Emeryville, Calif. police Chief Ken James said a gun "is not a defensive weapon." (Image source: YouTube)
A California police chief recently opined that a gun "is not a defensive weapon" but rather "an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power."
“One issue that always boggles my mind is that the idea that a gun is a defensive weapon,” Emeryville Police Chief Ken James said at a news conference. “That is a myth. A gun is not a defensive weapon. A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power."
TheBlaze asked readers whether they agree with the chief's statement. Here's what some of you had to say:
A weapon is a defensive weapon when used in defense. Any weapon is an offensive weapon when used in offense. Whether it be a sword, a grenade, a rocket launcher, or a machine gun mounted on a plane. It is the motive behind the use of the weapon that makes it offense or defense.
The police chief should understand this.
This guy is a moron of the highest caliber. Is he implying then that every time an officer shoots a suspect he is wrong to do so because guns are offensive weapons rather than defensive? Do the police have free reign to assassinate anyone they want then in this guys mind? The logic he tries to present is bafflingly pathetic to the point of being painful. 55 slain police officers is what he presents as evidence that no guns are ever used defensively because…..? I still can’t wrap my head around what he’s trying to argue.
Is it “defensive” or “offensive” is a matter of perspective. A policeman outwardly carries his weapon (ie gun) to show power and intimidate people away from doing something stupid. So yes, to a cop it is an offensive weapon. However, you are in your home at night and someone is prowling outside your door and barges in, the use of a gun becomes a defensive weapon to save your life. It is not intended to show power or intimidation at this point, but to “defend” your life. This police chief has a biased perspective as a cop. I’m sure if he had ever been in a one on one shoot out with a villain, he would realize he is trying to “defend” his life. The trivial fight over “offensive” versus “defensive” is only political, when it comes to protecting my life or others, semantics don’t help.
Why do the liberals have such a base urge to redefine everything? They describe the same things often, conveying the same meaning, but act as if they are morally outraged that a particular term carrying the identical meaning has been used. It’s all so stupid.
The gun is defensive when used to defend yourself. The police chief described exactly this situation. It is utterly pointless for him then to object to the term.
It would be fair to say a gun is not JUST a defensive weapon, to be clear. But to say “it is not a defensive weapon” is indisputably wrong.
To use an analogy, it would be like acting offended or perplexed that a car is called a “vehicle” or “transportation”, and giving the reason “the car often just its in the parking lot not transporting anything. It is used to get people from point A to point B, NOT for transportation. It is not a vehicle, it’s a box with wheels that we use to move around more easily.” This is exactly what liberals do.
Witness also the similar answers Pelosi and others have recently given in trying to deny that we have spending problems. They then go on to admit in different words (sometimes) that the meaning is correct, but object to the term.
Of course, the real reason they do this is to obscure the issue so they can seem “reasonable” when they sneak in foolish, clearly wrong ideas, also usually re-labelled deceptively, like that they want to raise taxes, or ban guns.
I think he should probably retire. He’s seen and heard about too many cops being killed with armor piercing cop killer bullets, something the NRA strongly supports. He’s probably also against explosive bullets, those bullets that explode when they hit their target, such as those President Reagan and James Brady were hit with. A type of ammo the NRA strongly supports because of the 2nd Amendment.
He definitely should step down. His perspective, like that of most policemen, is to protect innocent citizens. His perspective is all the cops and innocent citizens that have been killed with cop killer and explosive bullets, as well as all those people he’s sworn to protect who have been blown away with high capacity weapons. He’s seen too many brains and too much blood splattered on sidewalks and house walls, and too many gun owners who have killed friends, loved ones and themselves with firearms. He’s jaded and no longer capable of serving.
What he hasn’t seen, evidently, is all those people who have saved lives with semi-automatic high capacity weapons, the patriots who whipped out those bad boys to stop some bad guy during the commission of a crime!
The last person you want to listen too on the gun control issue is a cop! They don’t get it!
I’ve been a cop for 40 years and have never heard such dribble in my life! People are alive today because I was there to DEFEND them. Criminals are dead today because a homeowner was armed to DEFEND his home. It’s really as simple as that! Political Correctness Kills!