Published August 13, 2003, in The National Review Online
Should Off-duty police be banned from carrying guns?
By John R. Lott Jr.
After a city-council member was recently killed at New York City Hall,
Mayor Michael Bloomberg questioned why James Davis, the murdered
councilman, would want to carry a gun. Davis, a retired police officer,
had a permit to carry a gun, but Mayor Bloomberg found it very
troubling: "I don't know why people carry guns. Guns kill people"
Bloomberg's new solution: Ban off-duty and former cops from being able
to carry guns in city hall. Davis was blindsided by the attack and was
unable to use his gun to protect himself. The attack was stopped by an
on-duty police officer. Yet, it is hard to see why it is possible for
New Yorkers to trust an on-duty officer but somehow minutes after he
goes off-duty to no longer trust him.
It would seem that the ban has only one possible outcome: Criminals
have less to worry about. In these "gun-free zones," fewer people can
act to defend themselves and others. Nor is there a significant benefit
from only having uniformed officers. If these killers want to attack,
they need only wait until the uniformed officer leaves the area or
otherwise make sure that officer is the first person whom the killers
attack.
Unfortunately, Mayor Bloomberg's reaction is not unusual. Legislation
to let off-duty and retired police to carry guns with them when they
travel across state lines is being held up in Congress by a threatened
Senate Democratic filibuster. Sen. Ted Kennedy, (D., Mass.), who is
leading the threatened filibuster, claims that the measure would "do
great damage to the effort of state and local governments to protect
their citizens from gun violence." He argues the law would also
"undermine the safety of law enforcement."
Terrorist threats have greatly increased the demands that states and
cities hire more police to help cover all the possible vulnerable
targets. Yet police officers can't carry their guns when they travel
outside their states. Forty-four states let civilians to varying
degrees carry concealed handguns, but somehow we can't trust police to
carry a gun when they travel to even these states. Some states don't
even let their own officers carry their guns off-duty.
Over 8,000 state and local police departments in the U.S. employed
about 450,000 full-time sworn police officers in 2000. Adding retired
officers who have served at least five years would add millions more.
Many would not only carry their guns for free, but would actually feel
more comfortable and safer being able to carry them.
The federal government advises us that we should be observant and
report strange events to the police. But there is not always time to
call 911 and wait for the cavalry to arrive. This legislation helps
provide police who are well trained and who may already be there at the
scene.
Take a couple of high-profile examples where off-duty or former police
carrying guns have made a critical difference. An off-duty police
officer, who was registering his daughter for classes, helped stopped a
public-school shooting at Santana High School in Santee, California in
2001. Last year, two law students with law-enforcement backgrounds as
deputy sheriffs in another state stopped the shooting at the
Appalachian Law School in Virginia. When the attack started the
students ran to their cars, got their guns, pointed their guns at the
attacker, ordered him to drop his gun, and then tackled him and held
him until police were able to arrive.
The public fear of guns is understandable, given the horrific events
shown on TV. During 2001, national-news broadcasts on the three main TV
networks carried about 187,000 words on gun-crime stories. One story
briefly mentioned an off-duty police officer stopping a crime. Not one
segment featured a civilian using a gun to stop a crime. Even the most
observant are unlikely to realize that guns are used by even civilians
to stop crime some two million times a year — over four times more
frequently guns are used to commit crime. Newspapers are not much
better.
Not surprisingly some people react to crime by wanting to ban all guns,
even those held by off-duty police. What is next? Banning guns carried
by on-duty officers?
—John R. Lott Jr., a resident scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute , is the author of the recently released The Bias Against
Guns .
|
|