Tex300BLK called it in our article Washington Post: “Watch what happens when regular people try to use handguns in self-defense.” “This is the straw man we have been made into,” Tex300BLK wrote. “The bumbling incompetent ‘civilian’ who went into Walmart, bought a GLOCK and a box of bullets and got a CHL without ever firing a shot from it . . . This is the new meme that the media will now go full court press on.” Just a day later, nashvillescene.com published a piece called Why Would You Want to Bring Your Gun to a Concert? A post that launches the term “Sheepdog Fife” to disscredit [sic] armed self-defense. Like this . . .
There are a lot of Barney Fifes in this country imagining themselves sheepdogs. And no matter how many times a kid accidentally shoots another kid or someone shoots a gun up in the air and a kid in East Nashville gets shot or whatever, it never causes Sheepdog Fife to look at his or her own situation and ask “Am I putting myself and my loved ones in danger? Is having a gun out and available to me necessary in this situation.” No, because so many gun owners are action heroes in their own minds . . .
Is there any likely scenario in which a regular joe with a gun in a crowded venue would not add to a tragedy, should one occur? If someone, God forbid, did open fire at a concert and Sheepdog Fife opened fire in return, it’s very, very likely that Sheepdog Fife is going to hit innocent people, even if Sheepdog Fife also hits the original shooter. Are the families of the victims of the “hero” supposed to be not pissed or even grateful that Sheepdog Fife was there with a gun? It’s also very likely that, if the police swoop down on an active shooter situation in a crowd, every active shooter—hero or villain—is getting taken down, because how are the police supposed to know that Sheepdog Fife is the good guy?
Again, America is home to 55k to 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) per year. There are [literally] countless examples of armed Americans defending themselves and other innocent life with a firearm. They aren’t “action heroes in their own mind.” They are citizens successfully stopping the threat of death or grievous bodily harm though force of arms.
As others have pointed out, as NYPD stats [above] prove, the police are more likely to injure innocent life with a firearm than a non-law enforcement civilian. And yet no one on the anti-gun side argues that the police should be disarmed.
It would be lovely if we could go back to the era when gun owners weren’t weren’t so fucking afraid of being a part of the world without their guns. But at least it’d be nice if Tennessee’s gun owners showed more sense than our state legislators. Just because you can take guns everywhere—or might be able to; I’m heartened to see that Nashville isn’t changing its policy until the courts rule we have to—doesn’t mean you need to. We keep hearing all about responsible gun owners. We need to start seeing them.
Sure, let’s go back to the time when African Americans were disarmed, left defenseless against state-sanctioned discrimination, rape, torture and murder. More to the point, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
If anything, I think the opposite is true: I’ve encountered a number of armed citizen incidents in which the defender brought to bear a weapon they rarely, if ever, trained or practiced with and prevailed. They didn’t “sink to the level of their training” they actually rose to the occasion.
Aside from that it seems like criminals, not armed citizens are the ones with weapon retention issues. For example the West Virginia woman who grabbed her attacker’s gun, killed him and possibly halted a serial killer in the process…
Also the woman that retreated to an attic crawl space but had to shoot the home invader to stop him.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/
Yup… Excellent example.
A few years ago, four thugs tried to rob Kaplan’s Blue Flame – a Harlem restaurant supply business – the owner grabbed a shotgun hidden decades prior and used it to end the imminent execution of his employees (although it’s not clear how much shotgun practice he had with other weapons).
There was also a Seattle -area man who heard a break-in and got his new revolver ready – he had barely fired it. But he was smart – he lay prone at the top of his stairs, warned the burglar he was armed, but the man charged up anyway. He fired a few times, killing the intruder.
Had a local instance of an elderly man who shot his 9mm SCCY for the first time, at a home invader armed with a shotgun. The gun jammed, but the perp was down and the residents safe. He had never fired a gun before.
^That’s not a testament to the individual’s skill, so much as his luck.
@WedelJ:
Luck favors the prepared.
If he hadn’t had a gun at all, there would have been zero chance. Should he have practiced more er cetrta ad nauseum? Sure. But he got arguably the most important, first thing right: he had a gun and was willing to use it.
