CNN shooting highlights safety in public workplaces

CNN shooting highlights safety in public workplaces

This is a discussion on CNN shooting highlights safety in public workplaces within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I guess this is the classic "Half Glass" argument, We see it differently than those who are against guns in anyone's hands other than LEO ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16
  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,637

    CNN shooting highlights safety in public workplaces

    I guess this is the classic "Half Glass" argument, We see it differently than those who are against guns in anyone's hands other than LEO and Military.

    Read about it on CNN

    Police and security analysts said a large part of the responsibility for safety in open venues rests with workers themselves -- remaining aware and vigilant.

    "We all go out in public at some point," said University of Washington Assistant Police Chief Ray Wittmier on Wednesday. "But it's really hard to always be on your guard if there's somebody who's bent on causing you physical harm."
    But don't mention arming yourself in the event you are targeted, and he who is "bent on causing you physical harm" is following your plan of retreat. I guess it is good advice for those who don't want to protect themselves, and a good start to avoid something, but as they said, "a large part of the responsibility for safety in open venues rests with workers themselves"
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    The statement "be on your guard" is a euphamism for 'brace yourself' in anticipation of attack and hope that some other persons with a cell phone might call 911 as you're being abducted or killed as they stand there, and/or there is a security cam somehwere to catch the action for purpose of display on the evening news.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  3. #3
    New Member Array DakotaDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    13
    On the other hand, the CNN coverage doesn't say that the easy availablilty of guns was the cause of this incident.

    I keep looking for the "anti" bias in newscasts, but I'm not finding much these days.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array Timmy Jimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    759
    When is the DC ban going to get to the next hearing level and when is it going to get to the Supremes?
    Timmy Jimmy

    If it is not in the US Constitution then the Federal Government should not be doing it.

    "Carrying a gun is a social responsibility."

  5. #5
    Member Array MIKEV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    PDRMD
    Posts
    326
    As far as I can tell the DC case is being appealed, and I think the entire panel of Judges needs to decline to review the case in order for it to go to SCotUS. I haven't heard of any timetabel for this to happen yet. But rumor has it that it will be right smack in the middle of the 08 Pres. Campaign.

    I keep trying to keep an eye out for anything regarding this case due to the impact it may have in MD as well.

    Thanks
    MikeV

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array mzmtg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    502
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55026

    How gun control trades life for death
    By Bob Allen

    His name is Charles.

    Her name was Clara.

    Was. Past tense.

    The first and last time Charles saw Clara alive, she was being dragged by her hair through the CNN Center in Atlanta. Clara's tormentor ordered Charles out of the way, and instead of standing his ground to defend an obviously distressed woman, he obeyed the thug's order and let them pass.

    Charles' choice was to go in search of a guard instead of personally coming to the woman's aid, and the tragic result is that Clara is now dead.

    Going to find "help" turned out to be no help at all.

    Could Charles have saved Clara? It's possible he could not. Perhaps Charles would have also been a victim. We can never be sure.

    What we do know is that Charles obeyed a thug – refused to defend the defenseless – and two people are now dead.

    What would you have done?

    What would I have done?

    There was a time when a majority of American men would almost surely have come to Clara's aid. They believed in an ethic that said, "Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter." (Proverbs 24:11)

    It was a day when men, recognizing the reality of evil, carried weapons that enabled them to stand in the gap for those being unjustly tormented and threatened. Virtually any man on the street could come to the aid of a victim like Clara.

    That was then; this is now.

    Charles is probably a good, law-abiding citizen of modern America. Therefore he knows all too well he cannot carry a weapon to defend people like Clara without asking permission of the government.

    Long past are the days of George Tucker, a man wounded twice in America's Revolutionary War, who wrote: The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever … the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

    Or again, William Rawle, appointed as a U.S. attorney by President George Washington: "No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction, be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. A flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if, in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either [state or federal government] should attempt it, [the Second] Amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

    Most Americans today probably couldn't even imagine living when the laws in Virginia made men subject to prosecution for NOT carrying their weapons with them at all times, even (gasp!) being specifically mandated to bring them to church!

    Yes, we're a long way from those days, and I wonder if perhaps we've so lost the ability to govern ourselves that we deserve to be helpless in the face of evil.

    Yet, as soon as I write that, I come back to a simple truth: Clara didn't deserve to die. She had a perfect right to expect someone – anyone – with a sense of decency and courage to come to her aid in time of need.

    Charles did not. No one else did.

    We don't have to guess what George Tucker, William Rawle and the other Founding Fathers would say about our "gun control" laws that restrain only the law-abiding.

    All we have to do is read their writings.

    And perhaps ponder this horrible truth: Clara is dead.

  7. #7
    Member Array MIKEV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    PDRMD
    Posts
    326
    Wow...... Right on target if you ask me.

    MikeV

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array havegunjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,206
    Very true. My gun allows me to be equal to someone bigger and stronger than me. It does not make me braver, just equals out the disparity of force.

