Many in law enforcement want to outlaw guns to make their lives simple:
See someone with a gun, and they are already breaking the law. If they have one despite a ban, they MUST be up to something and be presumed to be dangerous and shot on sight.

Many in law enforcement realize that they can't be everywhere--and that they have family members that could fall victim to an event like the one in Virginia despite their best effort.

I remember when I worked at the RNC in 1996 and the FOP endorsed Clinton. We got so many calls by cops outraged that the FOP would support Clinton and a lot of them gave money to the RNC because of it. I have never met a cop that had a problem with guns. I have been pulled over several times while carrying, told the cop so and they didn't care in the least. The one time I was arrested (not carrying), I chatted with the cops about guns all the way back to jail. I had a CCW when I turned 22, which was just after I finished college. But I stayed at Pitt for another year to play with my band and carried all the time. I was also on the skeet team in high school and no one ever thought of mishandling one of the guns.

I also don't for a second buy that cops are gun experts or best equipped to deal with such a situation at as happened at VT. Plenty of cops shoot their guns only once a year to qualify and don't own one aside from their service weapon(s). And since a neighbor of mine was shot to death (unarmed) in his own driveway after complying with police orders and with no arrest record AND it was ruled an accident, well, I just don't believe cops are the experts here. I can shoot as well as or better than plenty of them. And I have almost never seen a cop when something was going down. They are not the best ones to deal with situations because they always show up afterwards to clean up the mess and take the reports. Normal, everyday people are the ones who need to be vigilant and take responsibility for their own safety.

I shoot IDPA with several cops. They have nothing against citizens being armed. But, they certainly want them to be trained and competent if they are armed. The cops I know don't fear the common, law abiding citizen. They know that the criminals don't care about gun laws or whatever and they have to be on red-alert whenever contacting folks in the field.
Troy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Purrybonker

Quote:

FrayAdjacent911 It comes down to this - the best thing to stop a madman with a gun, is another person with a gun. All you Charleton Heston wannabes have to do is ask the experts in these kinda situations... hm... who could we possibly ask about this subject, who would possibly be the best equipped, knowledgeable and experienced in these matters. oh, yeah - the cops. And what do they say? hm... Doesn't it seem a bit strange that the experts in law/order (that would be the cops) are almost universal in support of gun control, yet the arm-chair law/order experts invariably disagree? Ok, cowboy = sure, you guys know better.

So cops know best, huh? They're superintelligent, supermoral superbeings.

You know what the cops did at VT?

They stayed outside and ducked behind trees.... while 32 innocent people were shot dead, and others were injured.

Cops know best! Yep!

If someone walked into your building and started killing... think about this... how far is the closest cop? Will he rush in to save YOUR life?

Police simply ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING INDIVIDUALS. Courts have shown this time and again. They do not have to go into the line of fire.

So if they are not responsible for protecting you... WHO IS?

Chew on that a while.

Chew on thesse while you're at it:

“Though defensive violence will always be a ’sad necessity’ in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men.” - St. Augustine

“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.” - John F. Kennedy

“If householders were required by law to own and know how to use revolvers, burglary would cease. It is an act of good citizenship to make crime dangerous — an encouragement of crime to remain defenseless.” - 1904 Iver Johnson advertisement

“The right to life means nothing without the right to possess the means to protect and defend one’s own life.” - James Mullen

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama, Tibet

“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” - Albert Einstein

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” - H.L. Mencken

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” - Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

“The said Constitution be never construed …to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” - Samuel Adams

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” - Thomas Jefferson

“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” - Plato

“He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” - Jesus, Luke 22:36

But they didn't shoot anyone!

Foreshadowing Tragedy at Virginia Tech
by Lars Larson (More by this author)

Posted: 04/18/2007
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."

- Thomas Jefferson, Quoting Cesare Beccari's "On Crimes and Punishment"

Shakespeare would have been proud of the foreshadowing in the tragedy that culminated in the cold-blooded murder of 32 students and faculty at Virginia Tech on Monday. Two years earlier, a seemingly innocent mistake led the University to literally disarm its students and set them up as the defenseless victims for the insanity that the Korean immigrant student Cho Seung-hui would bring to campus in the form of semi-automatic pistols and a vest full of magazines.

Act I

The Roanoke Times reported in 2005 that a student with a valid Virginia state concealed handgun permit brought a gun to class and the school punished him when he was caught. The incident sparked a discussion of whether guns, should be allowed on campus. The Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police took the stance guns had no place on campus, even when carried with a permit.

Prosecutor and State Assembly Delegate Todd Gilbert drafted a bill to guarantee the right to carry on state university campuses. Virginia Tech fought the idea and won.

On January 31, 2006, The Roanake Times reported, "A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly."