Engineers been working on this handgun thing a lot of years now and I think they’ve pretty much got it down for ergonomics and such. At bad breath distances even a newb has a hard time NOT hitting an obvious target, and that’s assuming the target is not heading for the horizon at best possible speed after seeing his supposed sheep produce a pistol.
Notice that they rely on simulations, instead of case histories. The anti’s always speak about armed self-defense as if it were a hypothetical. They don’t like to admit that it’s something we see in the news on a fairly regular basis. So rather than looking at real-life incidents, and examining the training of the defenders, they resort to hucksterism.
Your example is a counterpoint to the tactical operators selling training courses that “gun” people incessantly say we need to take.
I’ll keep saying this. i am not a sheepdog. My #1 priority is to get back to and protect my family. Your failure to adequately protect yourself is all on you. I will only use my firearm if i or my family is in the effected area. If we are at one end of the mall and someone is shooting at the other end, i am leaving. I am not running down to the other end to be a hero.
Armed civilians “standing guard” outside of military recruiting centers paint a much more indelible picture in peoples’ minds than your/my good and responsible intentions. Unfortunately.
But does it make sense to shun those willing to risk their life to save strangers?
When I was in Vietnam I learned that only an idiot would intentionally run to gunfire without knowing what was going on. Most idiots came home in body bags. Imagine an unknown shooter at the end of a mall. The police have him cornered, and you come running around the corner with your weapon drawn. I wonder what would happen?
Throw in one well-publicised negligent discharge and it drives that point home.
@75
” I will only use my firearm if i or my family is in the effected area. If we are at one end of the mall and someone is shooting at the other end, i am leaving.”
What a cowardly way to live life, and at least you don’t lie about your indifference of your fellow man. Edmund Burke would be proud and kitty genovese is what you would allow. That selfishness is how a great nation has dissolved itself of moral fiber.
I am a Christian and it is my religious duty to protect innocent life or die trying.
Hint to cowards with guns:
If you tuck tail and run away like a yellow bellied coward when an evil man is killing innocents, then do not return to the scene and give a witness statement to the police. If my family was allowed to be executed and there was a concealed carrier as an impotent witness, that coward would not enjoy that the cops would voluntarily give me its address.
You may want to do some more reading. A Christian’s first priority is protecting his family.
” A Christian’s first priority is protecting his family.”
Do not project your selective cowardice on me by trying to misinterpret what it means to show love for God. All humans are God’s children to a Christian, which makes us family.
A Christian’s first priority is to love God, which is showing respect and love to His creations. Many fail in this respect, but thankfully God is not as cruel as we humans are.
Golden Rule: All good people are my neighbors, and “Greater love has no man than this, a man may lay down his life for his friends.”
To be a righteous man is rather simple it means I would give my life to protect the innocent, but more importantly it means I have no moral issue with unwinding wicked men.
I don’t know.
I do agree that as Christians we should try to protect innocent strangers if we have a reasonable opportunity to do so. Despite the ridicule from the emasculated author of that original article – one sincerely hopes this is part of the reason that many of us own weapons in the first place.
On the other hand I’m the sole living parent of two toddlers – maybe can we agree that this gives me a particular responsibility to look out for my own safety also.
That’s an extreme case maybe, but let me say that having just one parent alive isn’t really so hot for them in the first place. So anyone with kids AND a spouse should probably think carefully about what they owe to their own loved ones.
Not sure how one balances those things, but it’s pretty clearly a balance rather than an unequivocal direction.
Repost: When I was in Vietnam I learned that only an idiot would intentionally run to gunfire without knowing what was going on. Most idiots came home in body bags. Imagine an unknown shooter at the end of a mall. The police have him cornered, and you come running around the corner with your weapon drawn. I wonder what would happen? However, if you insist on inserting yourself into a life and death situation that is not necessary, please feel free to commit suicide. I carry to protect my family and myself. Both my wife and I have agreed not to go “John Wayne” when it is not necessary.
I don’t get paid to “sheepdog” anymore.
