with much more caution and understanding of their limitations on the use of force”…haha, sure bud. And when someone requires an armed response immediately, but cant get it because the police have to be “overly cautious”, we will have dumb shit like that to blame. Ridiculous.

        • It is not realistic to expect everyone to effectively provide for their own safety. While I do believe that you have to defend yourself, and your family, not everyone is capable of doing so (for various reasons). And, after a crime is committed, who is to pursue the criminals? Who is to investigate the crime? Are you going to do that too? Are you advocating for anarchy, vendettas, mob justice?

    • I assume that by “Most of what they do is raising revenues for the state”, you mean issuing tickets/citations for BREAKING THE LAW. Such as speeding, right? You are against that even though most traffic collisions are caused by excessive speed? Or for making an illegal turn, running a stop light/sign, or any number of other traffic violations? Violations that, when committed, could have led to a traffic collision…potentially causing death, disfigurement, and property loss. Then what do you suggest we do with those who put others life and property in danger because they feel they are above traffic laws? No fines, but imprisonment? Firing squad? Deportation to a third world country? Or, try this on for size, stop violating the law. You will find that fines, citations, etc. will not be issued when you follow the law. It has been my experience that the only people who call for the end of law enforcement are criminals.

      • “It has been my experience that the only people who call for the end of law enforcement are criminals.”

        It has been the experience of many men, women, and children, better than you, that have come before, that only people who lick the boots of government are slaves.

        If you cannot live morally, respecting the rights of others while protecting your own rights, without armed enforcers, what does that say about you? It says that you posess neither the desire or capacity to be free. You belong in servitude.

        • You equate following the law to licking government’s boots. The government, as envisioned by the “founding fathers” of this country, is a “Government of the people, by the people, for the people”, as Abraham Lincoln once said. The laws enacted by the Government, according to the above definition, are laws “of the people”, meaning these are laws approved of by the people of the U.S. As long as the Government is following the Constitution, and listening to the people they represent, those laws that you thumb your nose at are laws that your neighbors, family members, and other various U.S. citizens have approved of, for the sake of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. Unfortunately, there are people out there, like yourself, who do not care about the law, and disallow another persons “pursuit of happiness”, so Law Enforcement is hired and tasked to protect law abiding citizens from these lawless individuals. So I restate, it is my experience that anyone who calls for the end of Law Enforcement are criminals.

        • “You equate following the law to licking government’s boots.”

          Being an apologist for laws and those who choose to get paid enforcing them makes one a boot licker.

          “as Abraham Lincoln once said.”

          Oh boy…. There’s a winner. He made war against states to force them to remain in what was previously a voluntary union.

          “As long as the Government is following the Constitution,”

          Which it has not been for some time.

          “and listening to the people they represent, those laws that you thumb your nose at are laws that your neighbors, family members, and other various U.S. citizens have approved of, for the sake of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.”

          I have no obligation to anyone that violates the Constitution and steps on natural rights. You might like mob rule, but I don’t.

          “Unfortunately, there are people out there, like yourself, who do not care about the law, and disallow another persons “pursuit of happiness”, so Law Enforcement is hired and tasked to protect law abiding citizens from these lawless individuals.”

          Ha! YOU are the one toadying for those violating rights; not me.

          “So I restate, it is my experience that anyone who calls for the end of Law Enforcement are criminals.”

          Restating it doesn’t make it any more true.

  14. Well, folks who pitch a fit like Ms. Erickson just can’t deal with the power we wield living in the modern world.

    As the latest Demolition Man demonstrated, all sorts of things we work with every day encompass deadly power. You can’t get to grandma’s house over hill and dale at 60 mph without enough horsepower to do a lot of damage if it’s aimed differently. Indeed, I seem to recall some folks using commercial jets as flying firebombs, and they used box cutters to do it.

    The power we individuals wield in the modern world is a terrible privilege. Apparently, Ms. Erickson thinks we humans un-fit to hold such strength in our hands, including cops. I wonder what the people who took on the hijackers on Flight 93, or the folks with presence of mind to hide and call for help in that Orlando club could have done with better tools. Me, I think people like those are fit to wield any power they choose to, and we’ll all be better for it.

    Ms. Erickson does ramble on, because it takes a lot of convolution to have that position without getting caught. That said, if she’s half as flexible in her fitness work, she’s well qualified.

  15. “Police — like their non-law enforcement civilian counterparts — are only legally allowed to shoot to “stop a threat.””

