Posted on 12/08/2007 10:02:55 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
Can you say Columbine? I knew you could.
Too many, if not most, cops are primarily unionized civil service employees, and only secondarily what we used to call "sworn officers of the law". The bottom line is making it to retirement without getting hurt.
I can understand that. And with that understanding comes my determination to carry habitually
Correction #2: “worshiping” (som da I neeed to figur out how 2 use spelchick.)
Perhaps I haven’t kept up with Florida law, but I doubt it.
When I got my CCW, one of the conditions of the law that authorized carry was a property owner’s right to restrict firearms on their property in the same manner as bars and churches.
It's really very simple, an armed police officer rushing into the sniper's field of fire immediately becomes the highest priority target if he sees the cop before the cop sees him.
How about that. I just checked with a local LEO and she says you’re right!
Woops...you’re right!
At Luby's, Suzanna Gratia Hupp was obeying (then-extant) Texas law when she left her weapon in her vehicle. Luby's had no role in that decision. Thankfully, current Texas law does not deny Texans the means to protect ourselves and our families.
In Omaha, the prohibition was by a commercial entity, (the mall) which -- unlike the State of Texas -- can -- and (IMHO) should -- be sued as stated.
Thanks for the clarification.
Probably true, but that’s why law enforcement officers should be well trained and wearing body armor.
Alternatively we could just rely on civilians - like this:
(From CNN)
“The Colorado Springs megachurch instituted security precautions after the shootings at the Denver area mission center, saving “hundreds of lives” at the New Life Church, senior Pastor Brady Boyd said Monday.
A New Life parishioner acting as a security guard shot and killed the gunman who entered the church Sunday afternoon after he had gotten no more than 50 feet inside the building, Boyd said.
...
Boyd said the female security guard was a hero in preventing further bloodshed, rushing to confront the gunman just inside the church.
“She probably saved over a hundred lives,” Boyd said of the guard, whom he said is not a law enforcement officer and used her personal weapon.”
Civilians using their personal firearms seem to be able to stop mass murderers, even thought they no doubt become the prime target of the shooter as soon as they are noticed. I’m sure our law enforcement officers could do just as well or better - given their training and frequently superior armament.
I didn't realize that our military had to contradict the Boy Scouts when it trains its recruits.
Very interesting, all right - but you might have difficulty proving that the victim was forced to go into the establishment in question.
Oh he wasn’t forced at all.
He went willingly. Just as non-smokers go (or used to go) into smoking establishments.
Charles Gibson gave more coverage, plus Person of the Week, to the Omaha shootings, where there was no defense, than to Salt Lake City shootings, where there was a defense. Does that mean that Charles Gibson wants more Americans to get shot, rather than less, because it makes a more interesting “news.”
The question is, if Charles Gibson (or any other journalist) was in a mall next to a table with a loaded gun and a camera, and he saw/heard a serial shooter murdering people, which one would he want to use?And lest you are too blithe to call it extreme to suggest that that is even a question, recall from the Vietnam era that there was panel discussion in which that question (couched in terms of whether he would alert an American military officer if he learned that his unit was about to be attacked by the Viet Cong) was asked of a journalist, and he answered that he might - and was forced to recant by other journalists on the panel. Then a soldier was asked if he would order his troops into a battle not of his own choosing in order to save the life of a journalist - and he said no.
That's obviously a memory from a long time ago, but I think I have it right.
This statement doesn't ring true in my book. Mass murders don't go looking to have a brush with the law, they'll go where there are likely defenseless civilians for them to kill in larger numbers. Cowards that they are, they'll often grab innocent victims by the throat and use them as shields when any armed confrontation is noted to have come within firing range. By the preponderance of its use, I've come to believe that threating innocent hostages seems to be "preferred", as shooters more often do that than simply shoot it out with generally better armed and trained cops.
I suggest a malevolent shooter would make no distinction between uniformed or non-uniformed armed confrontation. Such a shooter would most likely infer an armed civilian is a plain-clothes policemen.
The recently-in-the-news church security guard is also a professional, not "merely" a volunteer. Whereas LEOs may well often be armed with weapons more often associated with military applications, what the church security guard used was appropriate to her needs, effective and accurate in her hands.
As with recent mall shootings, seeing time slip away waiting for LEOs to arrive and safely assess the situation can cost many extra lives. That's simply a cost we should not have to accept. Our country's founders already knew a better way, and intended such rights be guaranteed under the Constitution they enacted.
HF
I think you are reading my statement out of context. The context was a discussion of appropriate tactics for all armed responders to situations such as those that occurred at the mall and at the church. During the discussion I noted that both civilians and off duty LEOs had successfully thwarted shooters by simply rushing in and engaging the shooters — using whatever weapons they had — without the benefit of backup, SWAT teams, etc. My point was to suggest that in some cases that might be the preferred tactic - instead of more structured approaches which require time for special teams to arrive, etc. The comparison between civilians and LEOs was simply a suggestion that the tactic of just engaging the shooter as soon as possible, which works fine for civilians, and off duty law enforcement officers, would work just as well or better if used by on-duty officers responding to a similar situation.
And yes, I totally agree with you (and of course the founders of our nation) that armed civilians are essential to our security.
I believe that most statutes that authorize shall-issue also authorize signs making places "gun free zones." I also believe that most of those statutes prohibit lawsuits against people and business who post such signs. However, a good lawyer might be able to shred that prohibition.
SWAT arrives on the scene usually many minutes after the initial officer responds to the “shots fired call”. The shooters damage is usually done by the time SWAT shows up. The TV shows you are watching are usually static situations of a recalcitrant perp barricaded due to a bad domestic dispute call or part of a preplanned raid.
“Police are paid to protect the public.”
No they are not they are payed to protect and up hold the law not the public. If they protect the public in the process good for them but don’t count on them.
“But these are professional defenders of the public, aren’t they? If not, the militia is coming to a mall or school or business near you.”
Don’t count on it. When all the cards are played out YOU are
ultimately responsible for you and your families welfare and safety. In the end do not trust and rely on others to come to your aid. That would be nice but I realize when the time comes and one is tested very few sheeple rise to the occasion
Guy called into a radio show that I listen to. Apparently, he had a CCW permit and carried into his local mall, which is a "Gun Free Zone".
Someone saw the weapon and called mall security. The local rent-a-cops apparently were giving this gentleman a hard time over his weapon, and they called the police.
The police declined to do anything about it because - get this - "There were stores at the mall that sell guns (Bass Pro Shops? Maybe?). They couldn't (or wouldn't) do anything about someone carrying a gun around in a place where they were sold."
Now, I'm not entirely sure that I'd want to use that argument everytime - but it seemed like a good thing to have in a back pocket, just in case. More likely, the cops had enough sense not to try and enforce an unenforceable rule.
It gets even worse. It is my understanding that in Nebraska, it is a FELONY to carry a concaled weapon into an area that is posted as prohibiting same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.