A weirdly gun-sympathetic piece in the Times about long-time police officers who still carry the .38 revolver that was phased out in 1993.
« He Was For Abortion Before He Was Against It | Main | Charter Schools Still Don't Work »
The comments to this entry are closed.
Why "weirdly"? Seriously.
Posted by: Bill Arnold | December 16, 2004 at 11:57 AM
Normally I would expect the Times to make some mention of the horrors of gun ownership, or mention some ghastly police shooting. Amadou Diallo would not have been shot so many times, for example, if the police had been carrying revolvers, but they did not mention that.
Of course, maybe it is just my expectations that are weird.
Posted by: TM | December 16, 2004 at 12:29 PM
From the NYT piece itself:
"More than anything else, it is carrying a gun ... that most sets apart the police from the policed."
The Sovereign from the Subject; the Rulers from the Ruled; the Masters from the Slaves; the Aristocracy from the Plebian Classes; the "Regimental Sergeant" from "the 'Eathen in 'is Blindness"; the Yeoman from the Serf.
Good Lord, is it even remotely possible that the Times might someday learn to appreciate the 2nd amendment?
Posted by: Pouncer | December 16, 2004 at 12:56 PM
You use what you're used to. Or as one of the cop in the article says: if after 18 rounds (2 speed loaders later) I haven't hit the target, then, I have a bigger problem.
Posted by: BigFire | December 16, 2004 at 01:02 PM
Pouncer,
The story is about New York City, which has to deal with far higher levels of personal interaction due to population density than the most places (and a higher possibility of hitting bystanders as well), hence NY City's stance on gun control. (I'll let the comparison of NYC Police Officers to Slave Masters slide. :-)
Posted by: Bill Arnold | December 16, 2004 at 07:44 PM
I just bought a revolver... don't see why they were phased out.
Posted by: mark | December 18, 2004 at 03:23 PM