Ed Morrissey uploaded this video of the a PSA from Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, calling it “A surprising message from law enforcement”
I don’t think it’s surprising, its common sense:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/-8TCx-sM1vw[/youtube]
While we wish we could be teleported to your home it ain’t going to happen. It will take minutes to get to your home and an attack will be over within seconds.
This Sheriff from South Carolina echoed the same sentiments a few months back.
It’s just plain old common sense.
But leftists and anti-gun nuts don’t have any:
“If he does not feel he is capable of doing this, and he’s not qualified to take on this role of public safety, he should resign and he should do it today,” said Jeri Bonavia of the non-profit Wisconsin Anti-violence Effort.
Bonavia says Clarke is asking citizens to become vigilantes.
“To issue a blanket statement that people should be out there, arming up, and taking care of safety matters that really law enforcement officials are trained to do, is just irresponsible,” said Bonavia.
The office of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said in a statement: “Apparently Sheriff David Clark (sp) is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie.”
What does that even mean? Dirty Harry movie….come on. He is urging citizens to take safety courses and arm themselves to make sure their family is protected until the police arrive. Where in the hell did he urge people to become vigilantes?
Man these people can be nuts.
See author page
The police aren’t going to charge into your house after they get there. They have to assess the situation. How many intruders are there? Where are they? Are they armed? How long will it take them to get the bad guys AFTER they get there?
This Sheriff has the right idea in the way he’s trying to protect the public. He’s not asking anybody to break the law so the ignorant liberals need to get a life and do something pro-American instead of trying to kill the Constitution.
The courts protect police from lawsuit for allowing you to be harmed.
They are under no obligation to risk life and limb to stop you from being killed.
Apparently this Jeri Bonavia character is oblivious to this fact.
Sheriff Clarke is addressing the problem from a viewpoint based on experience and common sense.His critics are basing their responses on the fear and denial that serve only to create victims.He is acknowledging that responsible adults need to be their own first responders. His critics do not take ownership of their own personal security and abdicate that responsibility to others.They fear the weapons more than the homicidal who use them.They deny that any evil could possibly befall them.That fear and denial put 20 kids into body bags at Sandy Hook.The adults ,that those children depended on for protection, believed a sign,a law and a security system would protect them.The sad fact is that law enforcement is not the first responders in mass killings.Responsible adults onsite are.That is exactly what Sheriff Clarke is saying.People dismissing his statements are doing so at the peril of those dependent upon them.
I agree completely with the sheriff. If somebody broke into my house I would defintely call 911 but I would also have my Beretta M9 in my hands and if threatened one of us ain’t gonna make it.
Yet you should hear the gun grabbing liberals here in Wisconsin on the television, in the papers etc, “If he can’t do his job he should resign” or “He’s a Gov Walker stooge what did you expect” yadda yadda yadda.
As I told one person yesterday, the Sheriff is asking you to take some personal responsibility to take care of yourself and your family. At the very least you owe that to your family. His response was that is law enforcements job, not his. I told him good luck with that philosophy.
I have every confidence in the Dane County Sheriffs department here and believe they do a very good job but I live in a rural area and I know at best it’s going to take them 10 to 15 minutes to get to my house. If things go bad I may not have 10 or 15 minutes to wait which is why I am responsible for my family, that IS my job.
RE: ““If he does not feel he is capable of doing this, and he’s not qualified to take on this role of public safety, he should resign and he should do it today,” said Jeri Bonavia of the non-profit Wisconsin Anti-violence Effort.”
Hey, Jeri, what is “it” that he’s not capable of doing? He simply said that his officers will take several minutes to get to your home. He’s not capable of hiring, training, and maintaining SuperMen who can fly to the scene of any crime instantly? Really? Who, then, is capable?
RE: Bonavia says Clarke is asking citizens to become vigilantes.”
And Jeri Bonavia needs to come to grips with the fact that in the situations being discussed potentially violent offender is creating a dangerous situation. Merriam-Webster defines a vigilante as: “A member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice.” There is no committee here. Defense is punishment, but the serious crimes haven’t taken place yet: this is defense against crime.
RE: “To issue a blanket statement that people should be out there, arming up, and taking care of safety matters that really law enforcement officials are trained to do, is just irresponsible,” said Bonavia.”