    I have said for years that the lawyers have us all so scared about what will happen to us if we were to intervene that most people just stand by and watch as a poor woman is killed. This goes against everything I learned while growing up and it just makes me mad and disgusted about how our society has changed. We have been trained that our government is the only source of protection. What rubbish!
    DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONtestING THE VOTE.

    Certified Instructor for Minnesota Carry Permit
    NRA Pistol and Personal Protection Insrtuctor
    Utah Permit Certified Instructor

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array mzmtg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    502
    Quote Originally Posted by havegunjoe View Post
    Very true. My gun allows me to be equal to someone bigger and stronger than me. It does not make me braver, just equals out the disparity of force.
    http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com...ilization.html

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array Timmy Jimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    759
    How do we change our society thought process back to the days of George Tucker, and William Rawle?

    What does a anti think when they read that article?
    Timmy Jimmy

    If it is not in the US Constitution then the Federal Government should not be doing it.

    "Carrying a gun is a social responsibility."

  11. #11
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,793

    mzmtg...Excellent Find...

    I made a copy to print in full text...

    ...why the gun is civilization.

    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

    Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  12. #12
    Member Array portsider44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    70
    Good stuff mzmtg & retsupt99.

  13. #13
    Member Array bullseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Az
    Posts
    93
    I'm not sure what I would do in this situation I don't think anybody knows for sure until it happens. I would think that I would help, that was the way I was raised. My CCW instructor said that, there is only a handful of people on this planet that he would use deadly force to defend. And guess what, it wasn't anybody sitting in that class room. He made some valid point's on why you shouldn't get involved, such as not knowing the situation. Bottom line, and I've said this my entire adult life, you have to protect, Children, the Elderly and Women in that order.
    LIFES JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE "GRAVE" SAFELY ,IN A WELL PRESERVED BODY.BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS TOTALLY WORN OUT SHOUTING "HOLY S@#$...WHAT A RIDE"

  14. #14
    Member Array 40FIVER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Central Texas
    Posts
    249

    What's the Difference?

    If a soldier in Irag or Afghanistan was to "go into harms way" to protect and save a civilian from the enemy, he or she would be a hero. And our soldiers do it on a poverty pay scale. But come home to America and do the same thing and you're an idiot.

    It's true that most soldiers in the sandbox don't have to worry about some lawyer filing suit. (This is just a lousy excuse for selfishness.)

    We in the good ol USA are more afraid of lawsuits in this country than we are of doing the noble and right thing. This includes most CHLers.

    We think we are so virtuous and good because we carry a gun to protect "me and mine". Man, I hate that phrase.

    Actually, we're more selfish and dishonest than the sheeple. The sheeple don't know any better. I'm ashamed of anyone who carries for self defense who uses any excuse to not protect the weak and innocent.

    If you carry, make the decision to do what is morally right, not what is best for you or your family. I can only hope and pray that if my wife or kids are being violently attacked, that someone will be there to step in and help them.

    I'll try to do the same for your family.
    Charlie - 40FIVER

    Why I carry:
    "The heart is deceitul above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    Jeremiah 17:9

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array TN_Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shelby County TN
    Posts
    11,118
    Posted by mzmtg: Charles is probably a good, law-abiding citizen of modern America. Therefore he knows all too well he cannot carry a weapon to defend people like Clara without asking permission of the government.

    Long past are the days of George Tucker, a man wounded twice in America's Revolutionary War, who wrote: The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever … the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

    Or again, William Rawle, appointed as a U.S. attorney by President George Washington: "No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction, be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. A flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if, in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either [state or federal government] should attempt it, [the Second] Amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
    "The older I get, the more my carry permit becomes less a badge of honor and more a thorn in my side." ---me.

    I have said that for years. I should not have to have a stupid plastic card to carry a weapon. I do not and should not need the Governments permission to do something that is a right enumerated in the constitution! When did the world get so screwed up that people think driving is a right and carry a weapon for defense of life and liberty is a privilege?

    Good God this country is backwards is some respects.

    Posted by 40fiver:If you carry, make the decision to do what is morally right, not what is best for you or your family. I can only hope and pray that if my wife or kids are being violently attacked, that someone will be there to step in and help them.

    I'll try to do the same for your family.
    It's a deal. I couldn't live with myself if I was armed and had the chance to save someone from being hurt or killed and didn't act to stop it. No matter who they were.
    ,=====o00o _
    //___l__,\____\,__
    l_--- \___l---[]lllllll[]
    (o)_)-o- (o)_)--o-)_)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Public Safety - AZ SB 1070
    By SIGP250 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 28th, 2010, 05:19 PM
  2. Should public schools teach gun safety?
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2010, 01:00 PM
  3. Public Range shooting vs. Compettitin shooting, one does get spoiled
    By Sticks in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 21st, 2009, 10:19 PM
  4. Montana - Public Safety v. Private Safety
    By DOGOFWAR01 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 15th, 2009, 04:34 PM
  5. Bad: dead in Arkansas campus shooting; one suspect in custodyStory Highlights
    By JonInNY in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 29th, 2008, 02:55 PM

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors