June 7th, 2007 03:27 PM
Sheriff calls for guns on campus and mental health reform.
June 7th, 2007 03:36 PM
It is great to see people in public leadership roles with common sense. Great to see that there are people out there that finally "get it".
June 7th, 2007 03:48 PM
Now this is a sheriff that gets it. Barring me from carrying my gun on a campus does nothing to safeguard me or anyone else. As for the common complaint that authorities won't be able to ascertain who is the good guy from the bad I say hogwash. Since they are usually so late responding it will be all over by the time they get there. The grateful survivors will point out the good guy to them.
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
June 7th, 2007 04:11 PM
"There's no standard way to identify the good guys versus the bad guys in the middle of an active shooting situation. It tremendously complicates the response for officers responding," said Wiesley.
If the good guys were armed, he'd be the one either shot dead or bleeding, surrounded by the guys and girls holding guns on him when the cops get there.
I don't recall a problem with this at the Appilachian law school, or the other where the school employee took care of it before the cops arrived.
When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.
June 7th, 2007 04:17 PM
1943 - 2009
Let's be careful about making blanket statements like this. We don't want to turn this into a cop-bashing thread.
Since they are usually so late responding it will be all over by the time they get there.
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a soldier.
June 7th, 2007 04:43 PM
Not Cop bashing but I think that there is a bit of truth in that.
BG starts shooting up the joint... Student A pulls out cell phone dials 911,... Student B legally carriing a concealed handgun deploys same and nuetralizes BG. Student B reholsters after determinnig threat is no longer present. Police arrive and tape off CS and take report.
I don't think the statement "by the time the police arrive, it's over." is Cop bashing at all. I mean everyone knows that as much as they try, they can't be everywhere, all the time.
Last edited by MIKEV; June 7th, 2007 at 04:46 PM.
Reason: spelling and content
June 7th, 2007 04:55 PM
Besides, opponents of CCW pretend as though the police are going to arrive on the scene to find 7, 12, 34 people all standing around pointing guns after the badguy is stopped.
Originally Posted by havegunjoe
First of all, if a CCWer, or several, stop a madman, and then the police arrive, hopefully they will have reholstered their weapons. And it's unlikely that the cops will just arrive and start shooting; presumably, they will order anyone holding a gun to the ground, and the CCWers would comply.
But let's say there's just one CCWer. Antis pretend that if campus carry starts to be allowed, for some reason the campus percentage of armed goodguys will be like in the 70-80% range or something, up from the 4-or-so percent that the overall population is CCW licensed.
Let's say the cops arrive after the goodguy has taken out the badguy, or maybe even while the badguy is still there, and is in a standoff with the goodguy. If the cops shoot both of them dead, we have one badguy dead and one goodguy dead. Is that too high a price to pay for the potential that 32 other lives were saved? These people act as though every possibly price we might have to pay to save lives is too high -- even though the alternative might well be dozens dead at the hands of the psycho.
June 7th, 2007 04:57 PM
That's not cop bashing, that's simply the truth. Most shootings are over in 30 seconds....
The average response time is probably 3 to 10 minutes, depending on location.
Cops don't prevent murders. They have an important and respected role, but they have their limitations. That's not bashing, that's just the truth.
Originally Posted by Captain Crunch
Hey Pelosi, Murtha, Ron Paul: "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
Signed: President Abraham Lincoln
June 7th, 2007 05:01 PM
Is that an attempt at refuting the acknowledged fact that in the vast majority of cases, the police arrive after, not during, the commission of the crime?
Originally Posted by Captain Crunch
It's not a fault laid at the feet of the police. It's a fact. It's part and parcel of the fact that we can't possibly have enough police to have an officer at every location where a crime could be committed (even assuming that as long as he were there, he would be able to stop it).
The police have to be summoned once someone (a member of the public) becomes aware of the fact that crime is going down. It's not "cop bashing" to observe that the police don't even get the call, much less arrive, until after a crime is either under way or completed.
June 7th, 2007 05:04 PM
It also wasn't a problem at during the UT sniper incident in 1966.
Originally Posted by sgtD
"We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters
June 7th, 2007 05:04 PM
In fact, I really don't recall EVER hearing of it being a problem -- not even for all the Defensive Gun Uses that I see reported.
Originally Posted by sgtD
It's a phantom fear that the anti-gunners use to try to oppose CCW, that's all. It's like their predictions of shootouts over fenderbenders and parking spaces that NEVER materialize in states that pass CCW laws.
Thank you for bringing up the Appalachia Law School incident. Yes, it clearly demonstrates that goodguys responding at the time of the crime don't end up resulting in cops coming in not knowing who to shoot.
June 7th, 2007 05:15 PM
Now that LEO has his facts straight and he isn't afraid to show it!
We need need more high ranking cops like him. Look at this "Bulls-eye" post he did also:
I like this part:
This guy has guts, he must take a lot of flack for standing up like he does. My hat's off to him!