FYI some formatting is missing. The following should also be indented/italicized:
“It would be lovely if we could go back to the era when gun owners weren’t so worried of being a part of the world without their guns. But at least it’d be nice if Tennessee’s gun owners showed more sense than our state legislators. Just because you can take guns everywhere—or might be able to; I’m heartened to see that Nashville isn’t changing its policy until the courts rule we have to—doesn’t mean you need to. We keep hearing all about responsible gun owners. We need to start seeing them.”
This is the best they can do. I think they got ripped off on the PR dollars. Do you suppose Bloomberg, as rich as he is, is a little bit irked that he is being taken advantage of with really bad PR messaging?
I am embarrassed for them. Well actually no, they got what they deserve spending money on the low bid.
Watch what happens when special more equal people of the State try to use handguns in the arrest shootout with the Boston Bombers. That was an interesting LEO circle jerk.
That’s the tactic of the left. Degrade, denigrate, shame, and embarrass. Screw them as the man said. I bet that woman who was attacked and stabbed by her husband in the Colorado church parking lot was glad a sheepdog was there to save her with his CCW.
Better a good-guy civilian coming to the rescue of a woman at a church than a hired alcoholic lunatic with discipline problems like Daniel Harmon-Wright. Unfortunately he was only given three years in prison for killing a retired Sunday School teacher in a church parking lot.
That tactic only works if we give in. Remember, punch back twice as hard!
Using the NYPD’s stats doesn’t defend someone who hits bystanders with bullets. People should get trained and proficient with their guns, and those who aren’t or don’t do so make us look bad.
Now, sure, we know why this is: stress does interesting things to our bodies. Even good marksmen can suffer from some inaccuracy when they’re stressed.
However, can we please stop giving the anti’s ammunition (no pun intended)? Get trained, get good at your gun, and pay attention to what you’re doing.
By the way, don’t be a self-proclaimed sheep dog. Giving yourself a title don’t make you any better, but training and practice do. Let someone else call you a sheep dog, not yourself.
For some reason this reminded me of Buck Donkey.
“Have a coyote problem? Get a donkey. No, from what we can tell, this photo isn’t a joke. While they’re mostly known for their ornery and stubborn reputation, donkeys also loathe coyotes. In fact, a lone, daring ‘yote in South Carolina recently learned just how hostile an irritated jackass can be, and paid the ultimate price.”
There is a great photo, presumably Buck with a dead coyote, in the Field and Stream article.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/meet-buck-the-coyote-hunting-donkey
Here’s my takeaway from recent events: sticking your neck out for anyone else in this modern age is just being a sap. Joined the neighborhood watch because you’re concerned about break-ins? You’re a wannabe cop, just itching to get into it with someone. Have self-defense options with you when you go out? You’re a vigilante, who’s going to mow down innocents in your trigger happy action hero fantasy.
Well, you know what? You got it. You keep an eye on your stuff, and I’ll keep an eye on mine, and I’ll defend myself if anything happens, and if you’ve got a plan in case something happens, then good for you. Otherwise, don’t look at me. I’m no action hero.
You understand that this outcome is exactly what they want, don’t you?
Atomized individuals, acting only in a self interested way, with only the state seen as having a legitimate interest in the care and wellbeing of others.
Then when the state turns on you, all the neighbors put their heads down and figure that’s your problem. What civil institution then stands in the way?
Of course it’s what they want, but what’s the antidote? Most of the time, if you intervene to help other, you may get some gratitude here and there, and you’ll feel some satisfaction knowing you did the right thing. Meanwhile, you’re assuming all of the risks associated, with absolutely no protection if anything goes wrong. And if anything does go wrong, you can bet that any good will that you have generated in the past is out the window, and you were suddenly “in everybody’s business” or some kind of wannabe who was just looking to create just this kind of incident. Right now, when the state turns on you, at best your neighbors will turn their backs on you, but most likely, they’ll pick up some choice stones and wind up.
And FYI I take my gun to everything I’m allowed to take it to. I have even swam with it (Glock 43). So why would I take it to a concert? Because I can, assuming no signs were posted saying I can’t. And even then it would depend on the state and local laws as to whether those signs have force of law or not.
Honestly people our comments should be posted with the ny times since they are the blind trying to lead the seeing eye dogs.
Yet another person (journalist?) who’s never so much as held a gun in their hands thinking they’re an expert on who should or shouldn’t be allowed to use one. Kind of like walking up to your doctor and saying, ‘You’re not well trained enough to perform surgery, I know because I’m a plumber and that makes me smart!’
Gang bangers, terrorists and drive by shooters are the ones wildly slinging lead. Legal, responsible gun owners do not. Illogical, hysterical gun controllers who disregard these fundamental facts are the ones who resemble Barney Fife.
They do not resemble Barney, who while bumbling and clumsy was good hearted, kind, and loyal, and above all honest. The gun grabbers have none of these traits!
Sheepdog fife is real. He’s a cop.
I note that the author picked the worst case scenario–a concert with thousands of people and no clear filed of fire. A lose-lose scenario. A cop isn’t going to do any better in that situation than an armed civilian. On the other hand, most people will hit the deck if they hear gunfire, such as in a mall, giving a chance at a clear shot.
It is a better situation for a cop because if they wrongfully kill someone they get a paid vacation and probably a promotion. If we justifiably kill someone our lives can still be effectively over. In terms of total lives lost I don’t get their math. Somehow someone firing back after 20-60 minutes is better than immediately.
Makes for an easily identifiable target – the one who isn’t running for his life or ducking for cover is the one you need to shoot. I guess that’s too complicated for the anti 2A crowd to understand.
How does the author know what his imaginary character is thinking ? This imaginary character that he thinks represents all gun owners. He has NO clue so he just made something up. What would be his alternative in the imagined scenario he creates ? Just stand there and let the bad guy kill as many people as possible ? Throw some popcorn at them or a soda cup ? This idiot has NO clue about real life and everything he says is a fantasy of his own mind. What would anyone pay attention to him ?
I’ve lived in Nashville for the last twelve years and am 32 now. I’ve been a gun owner since roughly when I turned 21. I have never read Nashville Scene. That shit’s for hipster dolts in East Nashville.
Honest question… is there a rash of CPL holders shooting things up that I’m just missing? Why the vendetta against CPL holders again? I at least can understand the motive of “more background checks” when there are shootings (it’s wrong, but I at least can see where it’s coming from), but I’m at a loss on this one.
They want to remove self defense as an appropriate use of a firearm. Once you get rid of self defense all that’s left is hunting, which is the low-hanging, easy to regulate to the ground fruit. Then no guns for anyone.
I’m not a sheepdog and those, ahem, “reporters” are not big wheels. But if I was a sheepdog and they were wheels . . . .
I’m missing the metaphor…you’d chase them?
To be fair we also have our arguments that are brought up constantly. The only difference is ours are true and based in reality as opposed to being some kind of fabricated story where everything goes the way they want it to.
To counter the “cops shoot the good guy because they don’t know the difference”: the typical police response time is over 20 minutes. That’s plenty of time to reholster and cover the weapon or you could always put it down on the ground and not look like a shooter when the police finally arrive. I guess those two options didn’t dawn on this gentleman either because he thinks the police are instantly there when needed or that good guys with guns just keep shooting at anything that moves for thirty minutes (with those Hollywood guns that never run out of ammo).