Act II

In August of last year, an accused armed robber named William Morva escaped custody by killing a hospital security guard and while on the run killed a sheriff’s deputy near Virginia Tech. Graduate Student Bradford Wiles was sitting in a classroom at the University when all classes were cancelled, campus was closed down and students evacuated.

Act III

Wiles said this in August 2006: “We were interrupted in class and not informed of anything other than the following words: 'You need to get out of the building.' Upon exiting the classroom, we were met at the doors leading outside by two armor-clad policemen with fully automatic weapons, plus their side arms. Once outside, there were several more officers with either fully automatic rifles and pump shotguns, and policemen running down the street, pistols drawn.”

The Roanoke Times published Wiles’ commentary in which he argued that he didn’t want to trust his safety or security entirely to police and that he didn’t want to forfeit his entire academic career by violating the University’s rules against concealed carry.


Wiles next words seemed to nearly anticipate the deadly arrival of the killer Cho Seung-hui still seven months away.

He wrote, “I am qualified and capable of carrying a concealed handgun and urge you to work with me to allow my most basic right of self-defense, and eliminate my entrusting my safety and the safety of my classmates to the government."

But the University, fresh from its victory in the State Assembly seven months before was uncompromising. Spokesman and University Vice-President Larry Hincker answered the grad student with a published commentary making a promise he should have known the school could never guarantee.

Hincker wrote, “The writer would have us believe that a university campus, with tens of thousands of young people, is safer with everyone packing heat. Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same."

Act IV

On Monday of this week Hincker was trying to explain to news crews from all over the United States how a murderer had managed to bring not one, but two guns to campus. Those reporters either didn’t know about Hincker’s “very sound policy preventing (guns in classrooms)” or didn’t think it was politic to ask how the deadly South Korean English major had managed to buy the two guns and apparently keep them in the on-campus dorm where he lived.

"He was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him," Hincker said.

I do seven hours of live talk radio every day, and was willing to give Hincker the time to explain how his policy forbidding concealed carry of weapons by law abiding students had done the campus no good on Monday. But Hincker’s voicemail was full and he wasn’t answering email.

I reached Wiles by phone as he left the memorial convocation held Tuesday afternoon as the university grieved.

Wiles said, "I think it’s quite clear that the university’s policy makes you choose between your education and your life. To me this is what you get from gun control you get places where people can inflict the most amount of damage with the least risk of armed resistance and people now that and they target schools because they know they can get the most devastation with fear of reprisal and I would like to see law abiding citizens be able to protect themselves from those who have no regard for the law."

Wiles told me live, on the air that he had been scheduled to meet his academic advisor on campus Monday when the shooting happened, but the meeting was cancelled at the last minute.

It turns out that the killer had been on the same kind of anti depressant medication that we’ve come to associate with too many of America’s mass shootings in recent years. His creative writing assignments were so disturbing that his professor referred him for psychological counseling. He was suspected of arson in a dorm room and of stalking co-eds. But in the tolerant, politically correct environment the education elite has created on campuses all over America…why worry?

In 2006, after the first incident, Wiles said, "I would also like to point out that when I mentioned to a professor that I would feel safer with my gun, this is what she said to me, "I would feel safer if you had your gun."

Wiles tells me he lost a professor friend on Monday as well. He was an Israeli in his 70’s who had survived the holocaust and immigrated to America to teach. Liviu Librescu blocked a doorway with his body so his students could escape out a window. A hail of gunfire ended his life.

"To know that the university took a very active role in preventing people from arming themselves, it’s heartbreaking," he said.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Larson hosts a national radio show syndicated by the Westwood One Radio network.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

red..

And thank God they did not. Better to figure out who to shoot rather than go about it in a random way.

Cops really are not all that bad, but whan something like this happens, there are always a few that say "Why didn't they DO something?" Sometimes there is such a thing as discretion rather than a knee-jerk "ready, shoot, aim."

Oh, I agree with you. Sometimes it is better to watch and wait. But the question is, how many people died after the police did arrive? The police are not there to PROTECT you. They clean up the mess afterwards. The only one you can count on to protect your life...is you. Once you accept this, your perspective changes.

The problem here is we weren't there. Not knowing all the facts, such as were the doors really chained from the inside? We are just second guessing.

Yes....the police are not prescient. They cannot act like "Minority Report", so they wind up coming around after the deed has been done. How else could it possibly be? If any preventable action is taken, it is in the form of education, such as undertaken by Fire Departments in door-to-door voluntary inspections, explaining the virtues of escape planning and fire/carbon monoxide sensing devices, and Police, with neighborhood meetings, teaching why certain types of locks etc are a deterrent to breakins, and showing how to reduce the chances of car theft and personal injury. There is little that can be done other than that directly for the public, and the rest of the time is spent hunting down perps and keeping an eye on known troublemakers.