Which still doesn’t explain the fact that the “officials”, while trained to deal with the situation, won’t be there. Who will be there? You, the citizen, will be there.
RE: “The office of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said in a statement: ‘Apparently Sheriff David Clark (sp) is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie.’”
I agree with others here. This is an a personal attack without any facts.
Obviously, Clarke doesn’t understand the root of the word vigilante. Nor does she seem to comprehend a trait that is rapidly becoming rare in our nation, responsibility for one’s self.
You see, in Obama’s America, no one is responsible for their actions or their own security. Just call 911. That county sheriff, or his deputies, are just 20 minutes away. Forget that by the time they “respond” the criminal is long gone and you may well be long dead. This goes along with the policy that if you have children you can’t afford, taxpayers will be required to support them for you; if you commit a crime that some judge thinks is petty, like killing your grandmother with a hammer, you will serve a very short time in jail so that when you get out, you can get your hands on an illegal weapon and kill some firefighters; if you contract HIV/AIDs, the taxpayers will pick up your medical tab. Don’t finish the free education that is made available to you and instead choose to do drugs, or have a couple of kids out of wedlock? No problem, you’re not responsible for those actions so the productive taxpayer will provide you with a home, food, medical insurance, cash money from your EBT card, and an Obama phone.
But understand that first responders are called that because they respond to a crime already in progress, that they can be as much as a half hour away, or more in large counties, that you are the first line of defense for your family against the criminal element in our society, and you are labeled a “vigilante.”
Perhaps Ms. Clarke should take a look at the photos of the lines at gun shows just yesterday. There, Ms. Clarke, is your Second Amendment militia. There are the of age adults who are purchasing their own weapons, just like the Patriots did, to ward against people like you who support the destruction of our Constitution. There, Ms. Clarke, are the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have decided that they will not be victims to the creeping socialism you promote. There, Ms. Clarke, are the people who people like you fear the most; responsible adults. Without victimhood, which you seem to promote, you would not have a job, or a cause.
@Ronald Fischer: I absolutely agree ..as a americans we have the DUTY to protect those we love and care for as well as ourselves ..let alone be prepared for a revolution against tyranny if necessary .
I admire SHERIFF CLARK, AND HIS COURAGE TO COME WITH THE TRUTH,
and he is absolutly right by saying they cannot be teleported to come when crime arrive, and ask
to be ready and able to help him do his work once he arrive,
there are many SHERIFFS ON THE SAME LINES AND WE KNOW WE CAN TRUST THEM TO BE ON THE SIDE OF THE CITIZEN,
THANK YOU ALL, YOU ALL ARE BEING TRUSTED MORE THAN ANY ONE ON LEADERSHIP ROLE,
NO MATTER HOW HIGH THEY ARE, THEY LOST IT.
THAT MEAN THE TRUST OF THE CITIZENS
There has been no effort from anyone on the Left to address the glaring parallels in mass killings.The presence of psychotropic meds in the killers and the locations being gun free zones.The Left is exploiting tragedy for its own ends and that is beyond disgust and a measure of just how little a place that reason and logic have in the anti-gun agenda.If a mass shooter is allowed to roam and target at will until law enforcement arrives to stop him,the body count is far higher than a confrontation with an armed adult as the attack starts. Sheriff Clarke is dead on,right.People need to assume responsibility for their security and the security of those around them. Since Sandy Hook, 1 of every 5 TX CHL apps has come from a teacher.Two local districts are considering allowing armed faculty and staff on their campuses. Reason would call for it if security is truly paramount.
It generally take the police five or ten minutes the respond—understandably—a person without a weapon can be killed in that time. I don’t think most liberals are arguing about protecting yourself—their main, legitimate argument centers around high capacity magazines (10 or more rounds).
LIBERAL 1
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE OF WEAPON?
IF THEY ARE THE GOOD LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, THEY MAKE OTHER CITIZENS SAFER,
WHAT EVER THE WEAPON,
OBAMA SHOULD BE FREAKING OUT OF THE CRIMINALS INSTEAD OF TARGETING THE GOOD PEOPLE,
HE SHOULD TARGET THE BAD PEOPLE AND LEAVE THEM IN PRISON, AND CLOSE THE BORDER
WHERE THE DRUGS ARE COMING TO HURT THE AMERICANS YOUNG UNAWARE OF THE DANGERS,
THE WEAPON HAS NOTHING TO DO , IT’S THE BAD HUMAN HOLDING IT TO BE TARGETED,
@liberal1(objectivity):
If you believe that a six-shot revolver, or a three-shot semi-auto shotgun, or an 8-shot semi-auto handgun is what it will take to make you safe, then fine. I have no problem with that, Lib1. You are entitled to your opinion on what will make you feel safer in your home, or even on the streets if you also believe in CCW laws.
