Today (yesterday, now ... it's very late) he presented a video link to a newscast which discussed "Gun Free Zones". Incredibally, WCPO Television in Ohio (not to be confused with WCRP in Cincinatti, which was a very funny late-1970's television show) seems to understand that the "Gun Free Zones" sign is the same as posting a sign saying: "I don't have a gun; please come kill me".
The WCPO piece (transcript available here, along with a link to the article on "Active Shooters") emphasizes that
"While it use to be considered 'suicide' for a lone officer to take on an Active Shooter, it's now considered 'statistical homicide' not to, because the longer officers wait for backup, the more people die".This may be considered only common sense by some of you, but it has taken a long time for the Main Stream Media (MSM) to catch up with this "Common Sense Solution to Gun Violence".
(Another approach to the same topic may be found here., as defined by Roger Fulton - a retired New York State Police Captain, )
I watched the video the samy way many of you may; it was final acknowledgement that the difference between Gunman and Unarmed Citizen in a Gun-Free Zone is the same as the difference between Wolf and Sheep.
And I thought: "This could be good. It may not appeal to the authorities who declare shopping malls, schools and churches Gun Free Zones, but perhaps it will encourage our Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) and their administrators to train the nation's police to more aggressively.
Then I went to read the comments by Xavier's readers, where I found this cheerful reinforcement of my faith in LEOs:
All I can ask is are any of the commentors [sic] so far LEOs. Are you? I ask because I am one. I would not place my life at unecessary [sic] extreme risk in such a situation where there are multiple shooters without back-up because I am not suicidal, nor am I an idiot. Sure I might try to stop such an incident from getting worse, but you can bet your bottom dolalr [sic] that no officer should be trained to seek out and engage multiple assailants in such a scenario without back-up. If you really think it is about time some dopey stuff like that is taught to officers, well all I can say is what has happened to all the talk about arming the students. Unbelieveable. [sic] Why not think long and hard about putting yourselves in one of the multiple attacker scenarios as described, or even in a one assailant situation when you have a 9MM pistol and the other guy has a rifle with large capacity magazines. There is such as thing as bravery, and such a thing as absolute foolishness, and another thing as absolute stupidity. I choose to avoid the later two, it keeps me alive. Mind you, I have been there and done that several times when it has come to dangerous duty, even when badly oputnumbered, [sic] and I have had the injuries and some scars to prove it - but I cannot call upon anyone to be an idiot when it comes to such things.
Remember that many of the readers of this site, and others like it, endorse arming all of the public, and endorse CCW, or open carry by anyone who wishes to do so - as do I. One of the biggest reasons has always been because of poor response time by police in bad situations. Now you suddenly want to depend upon a lone officer to save the day - ala a John Wayne type to come in shooting. Well this is no John Wayne movie, this is real life, so why not get real. When seconds count the people should be allowed to defend themselves. That way they can at least hold the bad guy at bay until the other good guys arrive. Expecting someone to go in on a suicide mission is not the right thing to do even if they, as I, would probably do.
The good part is, he mentions "...well all I can say is what has happened to all the talk about arming the students". I presume the commenter, Glenn, is in favor of allowing student to carry firearms.
Well and good, I say, as far as it goes. That would be an excellent response to one of my personal favorite topics: allow students on College and University campuses, who have been licensed to Concealed Carry, to actually carry the firearms as they have been certified to responsibly do.
As far as it goes.
Unfortunately in the context it sounds as if Glenn is willing for College Students to defend themselves only to absolve Glenn from having to interpose his precious flesh in their defense. He offers no solution to the problems in other Gun Free Zones, such as K-12 schools, shopping malls, and other private business establishments.
Until K-12 administrators recognize their vulnerability (and there are many stories which demonstrate that vulnerability), and until Private Businesses recognize their vulnerability more stories), and other organizations and businesses follow suit to the point at which they allow their visitors to carry firearms for protective purposes ... they must necessarily rely on the police "The Protect and To Serve".
