I would like to suggest that Mr. Nebel isn’t very clear about things and how they work. While “Down at the farm with Grandma”, I strongly doubt he’s ever been on the receiving end of fire. I have had that “opportunity” in Afghanistan, and would like to highlight some faults in his logic:

 

First of all, they are ‘magazines.’ Not “banana clips.”

 

Second — and against my better judgement of chasing down his rabbit hole — “Slug technology has improved tremendously over the last 30 years. They have a shorter range than an AR-15 so they are safer to use.” This is false at face value, and I respectfully say, it demonstrates Mr. Nebels’ lack of knowledge of the real world. 

 

For the lay reader: If armed bank robbers, MS-13, Sinaloans, Bloods/Crips, Taliban or ISIS are firing at you with 500-yard range AR-15s, AK-47s or -74s, it is suicidal for police to “close with” a heavier armed adversary carrying longer-range firepower, while they’re underprepared with pistols and shotguns. 

 

Slug technology may have improved, but by the time police officers get within (and I’ll wildly overestimate here for argument’s sake) a 200-yard range to employ those slug-loaded shotguns, they’ll have to expose themselves for twice the risk just to hopefully return fire. I’ll bite and agree that Sergeants or select officers in police departments should have access to assault weapons—not everyone. 

 

Good police training prevents their “spraying 2,000 rounds of ammunition like they did in North Hollywood,” (which I am not sure if he’s speaking about the police or the suspects). Police departments must be prepared to fight fire with fire given today’s criminal element, but he seems to want to limit their ability to respond and react, while asking them to take on additional risk. I shudder at the thought that other readers may take Mr. Nebel’s suggestion as a ‘good idea’ without an experience-based counterview, and I hope others do not fall victim to his irrelevant rabbit hole.

 

Third, I cannot take Mr. Nebel, or his opinion seriously while he is putting up non-issue smoke and mirrors (albeit very weakly) to the real matter at hand. I call his attention back to the Sheriff’s role in our County: there have been several compromises put out for discussion about the requirements for, and the roles and responsibilities of a Los Alamos County Sheriff’s department. 

 

Apparently, Mr. Nebel wants to disarm a Sheriff through zero funding or responsibilities. I am not satisfied nor impressed with his lackluster arguments against the Sheriff. I think it a fair compromise that Mr. Sheehey put forward and was discussed by the Council; and $200k compared to the $8.6M the LAPD has proposed for 2018 is a drop in the bucket. Concerned about a career “patronage politician?” Then include term limits to the Sheriff’s office in the arrangements. I think this is something we can all reasonably consider, despite Mr. Nebel’s unnerved, jittery nature.

 

I am not a warmonger nor a hero. I am simply an experienced, rational Citizen.