"You may recall that I championed the rights of law abiding citizens to obtain Concealed Weapons Permits and issued permits before I was required to by law. In fact, I helped author the current “shall issue” statutes which were modeled on my policy. I testified before the legislature several times on this issue. I also chaired the committee under the Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) Board that enacted POST Rule 27 to comply with the U.S. Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004. This allows retired peace officers to carry a concealed weapon without a permit subject to certain requirements. When some Sheriffs refused to comply with Rule 27, I offered to verify the retiree’s eligibility regardless of their county of residence. My point is that I am a strong Second Amendment advocate."
June 7th, 2007 07:18 PM
Originally Posted by peacefuljeffrey
Awww..hell.. I had a fender bender yesterday..had my glock in the car, and I forgot to shoot the guy that hit me, or the girl that hit him.. ******.. I knew I was forgetting something.. I can't believe I let Sarah Brady and her yahoo's down by not shooting everyone in sight.
I am glad to see a LEO making such a public stand about allowing guns on Campus.. it almost makes up for our Governor signing that silly law "outlawing" non-resident permits...
June 7th, 2007 07:25 PM
Here's something I dug up......
Psychiatric Analysis Shows
Anti-Gun People Suffer "Mental Condition"
By Richard W. Stevens
They fear both their own feelings and the motivations of their neighbors, so many anti-gun people lapse into psychological defense patterns. These patterns, according to Sarah Thompson, M.D., lay the foundation of the anti-gun mentality. Dr. Thompson, a psychiatrist and author, detailed these observations in the Fall 2000 issue of the Bill of Rights Sentinel, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO).
"Defense mechanisms distort reality," notes Dr. Thompson. "The common thread in anti-gun people is rage."
Mental State: Rage and Projection
Dr. Thompson’s article, entitled "Raging Against Self Defense," explains that many people are terrified not only by the risk of crime but also by their own angry feelings. Deep inside they are afraid that they might get so upset one day that they would want to hurt or kill another person. If a firearm were handy, they imagine that they might just use it to do violence.
To bury these scary thoughts, some people project them onto other people and inanimate objects. Beliefs that other people will attack without warning, or that firearms are the cause of violence, are two results of this emotional defense mechanism known as "projection."
Mental State: Anxiety and Denial
Another defense mechanism typical of the anti-gun mentality is "denial." Because of their anxiety about helplessness and vulnerability, some people flatly reject any facts that suggest any need to protect themselves. "It can’t happen here" is the typical expression of denial.
In a statement to the press, Aaron Zelman, Executive Director of JPFO, reacted to Dr. Thompson’s findings: "It always seems strange that some people actually oppose the right to self-defense. These psychological insights help explain why some Americans can’t understand the right to keep and bear arms. They are suffering from a mental condition."
Firearms Ownership Triggers Emotional Storm
Hatred of guns and gun owners flares up, Dr. Thompson finds, because anxious anti-gun people see the very existence of firearms as proving self-defense is necessary. Anti-gun people have psychologically denied the need for self-defense, but firearms ownership shatters their illusion. The mere fact that people own and use firearms is a like a neon sign reminding them about the reality they so desperately want to deny. They react intensely by charging that the gun owners are the violent menace to society.
Example: Irrational Rosie O’Donnell
"Rosie O’Donnell proved the point," commented Zelman. "She said she wanted all gun owners thrown in prison, regardless of whether those owners committed any actual crime. That sort of unthinking rage against responsible firearms ownership could only come from someone with some kind of emotional problem."
Studies show that firearms are used well over 5,000 times per day to stop or deter crimes. "You can’t reasonably deny that firearms save lives, " Zelman said. "You would have to be crazy to want to make it harder for innocent people to protect themselves."
Crazy Rulers with Blind Followers?
Here’s a dangerous combination: political leaders who irrationally fear guns and loathe gun owners – in charge of law enforcement officers who will just “follow orders” to disarm innocent Americans. Many American law men would never turn knowingly against their fellow citizens and confiscate firearms – but some would do exactly that if so ordered.
An eye-opening interview with a California police officer shows exactly how some officers would carry out a civilian disarmament order, regardless of their oath to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Most younger Americans know almost nothing about our fundamental rights – and young law officers aren’t any different. See the whole disturbing interview on the CCOPS website
NRA Benefactor member
Michigan Antique Arms Collectors life member
Ohio Gun Collectors member
Opinions expressed here are based upon Michigan state law ONLY. Other state laws may differ. Know and observe your local laws.
June 7th, 2007 09:35 PM
What I'd love to tell the people who claim that the police won't be able to tell the bad guys from the good is that if they follow proper procedure and yell something like "Police! Freeze!" the good guys will comply while the bad guys will most likely try to run or shoot at the police.
I mean, is it SOP in these departments to arrive on a crime scene and shoot anyone with a gun who's there? Might be hard to recruit undercover officers or get officers to respond when off-duty or to a neighboring county if that were the case.
As others have said, it's a bogus assertion to throw fear and uncertainty into the minds of people who might not otherwise know what to think.
By Garrett Smith in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: July 7th, 2012, 04:01 PM
By JonInNY in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: August 12th, 2009, 01:42 AM
By paramedic70002 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: April 14th, 2008, 09:53 AM
By Pitmaster in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: December 28th, 2007, 02:42 PM
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors