From what I can tell, the most plausible and charitable interpretation of what happened on Larpenteur Avenue in Falcon Heights the other night involves a misunderstanding between the cop and the fellow he ended up killing. The key elements of the misunderstanding, in this view of things, would be
(1) that the driver had told the officer he had a weapon; and
(2) that the driver subsequently reached for his hip pocket (which is where almost all men carry their wallet).
It seems possible the cop understood (1) as a threat. Even if he regarded it just as a statement of fact, it could have made him jumpy, so that he overreacted to (2). No matter the details, it seems that if something like this accounts for the tragedy, then the precipitating factor was the presence of firearms. The fellow in the car had a gun, probably for personal protection, but he'd be alive today if he had foregone the protection.
We are constantly told that the remedy for gun violence is more guns. But more guns just makes everyone more jumpy and inevitably catastrophes occur. Despite the efforts of the NRA, these questions are a topic of social science research, and the results keep trickling in. As was likely the case on Larpenteur Avenue, guns cause gun violence. Fewer guns, fewer homicides. The notion that "good guys" with guns are combating crime is the self-serving daydream of "good guys" who for whatever reason have become infatuated with guns.
Comments