A Nurse with a Gun

Friday, November 21, 2008

When Seconds Count

The failure of Gun Free Zones recognized in the MSM.

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmm...I don't know whether to congratulate these people or ask them to move from the first grade to the second grade.

4:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, it is about time.

5:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How do we get 60 Minutes to do a piece like this?

6:26 PM  
Blogger George said...

In examining the evolving response roles of police, consider the following. In 1989, the so-called Marc Lepine killed 14 women at the Montreal, Quebec Ecole Polytechnique massacre. This happened within a 20 minute period of time before he killed himself.

There was no effective police response, other than an attempt at creating a perimeter, until it was over. As with Columbine, the police did not enter the building until afterwards.

In 2006, at Montreal's Dawson College, a similar tragedy began to unfold. This time, though, there was an immediate and aggressive response ... some of it by a private, unarmed security guard. His killing was limited to one unfortunate female student. There was evidence, based upon a note on his body, that this was also an attempted suicide by cop.

I know one shouldn't make general conclusion based upon a two item set but it appears that the lesson is before us ... even we benighted Canucks now know this.


8:06 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Hmmm so those signs don't stop criminals.....all I can say is duh

Well now that the rest of the world has caught up with the folks in the gun world who already knew this, maybe we should also let them know that guns wont jump of the table and shoot by themselves either.

When seconds count, it counts that you are armed.

8:45 PM  
Blogger Glenn B said...

All I can ask is are any of the commentors so far LEOs. Are you? I ask because I am one. I would not place my life at unecessary extreme risk in such a situation where there are multiple shooters without back-up because I am not suicidal, nor am I an idiot. Sure I might try to stop such an incident from getting worse, but you can bet your bottom dolalr that no officer should be trained to seek out and engage multiple assailants in such a scenario without back-up. If you really think it is about time some dopey stuff like that is taught to officers, well all I can say is what has happened to all the talk about arming the students. Unbelieveable. Why not think long and hard about putting yourselves in one of the multiple attacker scenarios as described, or even in a one assailant situation when you have a 9MM pistol and the other guy has a rifle with large capacity magazines. There is such as thing as bravery, and such a thing as absolute foolishness, and another thing as absolute stupidity. I choose to avoid the later two, it keeps me alive. Mind you, I have been there and done that several times when it has come to dangerous duty, even when badly oputnumbered, and I have had the injuries and some scars to prove it - but I cannot call upon anyone to be an idiot when it comes to such things.

Remember that many of the readers of this site, and others like it, endorse arming all of the public, and endorse CCW, or open carry by anyone who wishes to do so - as do I. One of the biggest reasons has always been because of poor response time by police in bad situations. Now you suddenly want to depend upon a lone officer to save the day - ala a John Wayne type to come in shooting. Well this is no John Wayne movie, this is real life, so why not get real. When seconds count the people should be allowed to defend themselves. That way they can at least hold the bad guy at bay until the other good guys arrive. Expecting someone to go in on a suicide mission is not the right thing to do even if they, as I, would probably do.

Glenn B

9:22 PM  
Blogger Glenn B said...

By the way, I totally agree with the pojt made by Xavier on this:

"The failure of Gun Free Zones recognized in the MSM. "

9:23 PM  
Blogger Glenn B said...

By the way, if you are only agreeing with the fact that gun free zones do not work, well shame on me for thinking otherwise, but it seemed to me you must also be agreeing with the whole thing on sending in an LEO on a suicide mission. If that is it, well I have made it obvious how I feel about it.

All the best,

9:26 PM  
Blogger Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

At least it's actually being admitted now by something approaching the MSM. That's a good thing.

"Once again, the gunman continued shooting until a four-officer team made entry and then he killed himself."

On the other hand, they're still saying that the first officers on scene at Virginia Tech waited, which is absolutely false. They tried to enter right away and couldn't because the bastard had chained all the main entrance doors shut.

Sorry, they pushed one of my buttons with that comment. I hate when the media lies, and that one really pisses me off.

9:39 PM  
Blogger Jerry The Geek said...

I have read and I think I understand your position about undertaking a "suicide mission".

I agree. I would not gladly accept that role, either.

On the other hand, I am a Private Citizen, and as such I am not permitted to carry a means of defense in a "Gun Free Zone".

The concept of "Gun Free Zones" is that, in the event of an emergency, the private citizenry can rely on the protection of Law Enforcement Officers "To Serve and To Protect".

Yes, that's a catch-phrase. Here are a couple of other catch-phrases which, to me, seem applicable when describing the responsibilities of a LEO:

"Prevention and detection of crime" means that the LEO is not only responsible for determining a crime has been committed, and finding the perpetrator of that crime, but also is obligated to prevent the commission of a crime.

Here's the expanded quote (citation available at the bottom of this comment):
" ... the prevention and detection of crime [would] be better than the inevitably unsatisfactory results of merely attempting to enforce criminal laws."

As I have said, I am not a LEO because I am not prepared to accept the awesome responsibility to "...place my life at unnecessary extreme risk in such a situation where there are multiple shooters without back-up because I am not suicidal."

This is a conscious choice which I have made.

You, on the other hand, have taken a vow "To Serve and To Protect". Still, you have here vowed not to perform the actions which you may be called upon in order to full-fill your duties to the public.

This is a conscious choice which you have made.

How do you reconcile this dichotomy?

Earlier last year (February 13, 2007), a madman with a gun entered a Gun-Free Zone in a Utah shopping mall and began killing citizens who were not permitted to possess defensive weapons in the mall.
Fortunately, an (armed) off-duty policeman (Ken Hammond, an off-duty officer from Ogden) was present, and held off the gunman by shooting at him until more policemen could arrive and engage the gunman.

Without the presence and aggression of that officer, many more helpless, unarmed law-abiding citizens would have died.

Yes, as it turned out there was only one shooter. But that policeman did not know that. He only knew that there was at least one gunman, who was killing people, and that the killing would continue unless someone intervened.

He did so, and probably saved many lives. He certainly prevented the gunman from killing more than 5 innocents.


Is it your statement that, if you found yourself in the same position, you would not have intervened in the interest of preventing crime and preserving the civil rights of these innocents?

But is that not exactly the duty which you are sworn to serve?

After all, "... the interests of
victims of crime are — at least from their own point of view — much
better served when their actual victimization can be effectively prevented."

You, sir, are no Ken Hammond. I sincerely hope that you are not an LEO in Oregon, or in any other place where I should choose to travel.
The quotes included here come from an article available at www.reliefweb.int titled "To Serve and to Protect".

The PDF is available at:


3:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you are taking comments out of context.
My "It's about time" comment is based on the fact that MSM has at least reported that there "might" be some truth to having an armed population that protects itself.

Only an individual can make the decision to enter a building on what some might call a suicide mission. Some will and some won't. There will critics for both actions but it is what it is as far as I am concerned.
I understand your position and I accept it as your right.
However, a policeman in a small town might feel differently. They would be his friends and neighbors kids in there and nothing would keep him from going in to do what must be done, regardless of the outcome.

6:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Glenn I wholeheartedly agree with your self-preservation remarks.
I wonder if that jibes with the publics perception of what a LEO is suppose to do? In my humble opinion I think the perception is that you as a LEO will "jump" into the fray and protect their sorry ass. You WILL put your life on the line for the sheeple. Thats the attitude the left and misguided officials have propagated in the minds of the population.
The instinctive urge that some civilians have to protect the population at large has been stymied by the exhortations to "let the properly trained police" handle the situation. So that means when a perp is a'shootin'...WE expect you to engage the perp and nullify the threat. EVEN IF IT MEANS YOU MAY DIE!
If you don't want to fulfill your obligation, which by default HAS been thrust upon you....then either let me carry or....act on your obligation.


9:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoa, I didn't expect that from MSM. Very interesting. I may have to play that clip for the anti- side of the family this thanksgiving.

Glenn, my expectations of LEO during an event would only be to establish a perimiter then sit and wait.

10:01 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home