    Ahahahahaha. You forgot to mention the part where US cops are trained to view everything and anything as a threat, then the courts legalized police perjury by allowing them to make up a story afterwards about feeling threatened.

    “His or her superiors, a prosecutor and/or judge or jury must then objectively decide if a “reasonable person” would have used lethal force in the same situation. Did the person shot pose an imminent, credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm?”

    Superior: “wink wink”
    Judge/prosecutor: “Support me on my next re-election and I’ll let you off. Tell your friends.”

    The solution is obvious: disarm the police for civilian safety. After all, we just want to go home that night.

    • I don’t ever remember, in the use of force module, to view everything and everyone as a threat. What I do remember is the part that says to “only use enough force to end the threat”, or something along those lines (it depends on how your agency words it).

      • And in the context of officer safety absolutism, “enough force” = “lethal force” and “threat” = “anyone who gives the slightest amount of resistance”.

        • So you should be able to resist arrest, even if it’s a “slight amount of resistance”? Follow the laws, and cooperate with law enforcement, and you will be fine. Resist arrest, even slightly, you will have a bad day. Simple really. Play stupid games, get stupid prizes.

  16. “Ms. Erickson’s diatribe indicates that she feels the Dallas police shooting was justified.”

    I think you’re jumping to an unsupported conclusion there. You may assume that she feels that way, and she might even actually feel that way, but there’s nothing in her words to imply that. I don’t think she’s anti-cop enough to think killing five officers is justified, and it’s a little unfair to accuse her of that. I think she’s just a fruity-headed Utopian idiot who hasn’t developed adult reasoning abilities yet (and maybe never will), not a cop hater. Her desire to disarm police seems to come from a “guns are icky” place, not an anti-cop one.

    Other than that, this article is a pretty good takedown of a ridiculous person’s Crayola scribblings.

    • Uh, she calls the attack retaliation for police shootings, as opposed “unjustified offensive attack by batshit crazy black supremacist”

      She also believes firearm usage by an officer to defend against a perceived threat on his life is not an “absolutely necessary” reason for lethal force. That police should allow such attempts on their lives, past the time where they could do something to protect themselves, and necessarily suffer for it in the vast majority of cases, despite having the tools and ability to defend themselves, so this ignorant lady can feel better.

      It’s 50-50 she sympathizes with the cop killers (“I disagree with the Dallas attackers’s methods, but I understand his motive), or she is so stupid she doesn’t realize the consequences of her proposal because she hasn’t thought for three seconds about them. Neither do most would-be cop killers, which is why they start fights with armed police & usually get shot.

  17. If this Anti-Gun Anti-Police Lady believes the 5-Dallas Officer deserved to be murdered, she can go to HELL and it proves she’s an extremist with extremist ideas

  18. It always astounds me how prescient the founding fathers were. Recently, the following sidebar conversation was recovered from notes in Philadelphia…

    Mason: Thomas, I have this recurring dream that the insistence on freedom of the press will someday mean that any chucklehead with a pen and a futuristic communication device will be able to assert that they are a firearms and policing expert, even if – for example – their paid service is to dance around in skimpy clothing like a harlot!

    Jefferson: Dear God in heaven, Mason! What have I told you about smoking peyote with that Indian gentleman?… 😏

  19. It is baffling to see some idiot child talk about something she knows nothing about. I worked military law enforcement, was stationed in Europe, and worked closely with host nation police. This notion that European police are somehow more constrained when it comes to the use of force than US police is absolute BS.

  20. Erickson, and others like her, fail to think past the gun. As we just saw in Nice, there are many other ways to cause harm for political or personal reasons.

    To me, the video of Michael Brown manhandling the much smaller convenience store clerk is a perfect example of what life would be like in a truly gun-free world (not that it’s even possible). The biggest, toughest thug would fear no one. The next toughest thug would fear only the toughest one. And so on down to the smallest and weakest who would be completely helpless.

  21. Give her a uniform, badge and gun then drop her off in the worst section of her city.
    Tell her that back up is only minutes away.
    All these utopians need to go on ride alongs before they speak up.
    This is an example of white drivelage.
    (yea …i just made up that word)
    Your welcome.

    • Well, she did say armed Police may terrorize the populace…so..no gun for her.
      After all, she did say that armed officers would respond to a citizen with a gun and confront said citizen.

  22. In all the countries where police officers don’t carry guns, except Iceland, citizens don’t have access to guns either, which means police are rarely taken by surprise by a firearm.
    So how are things working out in France?
    I see a lot of terrorism is going on in Iceland.
    However, officers are typically trained to handle firearms ( poorly) when need be, and can respond to reports of a citizen with a gun (OMG) by sending an armed police officer to confront them ( about 30 to 60 minutes later).

