A Good Guy With No Gun Allowed

A couple of factoids to start with, first:

  • For over a decade, now – since law Enforcement’s disastrous response to Columbine – law enforcement “active shooter” doctrine and training has emphasized resisting active shooters.  Their attacks are almost always more or less meticulously planned; resistance throws the plans off, and disrupts the shooters’ fantasy state.
  • Homeland Security, in the wake of all earlier advice about staying calm and going along with terrorists’ demands flying out the window on 9/11, now advises people to resist hijackings, if they can.
  • Nonetheless, major urban police chiefs – including Saint Paul’s chief, Tim Smith – poo-pooh the idea that a “good guy with a gun” can ever have a positive effect on a dangerous situation.  They are, of course, universally appointees who serve at the pleasure of Democrat mayors and city councilors, so it’s to be expected they’ll repeat their masters’ lies, even though the truth is out there in black and white.

With those out of the way, let’s get to the story:

Tear ‘Em Up!:  The chief of the Washington Police Department is urging the public to “take down” active shooters:

 “Your options are run, hide, or fight,” the D.C. police chief said. “If you’re in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there.”

Now, that sounds both commonsensical and in line with current law-enforcement thinking on the subject (as we noted above).

Now, there are many ways to “take down” a gunman.  If you’re a highly trained ninja, there’s all sorts of ninja fu.  Or you can charge at them and hit them with a bottle, a tablecloth, a book, or a WWE sleeper hold.

Or those diligent civilians could use the most effective means of self-defense there is; a firearm.  A legal handgun.  Police know as well as anyone else that someone resisting a lethal force attack with lethal force is four times as likely to survive as someone who who resists with non-leethal force, and seven times as likely as those who don’t resist.

Civilians can – and do – avail themselves of this constitutional, legal and deadly effective means of defending themselves against crime, whether lowly street crime or a would-be mass-shooter.

Half-Baked:  Or at least they can in most of the United States.  But not if they’re in DC.

Lanier – police chief for a city that still actively fights against civilian gun rights – is apparently endorsing the “good guy with a gun” idea that the National Rifle Association and every other gun rights group (and, incidentally, current police training regarding active shooters these days) endorses – only without the gun.

In other words, she’s advising people to do battle with murderous maniacs – only without the means to make it anything but nearly suicidal.

She’s endorsing every part of the “Good Guy with a Gun” scenario but the gun – the part that makes it work.

5 thoughts on “A Good Guy With No Gun Allowed

  1. We just saw what happens when an unarmed good guy confronts an armed thug.

    In New Orleans, a med student challenged a thug that was dragging a woman to a car. He was shot in the stomach for his trouble. Fortunately, the thug’s gun jammed twice, otherwise the student would most likely had died from a head shot.

  2. I expect that the truth is that local police chiefs would rather you died than one of their officers, and the more guns that are out there, the more likely it is that one will be used to kill a cop.

  3. @BG – I could be wrong – and I’ll happily stand corrected if I am – but I suspect the number of cops killed by concealed carry licence holders asymptotically approaches zero.

  4. Mnbubba, in my state the position of the police regarding guns is crystal clear: no one should have them but cops.
    The cops here are notorious for suicide, murder, and drug and alcohol abuse. There are only about two hundred of them. In the two decades I have lived here, two have been convicted of murdering their spouses. One year, 2003, I think, the cops were into running over people. That year if you were pedestrian killed by a car, chances were it was a cop who ran you over. One of them ran over a fellow officer while driving home a party thrown to congratulate the new recruits for graduating from the police academy.
    In short: it doesn’t have to make sense. They just want to be the only people with guns.

  5. Mnbubba, in my state the position of the police regarding guns is crystal clear: no one should have them but cops.

    And now you see why Dean never went back to Vermont and why Bernie won’t follow Democratic orthodoxy on guns: any Vermont politician who supports gun control doesn’t survive, Democrat or not. That’s one of the few things Democrats and Republicans agree on in Vermont, and it’s a very strong sentiment.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.