The Raving Mad Becky Akers Wants the Cops Disarmed...

and mad gunmen to keep their weapons.

A man starts shooting random people on the street. The cops show up to stop him, and succeed. In the process, they may have accidentally hit bystanders. The police commissioner is honest enough to admit that this may happened. He never says "And this is OK: Akers simply makes that part up. For her, this whole incidenet is apparently evidence that the cops are "stalking" us.

If Akers had been soiling herself hiding behind a parked car when the cops showed up, I wonder if she would have tried out this attitude with them? I bet she would have been really relieved for 15 or so minutes, before she remembered that it was the cops, not the mad gunman, who are the real enemy.


  1. I suspect Akers would have shot the madman rather than soiling herself behind a car. I don't know how much practice she puts in on the range, but it is actually possible that she'd hit fewer innocent bystanders than the police.

  2. My initial reaction was that the poor shooting from the cops might have stemmed from the ridiculous trigger pull used by the NYPD.

    For people who are expected to be able to hit targets in a crowded environment, I'd want them to also have a reflex sight as well.

    Of course Akers might not approve of such accuracy enhancing measures because they'll be able to stalk and kill us better.

  3. Anonymous7:17 PM

    Yes, she can be over the top, and often is one of those loud-mouthed libertarians that cannot help but show their hate for the state. I mean, I hate the state,too; but I am a bit more subtle and deliberative about it. However, if Becky is anything like me, she will be carrying a weapon of some type at all times. With a little training and experience I doubt that she'd be soiling herself behind a car. Taking hard cover before taking out the target, maybe. Then again, I don't know her, I only know what I've read in the past.

    On the issue of who can have guns, it is my own personal opinion that the people have more of a right to arms than the agents of the state. After all, the people created the state, thus the people have all of the rights. They merely delegate some power to the state to protect those rights. The state apparatus itself has zero rights. I also believe that this was the original intent of the constitution, as well as the bill of rights.

  4. Gene, the initial story is about a guy stalking a colleague and hurting people. I think she's just saying "oh, it wasn't the guy who hurt all these people, it was the officers responding."

    I'm surprised that you're not taking a more utilitarian view on this. Either it would have been better if the cops had not arrived, or it would have been worse. You should be able to figure it out looking at who hurt whom, rather than reflexively jumping on the gun debate bandwagon.

  5. August, did the cops soil themselves? Becky may be great at the range but might be as nervous as us mere mortals when a gun is pointed our way.

    Practice and training are important and some training that involves close combat reflex site is done but does help to train on own also.

    I do believe they never wanted to shoot anybody including shooter and seems by video they were trying to approach and grab him until he turned with gun.

  6. Anonymous11:09 AM

    It appears that the shooter only shot his single target, it wasn't a mass shooting as the media was portraying it. Apparently, ALL innocent bystanders were injured by police gunfire.

    I had another comment that I posted yesterday on this post. What happened to it?

  7. I've been stalked by cops on numerous occasions, as have many people I know.

    With regards to disarming cops, that honestly doesn't make sense at all. So the people paid to protect the citizens in my district won't be allowed to protect: 1)themselves, 2)me, 3)anyone else, against criminals trying to gun someone down, except by what method, tasering? Baseball bat? How on Earth would that work?

    I must say, I like Becky a lot better when she's complaining about the TSA.

  8. traumerel, Akers never said the cops stalk and kill us; Gene made that up. Here's what she said:

    Don’t expect Nanny Bloomberg to lament that armed cops stalk among and kill us...

    In context, she was being sarcastic and just pointing out that whenever something like this happens, the reaction of the press/public/politicians is to crack down on gun availability among the public; nobody ever uses that logic with the police.

    She may be right or wrong, and in fact maybe she does think the police stalk and kill us. But Gene's use of quotation marks above was very misleading.

    1. Bob:

      1) She used the word "stalk": there is nothing wrong with me putting it in quotes here. What, do you think she means they are stalking squirrels among us?

      2) If she was being sarcastic, it was (and is) not at all clear to me: But, in any case, wouldn't your first assumption be "She was being sarcastic and Gene missed it" rather than "Gene just made this up"?

    2. Gene, the only reason I said "Gene made that up" is that I thought I was exactly mirroring your phrase "Akers simply made that part up." But in retrospect, I can see they weren't exactly identical, so maybe that's why you thought I was being hostile. (I.e. I never would have volunteered that phrasing; I thought I was just copying your treatment of Akers and I was being ironic.)

      I know she used the word "stalk." But the point is, she wasn't saying "I think the police stalk and kill us." Rather, she was saying "I don't think the top cop will complain about cops stalking and killing us."

      So by putting quotation marks around "stalk," you seem to be telling the reader, "I am not putting words in her mouth, she *literally* said the police stalk innocent civilians!" This distracts from the fact that no, Akers actually didn't say that.

      Final way of putting this: Someone could actually believe

      (a) there should be armed government police, who sometimes make mistakes but always try to help good people and fight bad guys

      (b) gun laws are dumb

      (c) the media always uses a shooting to strip civilians of guns, even if in a given incident arguably the police's guns were the problem

      ...and written Akers' exact post. So in that case, clearly you saying "She thinks madmen should have guns, that the police shouldn't, and that the police stalk us" would be totally wrong.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Central Planning Works!

The biggest intellectual nothing burger of the last century?