+1
I’ve thought a lot about this. I made it clear to myself that when I chose to carry for my defense and that of my family, I would resist the urge to play ‘hero’ should the situation arise. I am not a cop, I don’t have the police chief, the police Union, the deep pockets of the city for liability payouts nor the brothers in blue to back my call to get involved. I know it sounds heartless but there’s no upside to getting involved IF I AM NOT THE PRIMARY OR SECONDARY TARGET. If I am in a bank, and a guy wants to rob it, I am going to protect myself since I am a secondary target. if I was outside and saw the bank robbery going down, I am going to let the feds handle it. Same goes for a car jacking, an ass beating, a riot… which brings me to the “guy beating a woman in the parking lot” scenario. Might as well bring it up since someone else will… Scenario 1: I interject myself, he rushes me, I shoot him, she freaks and says I killed her babydaddy fo no reezun. I lose. Scenario 2: I interject myself, he gives up, she rushes me and it’s a free for all. I lose. Scenario 3: I interject myself, he rushes me, I shoot him, he lives, police show up, and a) shoot me in the excitement , or b) seize my firearm, inquiries, court, I have to lawyer up out of pocket because a DA is looking to make a name for himself, or c) Babydaddy happens to be of color so Reverend Al wants to get his name in the newspaper again and the riot thugs need a new TV so now I’m responsible for the great Riot of Riverside County 2015. Scenario 4: I interject myself, he gives up, she is grateful, police show up, newspapers vilify me because I was playing hero. Sorry lady. I’ll call the cops for you since you chose to rely on them for your protection instead of arming yourself. I will respect your choice.
Coffee Addict,
You bring up a lot of really compelling points.
What you are basically saying is that voters have elected the politicians who enacted laws to create the current “hostile environment” … as in a hostile environment for anyone who practices self-defense much less self-defense with a firearm. In other words elections have consequences and one of the consequences of recent elections is an environment fraught with peril for a Good Samaritan who might try to help someone else.
Since the voters essentially “asked for” the current environment, they will reap the “benefits” of the current environment. And that means a lot of people, who would have been willing to be Good Samaritans and intervene, are no longer willing to intervene and risk all the downside of the current environment.
I have never thought of it that way before. Why should I put my neck on the line to help a stranger (voter) who made foolish choices (has no effective tool for self-defense and elected politicians who created the current hostile legal environment)? I appreciate and respect your choice.
I read a story within the last year where a woman was criticizing an open carrier at a gas station, but when an unsavory looking character pulled into the station she asked the OCer to walk her back to her car.
I remember that story on here, but I also remember quite a few commentators think it was a fake account. I dunno either way.
Dear Washington Post article author,
Your concerns are irrational in your hypothetical situation where an armed defender engages a spree killer at a concert. Here is why:
(1) When a spree killer starts shooting victims, everyone is going to get down or run away — this will happen within a few seconds. Thus, the odds of an armed defender shooting anyone, much less several people, are extremely low. Furthermore, any hits to bystanders are random and will seldom cause permanent or life-threatening injuries.
(2) When an armed defender engages a spree killer, the spree killer will almost immediately stop placing carefully aimed shots and executing people. Why? Because either the spree killer ignores the armed defender who promptly puts a critical shot on the spree killer, or the spree killer engages the armed defender and is no longer putting carefully aimed shots on victims. Or, the spree killer immediately surrenders or commits suicide.
(3) All possible outcomes that I listed in (2) effectively limit the spree killer’s rampage to something like 5 to 10 seconds. Police will never be able to respond to a spree killer in 5 to 10 seconds. This seriously reduces the body count versus a spree killer operating with impunity for the several minutes it takes police to arrive. Furthermore, in the majority of attacks the spree killer will be dead, incapacitated, or captured long before police arrive. Thus there is little risk of police arriving to a firefight and shooting all armed people.
Never understood why this was a thing. A sheepdog has a single goal: keep sheep alive until they can be sheared or eaten by their owner.
Nevermind.
Makes perfect sense for America 2015.
The shepherd is the butcher’s friend. The wolves interfere with that relationship, therefore sheepdogs.
Personally if I’m in a concert and someone starts shooting I’ll take my chances with a lawfully carrying citizen doing what they have to. Odds are a lot better. As mentioned presentation of force doesn’t always mean pulling the trigger. I mean, how’s that “gun free theater” thing working out?
Just FYI, your post makes the statement “… NYPD stats [above] prove, the police are more likely to injure innocent life with a firearm than a non-law enforcement civilian.”
The referenced statistics do not prove your assertion (although I do believe it to be true.)
The referenced statistics merely show that NYPD marksmanship is poor.
Are there statistics out there that provide the number of bystanders wounded per round fired? Because that would be useful.
Gun control advocates seem to divide the world into two locations: obviously dangerous and obviously safe.