However, many people believe that semi-auto handguns with very high capacities will make them feel safer. Many people believe that semi-auto rifles with high capacities will make them feel safer.
So where do you and other liberal/progressives get off on telling me, or anyone, what SHOULD make us feel safe? That is not a decision that you can make for anyone, Lib1.
When you break that down into simplistic ideas, you see that it is once again a matter of the liberal/progressive telling others what, how much/how little/, where, when, and who, is allowed to have something. Simply put, it’s the same old liberal/progressive idea that they know better than we on how We, the People, should be living our lives.
Thank you, but I believe I’ll be making my choices myself, Lib1. I’ve got a pretty good idea on how I should be living my life right now. I don’t need someone else limiting my choices because they believe they are smarter than everyone else.
@liberal1(objectivity):
RE: ” I don’t think most liberals are arguing about protecting yourself—their main, legitimate argument centers around high capacity magazines (10 or more rounds).”
Actually, most liberals I’ve argued with on this issue have not conceded self defense as a legitimate role of firearms in society. Furthermore, liberals favor laws that do not recognize the use of firearms for self-defense. For example, self-defense is not considered a legitimate purpose when applying for a pistol permit in NYC. But let’s set aside that issue for a moment.
If self defense is a right and if a firearm is a useful tool for self-defense, then why do liberals support providing high-capacity magazines for police officers and other agents of the government but not for private citizens? In every case where restrictions on magazine capacity for police officers has been considered, the officers who would be affected balk at the idea because it is unsafe. If it is necessary for police officers and agents of the State to have high-capacity magazines, then why isn’t it necessary for private citizens to have them?
On the general topic of semi-automatic firearms, one of my favorite authors, Ayoob, whom I had the pleasure to meet in person, weighed in on this issue: http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/29/why-good-people-need-semiautomatic-firearms-and-high-capacity-magazines-part-i/
His conclusion:
Read the whole thing.
@liberal1(objectivity): #11
If someone is breaking into your house, and you don’t know how many there are, and you have a gun, what is the MAXIMUM number of rounds you want in your gun?
who said the SHERIFF CLARKE ASK THE CITIZENS TO BE VIGILANTE
IS AN IDIOT, WHO CAN’T THINK FURTHER THAN HIS NOSE,
THIS IS ONE WHO COULD NOT REACT TO AN ASSAULT ON HIS FAMILY,
IT’S OBAMA WHO ASK CITIZENS TO BE VIGILANTE NO SHERIFFS DOES, BUT ONLY SAID DUE
TO THE CUT ON POLICE OFFICERS HE HAS LESS TIME TO ANSWER A CALL FROM DISTRESS CITIZENS AND ASK THE CITIZEN TO HELP DEFEND THEIR FAMILY IN THAT TIME WHERE AN ATTACK IS IN PROGRESS, HE SAID NOT TO BEG FOR THEIR LIVES AND THEIR LOVE ONES LIFE ,
OR HIDE UNDER THE TABLE, IT WON’T WORK,
THAT CITIZEN MUST FIGHT HIS ATTACKER BECAUSE THE SHERIFF CANNOT FLY LIKE A BIRD TO THEIR PLACE, AT THE SAME INSTANT OF THE ATTACK.
YOU HAVE TO BE IDIOT NOT TO GET IT,
Maximum magazine capacity? One round more than is needed to end the threat.Where does anyone draw a line with it.This time it maybe ten,the next five.Ceding any ground here undercuts the true purpose of an armed citizenry.Restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of millions because of the actions of an aberrant fractional percentage of those millions proves this not a gun issue it is a control issue.A just and honest government need never fear its armed citizenry. If they do there is something there that is not above board.
@liberal1(objectivity):
I’m fairly good with weapons, but I wouldn’t consider myself an expert marksman. With multiple offenders I want as much advantage as I can against them. I’ve talked with many friends in law enforcement who have stated quite clearly that they have no problem with lawful citizens owning AR-15’s or large capacity magazines. They know that when gunfire breaks out, it will often be over long before they could arrive on the scene, and they would rather it be the victim rather than the criminal element that has the upper hand in the incident.
Gang violence and home invasions have been on the rise, often with groups of three or more intruders. We also have heavily armed gang members shooting willy-nilly at opposing gang members (or those they assume are in an opposing gang,) and other victims, which makes it essential that the public be able to have comparable ability to defend their persons, family and friends. That means that the public needs high capacity magazines, semi-automatic handguns and so called “assault weapons” to defend against the use of the same by criminals.
One thing I learned from military friends and instructors, is that in an armed engagement you want to have equal or superior firepower to use against your opponent(s).
Ditto
yes you said it,exactly how it should be,
I think the criminals make plan when they want to commit a crime,
so should the the people make plan to get the superiority on the attacker,
different plan scenarios of the least possible thought attack,
because the attacker usualy posess the element of surprise on you which don’t expect it
because it’s not a normal behavior to forsee, because we normaly expect good people around us,
and always we are surprise if we find that one neighbor he commit a crime ,
that’s how they get the number one superiority, which call for us to think faster and react quickly
even that we lost second very long coming out of the surprise first seconds, many fail on that ones and are paying for it with their life,
just thinking
bye
From a posting:
“Caroline Brewer, spokeswoman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest gun control advocacy group, said a 2009 study found that people who carry guns are 4.5 times more likely to be shot than people who don’t.”
So what if you take out all the young gangsters and gang members and the City of Chicago? Would that statistic go to something like 0.02?
@Ditto: #19
What do you think the odds are of @liberal1(objectivity) answering my question in #16? I’m guessing it is like most of the questions I ask liberals: Zero.
That high cap pistol on the nightstand is there so I can fight back to the AR behind the bedroom door.They are tools,they offer a set of advantages that one needs in self defense.You want to react decisively to any criminal you confront,until that criminal is no longer a threat to anyone’s safety.If the goal here really was about protecting the defenseless there would be measures taken to exempt CHL holders from gun free zones.There would be measures taken to reduce psychotropic meds being prescribed to kids to medicate them into docility, and more time spent to normalize them without SSRIs. States are beginning to remove the barriers that disarm citizens where they need their weapons the most.It defies logic to restrict the rights of the greater population because of actions of an aberrant fractional percentage of that population.
@NotinsomeGodforesakenplace: #21
Does the study involve only civilians, or does it include police, military, and gang members too? All are known to carry guns. Whenever a study is done, I want to know several things:
(1) Who paid for it?
(2) If a survey is involved, what were the EXACT questions?
(3) Who was involved in the study?
(4) What part of the country did the study involve?
Why are the safest cities the ones who allow their citizens to have guns? Why does the propaganda media keep telling us the exact opposite? Why do I feel safer in a town where most people own several guns? If enough liberals want guns banned in their sate, why don’t they petition THEIR state for it, instead of disarming all of us? Why can’t each state decide for themselves what THEIR gun laws will be?
Read the case last year of a case of SELF DEFENCE Two punks both brothers tried to rob a store one of them miserble young thugs even knocked the attended victim down and was kicking him around victim gets a gun and send both punks to the pearly gates
SPURWING PLOVER
WELCOME TO FLOPPING ACES,
I love those stories when the good guy win,
but there should be more of them.
bye
another story developing, 4 people have been shot
in a mortgage office,
what does it suggest?
well to me it suggest desperate times done
by OBAMA GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND ENTITLEMENTS,
some cannot make it and help their survival and family survival, they are proud, they have reach the end,
they try, they are asking to lower their mortgage maybe or
have been called on it,
the times are hard on some and despair is the next thing to come,
and OBAMA IS TO BLAME, FOR NOT HELPING AMERICANS
INSTEAD OF EGYPT WITH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS,
THAT’S WHAT IT TELL US,
predictions from sportmans on my side of the isle
look for the RAVENS TO BE SUPER ON THE 4RTH
AND TAKE THE GAME FROM THEN ON.
THE SPORMAN SAID THERE IS BILLIONS WAGERS ON THOSE GAMES,
so I thought maybe this is a good tip, for my friends here