Truths about the police and gun control

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Mike McDaniel is a former police officer who writes at PJ Media to burst some misconceptions and point out some uncomfortable truths to readers about the realities of policing and and why you should have little faith in gun control. As always, read the whole thing, but there is one point I want to especially emphasize:

Time Is Not On The Side Of The Good Guys

Response times for emergencies vary enormously from place to place. In some rural or semi-rural areas, emergency response is measured in hours. Even in towns or cities, a five-minute response — from the moment an officer receives the radio call until he arrives in a school parking lot — would be amazingly fast.

Consider, however, that a radio call likely would not have been made until someone at the school realized what was happening and made a call, a call that will take precious seconds — even minutes — to make and to be understood. By the time a radio signal flashes out, a shooter could easily have been shooting for five minutes or more.

And even when that first officer arrives in the parking lot, he will likely not have clear directions. Few police officers have so much as been inside every school in their jurisdiction; fewer know them well. Even if that first officer can hear continuing gunfire, unless by chance he happens to enter the school near the shooter it will take additional minutes to find and stop the shooter. Unless the shooter stops him first.

Every minute is an eternity in a school attack. Every minute costs lives. All competent police officers know this; it’s one of their greatest frustrations. They know that in virtually every imaginable scenario, the real issue is how many will die before they are in a position to do anything.

They also know that if the modern history of school shootings is any guide, the shooter will virtually always have killed himself long before they arrive.

In virtually every American school shooting, the police have had no role in stopping the shooter.

As a friend once told me, “When every second counts, help via 911 is minutes away.”

And anyone who believes any different, who puts their faith in restrictive gun laws and “gun-free zones,” is just a deluded fool.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

South Carolina legislator moves to have public school employees armed

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

An idea other states should consider. Via WCNC:

COLUMBIA, S.C. — A new bill introduced Tuesday in the South Carolina House of Representatives aims to arm public school employees on campuses throughout the state.

Republican Rep. Phillip D. Lowe (District 60) wants to amend the code by adding a section “to provide a public school employee who has a concealed weapons permit may possess a firearm on the premises of his employer.”

Click here to read the bill

An amendment on Section 1, Article 5, Chapter 1, Title 59 of the 1976 Code was referred to the Committee on Judiciary on Tuesday.

Lowe, a father of three, represents Darlington and Florence counties and is a member of the NRA.  He has been in the SC House since 2007.

I don’t want to speak with certainty here since I’m not 100% sure, but I believe Texas already gives local school districts the option to do this.  Can anyone confirm/clarify this for me please?

I think this is an idea whose time has long since come, and I’m honestly shocked that more states don’t allow this. Well, sorta shocked – considering how some people absolutely (and somewhat understandably) freak out at the thought of a “loaded gun” being in schools, even if it is owned and in the possession of a CCW holder and hidden away effectively by the teacher (or principal or whatever public school employee).

Yours truly was involved in very intense debates this past weekend on social media over, in part, this very idea.  Tragically, Sandy Hook’s principal Dawn Hochsprung (47) and school psychologist Mary Sherlach (56) were murdered as they rushed the gunman on Friday to try and stop him.  Had one or both of them been armed, would we be hearing a much different story today? It’s worth discussing and debating, especially when you consider there have indeed been other instances where legally armed civilians were responsible for preventing gun massacres from taking place – with one of the civilian heroes being a school principal.

The liberals I’ve spoke with about this are (unsurprisingly) against the idea of educators being armed, because they think a kid’s going to end up with the weapon or that ppl will get hurt or die in a “crossfire.” So their solution is MORE “gun free zones” … and more money for mental health services, as though thorough reform of our mental health system is going to stop every single madman from doing exactly what Lanza did on Friday.

Now, I’m all for that kind of reform, and I’d like to think a complete overhaul of our mental health system would do just that, but I’m a realist – and unlike the left, I know there is no such place as the  Utopia States of America. No matter how much mental health system reform we have, even if it ideally proved useful and helpful to the individuals as well as society, it is not going to be foolproof because some people go through life not diagnosed with anything, never show any signs of mental issues, and then go on rampages.

And those in gun free zones end up being sitting ducks, helpless victims  – unable to defend themselves and those around them.  That is unacceptable.

Am I calling for SWAT weaponry in the classroom? A police officer at every entrance? No.  But it just plain makes sense to allow educators the option of being able to legally carry into a school.  It could mean the difference between one injury or death (the shooters) or many (employees, students).

Thoughts?

Another reason to like Tim Scott

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Aside from the fact that the current representative and senator-designate from South Carolina has a good character, the right politics, and a clear-eyed view of our real problem, he worries all the right people:

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People isn’t too excited about the appointment of Rep. Tim Scott to South Carolina’s soon-to-be-vacated U.S. Senate seat.

(…)

Hilary Shelton, senior vice president for advocacy and policy at the NAACP, told The Daily Caller Monday afternoon that the group welcomed diversity in the Senate, but expects the new senator to work against the NAACP’s agenda.

“It is important that we have more integration in the U.S. Senate,” said Shelton in a phone interview. “It’s good to see that diversity.”

“Mr. Scott certainly comes from a modest background, experience, and so forth, and should be sensitive to those issues,” he said, referring to Scott’s impoverished single-parent upbringing in Charleston, SC.

“Unfortunately, his voting record in the U.S. House of Representatives raises major concerns,” Shelton said.

Shelton explained that the NAACP platform is crafted through an annual voting process which engages grassroots-level delegates who vote on the group’s national agenda. That agenda calls for an expansive role for federal government spending in black communities.

Because federal intervention has done such a bang-up job for Blacks. Just ask any beneficiary of the Great Society’s urban policies. And that War on Poverty? We fought it, and poverty won.

While Ms. Shelton does have some nice things to say about Congressman Scott, it’s clear her views are trapped within the statist, dependent, and identity-group paradigm that dominates the Democratic party. And yet Blacks are far worse off under Obama, who is pursuing those very policies the way an alcoholic chases a beer wagon.  But, to be honest, the NAACP stopped being an organization seeking the best interests of African Americans at the same time they entered into a monogamous relationship with the Democratic party. (Helpful tip: if you’re an interest group and you give yourself wholly and forever to one political party — they no longer have to take you seriously, because they know they have your votes no matter what they do.)

Meanwhile, here’s hoping that Mr. Scott has a long and fruitful career in the Senate and that, rather than coming round to the NAACP line, he encourages NAACP members to realize there’s another, better way to help Black Americans prosper.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Why are there two donate links on BarackObama.com’s #Newtown speech page?

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

What the hell?

BO.com

BO.com

Trying to raise campaign money off of a horrific tragedy for political gain? This is inexcusable. I’m sure they’ll classify it as an “unfortunate oversight”, though. *insert eyeroll* The screen caps, BTW, are from the mobile version of the site (the quality isn’t the best, due to sizing them down), but I saw them on the desktop version, too.

Got the link from a self-serving email sent from BO.com, listed as being “from David Axelrod”, talking about how the President “spoke from the heart” and “vowed to protect children” using “whatever power his office holds.”

Does our celebrity President EVER stop campaigning?

Blog housekeeping notes

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

FYI, I have had to temporarily disable Ajax comment editor for the site because some glitch in the plug-in is causing commenters to see error messages when they try to post a comment. I wasn’t seeing it when I was logged into the blog but when I logged out of the blog I did see it.

Once I find out what the solution is – if there is one – I’ll re-enable it as it is one of the more popular plug-ins at the site. It may be that a plug-in update will have to be done by the plug-in developer before the plug-in can be used again.

Please let me know in the meantime if any of you are still having the issue with error messages popping up in your comments.

Sorry for any inconvenience.