Armed citizens as first responders

Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 17 March, 2009 | Daniel White

[marktwain]

Excellent article on a point made by many freepers.

[familyop]

A selection process, more training and a chain of supervision of some kind would be needed, though. Without such weeding, training and assumptions of responsibilities, a few oddballs can mess the whole effort up.

[edpc]

Average police response time to a high priority call within city limits can range from 5-10 minutes.

What's the saying.....? When seconds count the police are minutes away.

[Blood of Tyrants]

When seconds count, the police are minutes away!

[arthurus]

Not only is there a greater chance that there is a first responder on the scene, there is a better chance that there will be nothing to respond to. Knowledge that anyone around might be armed and willing is a strong deterrent to planned crimes and some also for impulse crimes. The mass murderer is especially deterred because he normally expects to die and is trying to do it spectacularly. If there is a known good chance that he will die before he can kill more than one or two people, the thing isn’t worth it to him. He can’t expect big headlines and horrified news jockeys to spread his name and his deeds worldwide.

[Just another Joe]

When seconds count the police are only minutes away.

[wastoute]

You are entitled to your opinion, but wrong IMHO. No process will "weed out" one individual and no organization will take the responsibility. You lack of assurance will not stop me from exercising my right and at this point our gummint recognizeds this fact (for the most part).

Μολὼν λάβε

[Dead Corpse]

When seconds count, my personal firearm is never more than 1.1 seconds away.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Great article

we start a campaign with the motto.

The Golden five, or the Golden minute, or the golden second.

The time when police and not available to assist you in defending your life.

[EdReform]

Bang

[bmwcyle]

ping

[NFHale]

“...A selection process, more training and a chain of supervision of some kind would be needed...”

Familyop:
My right to keep myself, my family, and any innocent citizen who happens to be near me alive is not subject to some arbitrary “selection process and chain of supervision”.

I carry because it is my right as an American to do so, and will continue to do so until I no longer am physically able to.

Society will ALWAYS have “a few oddballs”. Nothing will ever change that. Part of the idea of carry is to PREVENT the “oddballs” amongst us from going postal and doing damage in the first place.

Sure, agree that there should be (and are) some preconditions in place - not a violent felon, not mentally unstable, etc., and hopefully that is what you are referring to. But to hand over the power to arbitrarily choose who can and can’t defend themselves to is NOT acceptable.

[bamahead]

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!

[roaddog727]

An armed society is a polite society

[familyop]

"You are entitled to your opinion, but wrong IMHO. No process will "weed out" one individual and no organization will take the responsibility. You lack of assurance will not stop me from exercising my right and at this point our gummint recognizeds this fact (for the most part)."

Μολὼν λάβε"

Here's the scenario that will materialize too soon and too often. A scanner kook hears a burglary call, puts on his holster and peashooter and speeds to the location of the call. He arrives, jumps out of his vehicle, wide-eyed in view of the home security cameras, with his pistol un-holstered. The family at that address is ready. A fusillade of 72 balls of buckshot knocks the perceived invader down, followed by 16 hardened sabot slugs. The family lawyer receives a call along with the remote server address for copies of the video footage.

Open carry at home.

That would be more than an opinion. As for neighbors you know, though, they can have you volunteer in advance to help them out, if you like. Lots of us already do that.

[familyop]

...defending yourself and yours...fine...neighbors who are expecting you...fine. But see comment #15.

[familyop]

I’m very much in favor of the Second Amendment but have also known of citizens who called police and had weapons pointed at them, when they arrived. There are many other situations out there that would shock most people. Quite a few respected pillars of communities are completely out of their minds, after they leave their offices. I’ve seen “untouchable,” business mogul city councilmen, who went cross-dressing and peering in their willingly participating neighbors’ windows.

[NFHale]

RE Familyop Post 15:
As I said...society will always have its share; its the nature of giant groups of people living in close proximty. Not one of us can control THAT scenario, and for the idiot who assumes to put himself in THAT situation and take on the proper role of the cops, well, he deserves to be a Darwin Award candidate.

And I don’t think that the situation you outlined is the spirit of the original discussion article - if a citizen shows up at the scene of a crime-in-progress with the intent of interfering, I believe that is already a crime - this article is more concerned with an on-the-spot situation in which an armed citizen inadvertantly and unavoidably finds him/herself in the middle of a life-or-death situation, confronted by an active shooter.

But I’ll never hand over my right to some arbitrary power; I play by the state-by-state carry system’s rules right now because for the most part the system isn’t life-threatening; but if the system ever becomes life threatening, well, all bets are off, and I’ll do whatever is necessary for my Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” - period.

We’ll agree to disagree.

Carry quietly, discreetly, and always, and stay alive.

[wastedyears]

Point made clearly and quite well.

[Tarantulas]

Here's the scenario that will materialize too soon and too often. A scanner kook hears a burglary call...

"Scanner kook?" I'm not familiar with that terminology. Is that like calling a Second Amendment supporter a "gun nut?"