Let's go back to the responsibility of LEOs to perform their primary duties:
All quotes here taken from the Protect and Serve link just above: in chapter 6 "Protection and Prevention of Crime" (pp:170 +) [Note that the cited materials commonly are directed to discusion in the context of international conflict and civil war; however, there are individual statements which do seem to apply to internal policing of civilians, especially in the context of the responsibility of Local Police Forces to defend civilians against violations of their civil rights ... including the right NOT to be shot by some wanna-be gunslinger in a Mall in Utah.)
‘‘To catch criminals’’ is, in most cases, still the first priority for law enforcement officials and their organizations. Service to the community, protection of victims and the prevention of further victimization present challenges to law enforcement that appear to have less appeal than the traditional game of cops and robbers."...
"It is common knowledge that the number of crimes solved through law enforcement activity stands in stark contrast to the number of crimes actually committed. Furthermore, the interests of victims of crime are — at least from their own point of view — much better served when their actual victimization can be effectively prevented."
This document reads like a United Nations declaration of principles, in that it is much more concerned with the rights of citizens to be protected from the depredation of citizens from their police. However, as is illustrated above, the document is sprinkled with the occasional comments which describe the obligation of police to Protect the citizens of a state.
"The responsibility for the prevention and detection of crime is assigned primarily to law enforcement agencies. The full discharge of that responsibility, however, requires more than law enforcement input alone.
The effective prevention and detection of crime are critically dependent upon the existing levels and quality of cooperation between a law enforcement agency and the community it serves, and are as much a private responsibility as a public one. Politicians, members of the judiciary, community groups, public and private business corporations and individuals need to join forces if the results of efforts towards the prevention and detection of crime are to be better than the inevitably unsatisfactory results of merely attempting to enforce criminal laws."
I think this is significant. "Glenn", however, seems not to agree. His priority is his own personal safety, and in defense of his position he calls upon several suggestions which have already been made elsewhere ... because the Citizens of the United States of America have already learned that they cannot always rely on Law Enforcement Officers "To Protect, and To Serve".
Here, taken out of context, are a few of the positions which he espouses and which I support:
- "... what has happened to all the talk about arming the students?" [Ed: I like the concept, but what about K-12 students, Glenn? Who is going to protect them? How about shoppers in a public mall which declares itself a "Gun Free Zone?]
- "Remember that many of the readers of this site, and others like it, endorse arming all of the public, and endorse CCW, or open carry by anyone who wishes to do so - as do I." [Ed: fine, Glenn, we can live with that. But until it happens, we are obligated to depend on LEOs like you to defend us. What happens to us when police are unwilling to do their duty? Answer: we die, sometimes by the dozens.]
- "One of the biggest reasons has always been because of poor response time by police in bad situations." [Ed: this is one of the reasons, Glenn, why we citizens want the right to defend ourselves in all public venues.]
- Now you suddenly want to depend upon a lone officer to save the day - ala a John Wayne type to come in shooting. Well this is no John Wayne movie, this is real life, so why not get real. When seconds count the people should be allowed to defend themselves. That way they can at least hold the bad guy at bay until the other good guys arrive. [Ed: no, Glenn, this is not what we want. This is what we have had shoved down our throats for decades, with no recourse. If the Government, as you represent, is unable or UNWILLING to protect us, we want the right to protect ourselves. ]
Here's the single most dis-enchanting thing that Glenn has to say:
Expecting someone to go in on a suicide mission is not the right thing to do even if they, as I, would probably do.This is not encouraging. This is the statement of a man who had just spent 300+ words describing how, and why, he would not attempt to come to the aid of civilians who were threatened by a gunman. Yet here, he positively states that he WOULD do exactly the thing which he has so vociferously averred that he would not do because, in his words, "I am not an idiot." How can a man so directly contradict himself, and believe that assertion to be accepted?
You, sir, are in the wrong profession.
Your sworn duty is ...
To Protect, and To Serve.