Outstanding read in this months "American Cop" magazine

[virginia mountainman]

Evil Exists:

Here is a great Excerpt, from this great must read article!!

The only proven, effective way of stopping murderous evil is violent
action.

There's a valuable group -- guardians -- who will voluntarily put
themselves between evildoers and their victims, between the wolves and
the sheep. These guardians are, for lack of a better description often
called 'Sheepdogs.'

Whether a cop, service member, firefighter or civilian, there is
something very special about the heart of the person who goes toward
danger, literally into harm's way to try and help.

At a High School in Pearl, Mississippi, evil showed up ready to kill
again. A faculty member grabbed his gun and held the killer at
gunpoint. Without firing a shot, this sheepdog kept the death count
down to two. The killer's next planned stop was a nearby junior high
school to kill even more.

A would-be murder spree at a middle school dance in Edinboro,
Pennsylvania with 240 children present was thwarted when a restaurant
owner grabbed his shotgun and swiftly acted, stopping the attack and
forcing the killer to surrender. This killing spree was stopped at one.

In the mass murder that never happened at Santana High School in
Santee, California, evil was confronted and stopped early on in the
attack. A parent at the high school -- an off-duty San Diego Police
officer -- reacted to the emerging threat with his gun, keeping the
death toll down to two.

Appalachia Law School, evil killed again. Two sheepdogs -- civilian
gun owners -- went into the jaws of the attack and stopped it cold --
without firing a shot. The death toll kept to two.

- CONTRASTS -

Think on this:

11 casualties at the Amish school in Pennsylvania. This adult
incarnation of evil methodically killed little girls.

24 casualties at the Northern Illinois University attack.

39 casualties at the Columbine school incident... no sheepdogs.

55 casualties at the murder spree at Virginia Tech, another 'gun-
free' zone.

13 casualties at the Westroads Mall by a fame-seeking killer who
wanted to go out in style. Unchallenged, this killer moved through the
mall laying waste at will!

45 casualties at the at Luby's restaurant massacre in Texas. A would-
be sheepdog did not have her gun with her (back then it was illegal in
Texas).

A cretin killed during an Illinois church service when he took the
minister's life. Illinois is one of only two states left still
prohibiting concealed carry permits for "average" law abiding citizens.

Contrast with:

Zero dead, six injured at the Tacoma Mall shooting spree. One armed
civilian (there may have been a second) took action to stop the
evildoer who told police to "follow the screams."

A killer's spree was derailed when an off-duty officer who had his gun
and the courage to use it went into harms way at Trolley Square Mall
in Utah. Tragically, five innocents were killed. Taking his attack
into a posted 'gun-free' zone, this predator was stopped from killing
many more by an armed sheepdog.

An armed female civilian sheepdog saved lives when she confronted evil
and shot him at the New Life Church in Colorado.

Need more examples?

Recently a workplace attack in Houston, Texas was thwarted with only
one injury. The would-be killer was confronted by two employees with
guns and permits to carry them. They gave the attacker something else
to worry about -- incoming rounds.

Remember 9-11? Inside a self-defense-free zone -- airplanes -- the
terrorists, armed with box cutters, seized planes they then used to
kill thousands. Back then cockpits were 'gun-free.' After 9-11 we
tragically learned this policy made the situation more dangerous for
everyone except the bad guys.

Stupid Laws:

Guns are not the problem -- ineffective laws are. Our laws are
targeting precisely the wrong people, forcing good guys to become easy
prey for evil killers. We must stop this madness before one more
innocent life is needlessly lost.

Brave people willing to act can stop rampaging killers. We shouldn't
be forced to be helpless when facing evil.

http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FmgPublications/AmericanCop/ACJA09/?page=54

[harmonicon]

1. that is some of the most faulty reasoning I've ever seen

Guns obviously are a large PART of the problem. All of these killings listed involved guns. In some cases, one person with a gun can kill another person with a gun, but that doesn't mean that if more people had guns there would be fewer killings. Take this for example: "A killer's spree was derailed when an off-duty officer who had his gun and the courage to use it went into harms way at Trolley Square Mall in Utah. Tragically, five innocents were killed. Taking his attack into a posted 'gun-free' zone, this predator was stopped from killing many more by an armed sheepdog." Wouldn't the total number of casualties have been 0 if no guns had been involved?

[TPaine7]

2. So the solution is to disarm everyone...

including the police?

The idea that without guns there would be no casualties is itself interesting reasoning. It is true that without guns there would have been no gun casualties, but that's a rather obvious truism. Trust me, people figured out ways to kill others before the invention of guns.

[harmonicon]

5. did I suggest that?

I do know that I've never heard of a "strangling spree". Have you? I also know that here in the UK, where the police don't carry guns, there are fewer gun deaths than in the US where the police do carry guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. I have heard of a few stabbing sprees, more guns in the hands of the law abiding isn't a problem.

Those police station shooting rampages are pretty rare, as are the gun club shooting rampages. Why is that?

[harmonicon]

12. "law abiding" is time sensitive, and that is the problem of the reasoning of the article

Mental illness strikes people at different times. Someone could be the gun-toting potential hero for 30 years and eventually wind up going on a killing spree. I'm not saying that no one should have guns, but trying to parse out who will use them how is impossible. A crime doesn't exist until it is committed.

As for gun club related killings, here are a few from just the past year which you may remember:
http://highboldtage.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/florida-woman-kills-her-son-in-gun-range-murder-suicide/
http://www.topnews.in/weapons-stolen-gun-club-teen-arrested-over-fourfold-murder-2151108

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. That's just silly.

The overwhelming majority of the 80 million legal gun owners in this country never commit any act of violence toward another person. All of the statistics bear that out. The same argument you make could be made about cars, planes, power tools. The idea that everyone is one mental step away from mass murder is laughable if it weren't so delusional.

David

[harmonicon]

15. it doesn't take "everyone", but just "anyone"

Of course most people who own guns won't use them to commit crimes, but some do and will continue to do so. Likewise, most people who own guns don't use them to stop crime either - this article was just putting forth anecdotes as a reason for advocating gun ownership as a means to prevent violent crime, which I don't think is generally the case.

[SteveM]

20. Gun ownership can prevent violent crime -- the one committed on you...

As for generalized concealed-carry, it is too soon to tell (in my opinion) if such would prevent crime in general. But most advocacy (certainly not all) for concealed-carry is for personal self-defense, not as social policy. Perhaps in the future when better statistical models are constructed we will be able to determine if wide-spread concealed-carry DOES result in lower violent crime.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. Not most like 51% try like 99%. The simple fact is most gun crimes are committed by felons.

Those felons are legally barred from possessing firearms.

David

[eqfan592]

10. Ahhh, more of the faulty logic...

Well DUH you'd have fewer gun deaths, because there are fewer guns available. But it's not "gun deaths" that are the problem it's the violent crime rate that we have to take care of. When you look at drunk driving, do you blame the car the person is driving or the type of alcohol they drank to get them drunk? Would baning that car or type of alcohol solve the problem? This is the logic that the anti-gun movement uses.

Gun control does NOT help the violent crime rate, and it tends to only hurt the people who would be the least likely people to commit a crime in the first place.

[harmonicon]

13. I'm not part of any anti-gun movement

When I look at drunk driving, I think that poor urban planning is the main problem. If people lived in places that were accessible on foot or on public transportation to bars and restaurants (and to their jobs, so they wouldn't even need cars) I suspect that there would be far less drunken driving. I'm not advocating gun control, but I do thinking that suggesting that more people ought to own guns so as to potentially disarm others who do becomes a never-ending spiral. Like with the drunk driving example, the solution is not to create more police (or potential vigilantes), but to do something to deter whatever motivated the crime in the first place.

[eqfan592]

16. Hmmm..

My apologies then. I actually agree with you 100%, though this is not to say that it would discourage me from encouraging people to arm themselves. But that is more for personal protection. I agree that this will not, in the long run, do anything to actually put an end to crime. Nor does gun control, for that matter. I've stated time and time again that the key to fighting crime is going after what motivated the crime and what built the criminal in the first place.

[SteveM]

21. Gun ownership is personal. Not many advocate more ownership of guns...

Certainly, there will be some who advocate more Americans owning more guns. But this is preeminently a personal decision, based on an individual's need for self-defense. I keep a firearm for personal protection in the home. I don't think my owning a gun which I carry around will solve crime in society, but if my day-to-day activities become more dangerous, then I will seek out a license to carry.

[paulsby]

25. and in france where the cops DO carry carrry guns

there are ALSO fewer gun deaths than in the US. yer logic needs help. maybe the confounding factor is jerry lewis.

[gorfle]

27. How about...

I do know that I've never heard of a "strangling spree". Have you?

Perhaps not. But to suggest that there are not other ways to kill large amounts of people without using guns is silly. Anyone can buy everything they need to absolutely level an office building, killing nearly everyone in it, at a corner gas station.

[virginia mountainman]

3. how do you ...

un-invent something?

Guns are here to stay, no matter what law is passed.

[harmonicon]

4. you can't

I know that guns are here to stay. I'm not even advocating a ban. I just think that the reasoning in that article is horribly flawed. Some bad people have guns, and some good people have guns. Some bad people don't have guns, and some good people don't have guns. That's just how it's going to work. The reasoning seems to be that good people should have guns to stop the bad people who have guns.... it really just becomes silly. The end result would be that everyone was armed, and on a whole, perhaps many more people would die. Who knows? What we do know is that it takes a gun to shoot someone, whatever the reason.

[virginia mountainman]

6. I see what your saying..

But I think that the jist of the article, was to ALLOW, good people, with clean records that take the time to jump thru the hoops, and WANT to carry a sidearm, should be allowed too.

I don't think the author was in anyway advocating arming ALL the good people, but only the few, that qualify, and take the time to get the proper permits, should be allowed to.

These folks, are clearly not part of the problem, but as shown above, can be, part of the solution.

[harmonicon]

9. increasingly people who want to lawfully, and safely, own guns are allowed to

It seem that in recent years more and more anti-gun laws have been wiped from the books. I would personally never own a gun, but know that if I want to keep any of my constitutional rights that I have to stand up for ALL constitutional rights, and that includes the 2nd amendment.

While guns can be part of the solution, guns had nothing to do with starting the problems that cause these types of crimes. Instead of working on something as silly as banning guns, it would be far better to work on ending poverty, decreasing feelings of desperation (through sensible social welfare and healthcare), and especially combating mental illness. I think if those steps were taken these few heroes mentioned in the article would have luckily never had to exist. They could have carried their guns and felt an awful lot safer knowing that they never had to use them.

[virginia mountainman]

11. Great Points!

And very true about standing up for ALL the Bill of Rights. And I definitely agree with you on the causes of all this violence.

:toast:

[eqfan592]

17. Wow, I really did read you wrong...

I'll say it again here; I sincerely apologise! I find myself in 100% agreement with you here.

Here's to you!

:toast:

[Strong Atheist]

18. Welcome to DU!

:toast:


BTW: Elf Quest?

[eqfan592]

24. hahaha, close :)

EverQuest actually :) I stopped playing the game years ago, but the name stuck, so now I just use it everywhere :)

And thanks!

[Strong Atheist]

26. You are welcome! nt.

[spin]

23. You make the same points that many pro-gunners here on DU make...

Draconian gun control is merely a cop-out and an attempt by politicians to avoid seriously addressing the root causes of the problems in our society.

Plus it is basically a attempt by the rich, powerful and the influential to prevent the lower classes and minorities from owning firearms. Such deadly weapons should never be allowed in the hands of mere feudal serfs. Only the Lords of the realm and their knights (often hired thugs) should enjoy the privilege.

[eqfan592]

7. "Wouldn't the total number of casualties have been 0 if no guns had been involved?"

Yes, because the only weapon the human race has EVER had are guns. Nobody could EVER hurt somebody with any other object.

You want to talk about faulty logic, take a look at your own. The anti-gun position is filled with possibly the most faulty logic of any of the "progressive" (and in reality, there's nothing truly progressive about gun control) ideals.

[SteveM]

19. Please. No more prohibitionist pipe dreams...

You base your "logic" on a fanciful dream ("...the total number of casualties have been 0 if no guns had been involved"). American civilians own perhaps 300,000,000 firearms. What meaningful public do you propose to support your "reasoning?"