Why in the world would I permit myself to be in an obviously dangerous place. I avoid doing stupid things in stupid places with stupid people.
What about an obviously safe place? There is no safe place. Recent examples include churches, govermnent buildings, military bases, eating establishments, gambling establishments, public roadways and private homes. There is no safe place even though I’m told they ought to be safe. That is why I choose to carry.
While the approach of Ms Betsy Phillips would be to wet herself.
Why would I want to bring a gun to a concert?
I will agree with the author that using my gun while in the concert hall would probably cause more carnage (from panicked concert-goers when they hear a gunshot within their midst), than it could prevent. However, the author conveniently (or stupidly; you decide) forgets that I also have to travel to and from the concert hall. I would like to have my gun when walking between my car and the gates/doors of the concert hall. The neighborhood and/or the parking lot around the concert hall can be a very dangerous place, especially after the concert. I can’t have my gun outside the concert hall, and then have the gun magically disappear when I enter the concert hall and reappear when I exit.
The author has obviously never carried a gun, because he is clueless about things that are obvious to anyone who has carried.
The venue in question is a public park that is being used as an open air concert venue. It’s right downtown off 1st avenue where all of the panhandlers and seedy types hang under the only pedestrian bridge. Carrying would be wise after dark and on weekends. The city management is mad because when they first planned it they could still ban guns in parks, but now they can’t because the state changed the law allowing municipalities to ban firearms in parks. I love when a liberal ass clown like Karl Deans plans fall apart.
I also agree she probably has never carried a gun and my guess is she hasn’t lived in Nashville for that long anyway. What do you expect from a free paper like the scene? The comment section is a hoot though, lots of people projecting their own inadequacy.
It’s fun to watch what’s happening in Nashville these days, the fresh off the soy train California types are just beside themselves that high end shooting ranges like Nashville Armory and Everything Weapons are incredibly popular especially with under 30’s like me… This article also raised the important question “why would you feel like you need a gun in a movie theater, at a concert on even in church!?!” Not withstanding two of the biggest news stories of the summer are about mass shootings in a movie theater and in a church.. the Eric Church concert was over the weekend, with his fan base I guarantee some people were carrying at the ascend ampetheater and surprise surprise, nobody got shot. Just like the NRA convention. Downtown was flooded with over 70,000 people almost all of them carriers for 3 days and not one child was shot and not one ND or suicide. It’s almost enough to make you think that maybe it’s not the people of the gun who are the issue. Anybody see the story about the white cop in Memphis who was shot by the black bank robber out on parole over less than 2 ounces of pot?
I prefer rifles, and frankly, I suck with handguns. But not a single cop that took me up on my “dollars to donuts” bet has managed to outshoot me… Read that again. I suck, and no cop has ever bested me at the range. Even when I used his gun instead of mine.
I’m no sheepdog, and don’t imagine myself a hero. But, I do intend to rise to the occasion if need be.
Funny how things happen. Reading this while a gun-oriented Simpsons comes on. Pretty much anti-gun, making gun owners look like irresponsible foolish people. Kinda like the article indicates here. But know what?, I’ve never known any irresponsible firearm owner so this portrayal so far as I can tell a gross exaggeration.
hey, Barney only NEEDED one bullet….. I think it was one of those “Buffalo Bore” ones that become a ninja blender one inch after entering and blows the internal organs out like the queen in alien resurrection.
A meme is supposed to be catchy and (somewhat) funny.
This fits neither. The Andy Griffith Show is too old and I thought of the woodwind instrument vs Barney the first time I saw it.
2/10.
“It would be lovely if we could go back to the era…”
Whenever someone starts with that sentence I would like to verbally pin them down. What magical era are they talking about? What year? Because it’s amazing how people will ignore all sort of things in front of their rose-colored glasses when they’re trying to make a silly point.
In my position of being a Sheep Dog Trainer and Eliminator of Unqualified Sheepdogs and Ammosexuals I endorse this meme. Most you you clowns would shoot your foot off with your one bullet if required to protect anyone.
A cop calling gun owners unqualified ammosexual clowns. This is why no one respects you.
It is natural that we imperfect beings need to feel normal. Normal is what everyone else is and you are not. Those who coin the term Sheepdog Fife are projecting their insecurities upon the rest of society to feel normal. They rationalize that since they are incapable of personal responsibility that must be true of all others. So this term is apropos when used by anti’s, just not the way they think.
“If someone, God forbid, did open fire at a concert and Sheepdog Fife opened fire in return, it’s very, very likely that Sheepdog Fife is going to hit innocent people, even if Sheepdog Fife also hits the original shooter.”
It’s better to let a mass shooter shoot as many people as he wants than to open up the risk of return fire. Give the guy a free fire zone. It’s “safer.” This is literally what is being said here. It’s always worth pointing out how abjectly stupid a thing this is to say.
It’s not about carrying at a concert, or to your kids school, it’s about carrying all the time and not having to disarm in your car while trying to keep the gun out of view from the outside and creating unnecessary handling of the firearm in situations that are not suited to it.
We need to do a better job of not staying within the framework the antis present their points in. We can’t participate in in a discussion that is based on a false premise because it allows then to then claim we have some obsession with concerts or schools specifically.
My $.02 anyway.
Those who think it cowardly to eschew shooting to protect strangers should read “Dangers of Intervention” at Stoppingpower.net.
The police have carte blance immunity for any actions they take as long as they know what to say. (And no, I didn’t make this up or say it just to dump on the cops. The source was a former LAPD who had shot and killed somebody.) On the other hand, We the Peons have no protections like Garrity Rights, the police unions and their legions of lawyers, or the assumptions of competence and justification that go with LEO status. If the Drooling Masses want some degree of protection above and beyond that afforded by depending on Leviathan they should go to the trouble to get a defensive firearm and learn to use it. I have no delusion that if I were to shoot in protection of a Sheeple that person would chip in for my legal fees and I feel no obligation to risk my freedom and prosperity for somebody who lives in Condition White and thinks they are safe in a gun free zone.
The ironic part is that the statists can’t see (or refuse to acknowledge) how many Fife’s there are on the police forces all over this country. These same people are the ones railing about the unjustified shootings of minorities, and in that case they are absolutely right. We could go on and point out to them the terrible accuracy of NYPD’s finest in some high profile shooting incidents, the ongoing coverup in Waco after the biker bar shootout, or the Keystone Cops in California who shot up a truck with two women inside because it resembled a fugitive’s vehicle. The statists will unquestioningly trust these people with firearms because they have a badge and a government paycheck. Somehow that makes them more competent than other citizens, or even members of the military, to carry firearms.
Let me be clear: I’m not bashing all LEO’s. I believe that most are honest, competent, and trying to do their job to the best of their ability. But there are certainly bad apples on the force, bad policies governing the use of force, lacking firearms training requirements, and a culture that stands in solidarity even when the LEO is in the wrong.
“We keep hearing all about responsible gun owners. We need to start seeing them.” The reason the mass media doesn’t “see” all the responsible gun owners is that the mass media refuses to see them. The stats tell the real story. There are over 100 million firearms owners in the USA. About 30 thousand people are killed with firearms each year. Two thirds of those are suicides, so about 10 thousand are murders. Some simple math here, divide 10 thousand by 100 million. That gives you .0001, or .01 percent of gun owners kill someone. And that is playing with the numbers in favor of the antis because we all know that some killers shoot multiple people. So responsible gun owners are more than 99.99% of all gun owners. Nashvillescene needs to stop telling lies and go pound sand.
For some genuine Ouroboros-type hilarity, imagine how such as WaPo’s Christopher Ingraham & Nashville Scene’s Betsy Phillips will react if/when the following becomes a growing trend/the ‘new normal’ & the ‘Detroit effect’ starts.:
Link: Chicago Blacks & Hispanics apply for CCW permits
OH, but the contortions & gyrations the Left will engage in to distract from the reason behind the above will be a true joy to behold……& subsequently attack! The amount of schadenfreude’ll cause insulin mfg stock to SOAR!
;~D
Comments are closed.