  23. “There are Americans who long for European-style gun control.”

    Why does America have to follow Europe? What happened to liberals supposed love of diversity?

  24. Government employees being armed is a bad thing. Citizens should be armed, not our servants. Once they take the King’s coin, they should be required to give up most rights of citizens. It is well past time to disarm the police.

        • There are bad apples, to be sure. But I guarantee there are more civilians than LEOs that take away others constitutional rights. It is the LEOs job to protect those rights, as per the oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies. Do some forget that oath? Yes. But the vast majority do not.

        • Bad apples, bad apples, bad apples… We keep hearing that. So what are all those agents of government who don’t stop or even turn in those bad apples? That excuse is wearing thin with many of us. The Thin Blue Line seems to be representative of a criminal gang more and more these days.

          Stop wasting my time, slave, free people are talking.

  25. Well, Mrs. Erickson, if you like “European level gun control, do you mean the Czech Republic?”

    “Oh, you’ve never heard of Czech Republic?

    – being armed is a right (albeit not constitutionally protected),
    – concealed carry license is shall issue,
    – concealed carry rate is roughly on par with USA (and has been above USA until 2008),
    – concealed carry includes not only pistols, but also rifles, include SBRs,
    – all police are armed, vast number of police cars are equipped with SBRs,
    – foreigners can get a license and firearms the same as Czechs (as long as they are from EU/NATO country) and know enough Czech to get the license,
    – recently, the Czech Constitutional Court returned 5 year sentence of a man (foreigner) who shot a SWAT policeman who forcibly entered his house to conduct court ordered house search reasoning that the shooter “being law abiding person had no reason to think those are policemen and not criminals breaking through the door” and that the “justice system may not turn a law abiding person into a convict in this way (i.e. sending cops into the house in the middle of the night and then trying him for what he perceived as self defence)”.
    – full auto firearms are available, albeit on may issue basis (but the red tape is by far not impenetrable for a wanting person, and especially FA milsurp guns keep their prices well below their semi-auto counterparts).”

    “Oh, that’s not the kind of Europe you had in mind? Please explain why given that their murder rate is lower than UK’s.”

  26. Has Ms. Erickson actually seen a gun walking down the street or standing outside a grocery store? Perhaps these free-range guns can be sustainably harvested. Or perhaps her sentence is the victim of a free-range modifier.

  27. “California fitness writer” and “Europhile gun control advocate”. Those are synonyms, aren’t they?

  28. No, we Americans are not all terrified by the LEOs. But then, I give them no reasons to be concerned about me, either. Crazy how that works.

  29. Ahhh…….isn’t that cute? Alexa Erickson, freelance (read: unemployed), Lifestyle, Health and Wellness Writer (read: self-appointed know-it-all), who rails against thigh gap from the vantage point of an ear gap. Now she wants to lecture me about firearms? Girl, please.

    Tell you what, how about you pull back into a pony tail that long stringy of yours, which in every googled picture of you completely covers your ears (no doubt concealing attached lobes! *gasp*), and head on down to the gun range for some competent introductory firearms proficiency training?

    Then come back and maybe we can begin the education process with an honest, casual conversation about firearms. As it is, you have no clue what you’re talking about, other than ginning up some anti-gun street cred, probably to finagle your way into a full time paying gig somewhere.

  30. “a legitimate law enforcement purpose” sounds even more generalized than the standard she claims US police must meet.

  31. You stated
    “While it may be true that Americans have lost respect for their justice system, there’s no evidence to suggest that most people “live in terror” of police in the United States.”

    I’m going to confirm that there is a larger percentage than we would like that do live in fear of the police officers. Terror might be too strong a word but semantics and other points aside her point on police and a portion of the public is valid although more because of experiences than the fact that they carry guns.

  32. “In all the countries where police officers don’t cary guns, except Iceland, citizens don’t have access to guns either…”

    Uh, people in the UK have access to guns. As a matter of fact, South Korea and Japan are the only two developed nations I can think of where civilians are effectively banned from having guns.

  33. This idiot has never been to England or France. Armed officers are present and in large numbers in many places. This has never given be pause, in fact, I was comforted to see it.

  34. I will give her this. At least she makes the connection that a cop’s gun is still a gun. She does not automatically grant a Jupiter sized exception like so many progressives do. I bet this Eurocop was glad he had a gun:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *