In what can only be viewed as a refreshing turn of events, prominent county sheriffs across the nation are beginning to encourage citizens to arm themselves as a first line of personal and community defense. This is major development because in most areas the county sheriff is intimately involved in the issuance of concealed carry permits.
Sheriffs across the country have been calling their citizens “the first line of defense” against crime — a call to arms that some say is a new phenomenon following terrorist attacks at home and abroad.
A sheriff in Wisconsin wants “as many law-abiding citizens to arm themselves in this country as we can get.” One in New York state told people who are licensed to carry a gun to “please do so.” In Florida, one sheriff said: “I can tell you the probability of needing a firearm is remote, but it’s more important to have a gun in your hand than a cop on the phone.”
The proclamations come after suicide bombers and gunmen terrorized Paris, a gunman opened fire at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs and two attackers – since linked to Islamic extremism – gunned down a crowd at a social services center in San Bernardino, Calif.
Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey addressed citizens from Florida last month to ask them for help.
“If a terrorist attack or active-shooter scenario can happen in California, Texas, South Carolina or Paris, it can happen right here in our own backyard,” he said in a video titled “Enough is Enough.” “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. If you’re a person who is legally licensed to carry a firearm, now is the time, more than ever, to realize that you – and you alone – may very well be the first line of defense for you, your family and others around you in a terrorist or active shooter-based scenario.
There is a conceit on the left that the your self defense should be left up to the police. Not only are there insufficient numbers of cops to do that but, as the saying goes, “when every second counts, the police are only minutes away.” I live in a rural area in Maryland. MINIMUM 911 police response to my home is 15 minutes. Needless to say, a lot of very unfortunate stuff can happen to you in that length of time. In other places, the situation is worse. My brother was an officer with the San Bernardino County sheriff’s office. One night he received a call that an officer needed assistance. He drove 20 minutes, full lights and siren, and was the first officer to arrive on the scene. Not only is it physically impossible to count upon the police to protect you, the Supreme Court says they don’t even have to try:
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman’s pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.
And there is mounting evidence that shows that armed citizens can be a critical component of stopping crimes against persons.
Predictably, the gun-control Nazis are having a cow over this trend.
Still, anti-guns groups warn that having a firearm in the home can be dangerous.
“Removing all of the ideological issues, it’s just bad advice,” Ladd Everitt, director of communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said of the spate of public proclamations. “It’s asking people to incur risk. To us, it reflects this reckless view of firearms that’s common in this pro-gun movement today.”
What Everitt calls “asking people to incur risk” is what decent people call, “protecting others.” And for a movement that professes to be all in favor of “community action”, the left in general and the gun-grabbers in particular visualize society as a herd of placid sheep who must wait upon the government paid shepherd to protect them.
Even leftwing douches like Nicholas Kristof have noticed that armed citizenry does not equal mayhem:
For those of us who argue in favor of gun safety laws, there are a few inconvenient facts.
We liberals are sometimes glib about equating guns and danger. In fact, it’s complicated: The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half.
Then there are the policies that liberals fought for, starting with the assault weapons ban. A 113-page study found no clear indication that it reduced shooting deaths for the 10 years it was in effect. That’s because the ban was poorly drafted, and because even before the ban, assault weapons accounted for only 2 percent of guns used in crimes.
Move on to open-carry and conceal-carry laws: With some 13 million Americans now licensed to pack a concealed gun, many liberals expected gun battles to be erupting all around us. In fact, the most rigorous analysis suggests that all these gun permits caused neither a drop in crime (as conservatives had predicted) nor a spike in killings (as liberals had expected).
As more and more data is gathered it continues to show that armed citizens are not only NOT dangerous to each other but they can provide that immediate armed response when police cannot. The fact that more and more sheriffs are encouraging citizens to arm is an indication that law enforcement is gradually stopping its myopic view of armed citizens as threats an is seeing them as potential allies.