Back in 2000, the economist John Lott committed a cardinal sin in journalism and looked at some actual compiled data from Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics. He reported that female police officers are far more likely to use deadly force against a suspect than male police officers.
We haven’t heard one thing on the topic since. Why? It’s a hate fact. It’s misogynist to point out the fact that because women do not have the muscular and skeletal advantages that men have, they cannot use intermediate force before firing their service weapons.
The reason for this should be obvious. In the vast majority of cases, a woman cannot subdue a full grown man.
This is not to say that female cops lack judgment or are more bloodthirsty than male cops. It makes perfect sense for a female cop to shoot earlier than a male cop would- because a female cop cannot afford to allow a suspect to get his hands on her person. It shouldn’t need to be said, but in this age of gender quotas- sadly- it does.
Cops are covered in dangerous weapons. Women are targets of sexual violence. And men have 32 to 56% superior mechanical strength. All of these reasons make it very sensible for a female cop to shoot a man who is physically threatening her.
To be fair, it makes sense for anyone to shoot anyone who is being physically threatening. After all, you don’t know if they have a knife, or a gun, or a case of hepatitis C and a proclivity for biting.
You could almost make the case that even a male cop should shoot before putting hands on an aggressive suspect. After all, even a weaker opponent could stab, or infect a physically powerful police officer. From that perspective, you could say that the male cop who takes you to the ground instead of shooting you is really doing you a favor.
Lott’s analysis indicates that not only are female cops more likely to shoot someone on purpose- they are also 15 to 19% more likely to shoot a person by accident. There are a number of reasons that this would be the case. For starters, handling a gun while under the influence of adrenaline and fear, anyone would be much more likely to make a mistake, slip on the hammer, pull the trigger, drop a chambered weapon and so on.
It bears mentioning that men are more object-oriented, while women are more person-oriented which, by the way is part of the explanation behind the idea that female police negotiators are more effective. But in the case of weapons handling, it means a woman will be less inclined to be competent and confident holding a weapon. They may not have the manual strength or the instinct to fully and properly work the action of a firearm. And they may become extremely jittery when having to draw down on a suspect.
According to Lott, every 1% increase in the numbers of female officers raises police shootings by 2.7%. This number can be brought down by simply adding male officers.
Private gun owners, by contrast, are far less likely to shoot someone- accidentally or otherwise.
It’s not surprising that feminists would insist that the standards for tests of strength and endurance for cops should be ratcheted down enabling more women to pass them. Feminists also insist that people stop saying men are physically stronger than women and then out of the other side of their mouths demand that strength tests be watered down. You see, stating that men have superior mechanical strength is hate speech, even when facing the facts will save lives.
The same thing has been happening in fire departments- with female recruits being given watered down tests of strength and endurance, and lives are being lost on account of this as well.
Interestingly, many studies have also shown that in domestic violence cases aggression is overwhelmingly initiated by women, and women are three times as likely to use a dangerous weapon in these confrontations.
Something that few people realize is the fact that feminist-trained people are increasingly in charge of the ways courtrooms are run and how police departments and fire departments are staffed. The result has been a mad press for diversity at all costs. Diversity of genetics- rather than diversity of opinion, knowledge, or experience- is taken as an unmitigated virtue. The first victim is competence, and when competence is missing in first responders – people die.
Leave me a comment below in the reply section to let me know your feelings on this controversial topic.
~ American Gun News