According to headlines in various blogs and news sites, such as Politico, Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, Jr. in a PSA for his community told citizens “Skip 911, defend yourselves”.  The Politico article further quotes Sheriff Clarke as saying that “in some cases, calling the police would be of no use”.  The reaction is one of shock and scandalized surprise, including that of the Mayor, but is that what Sheriff Clarke was really saying?

While the mayor’s reaction appears to be motivated by concern over his city’s reputation, some of the other reactions are less understandable.  When listening to the entire PSA, Sheriff Clarke message is more along the lines of encouraging citizens to be proactive and prepared in cases of sudden violence, such as armed robberies or a car-jacking in light of lengthier response times, along with recommendations on how best to achieve being prepared.

Some accuse the Sheriff of playing political hardball over budgeting issues, however, he addresses the issue in subsequent interviews stating that the cuts have gone on for several years without such PSA’s being produced.  According to the interview, his primary concern was for the citizens he was responsible for and he was seeking creative solutions to help extend the law enforcement dollars he has to work with.  One of his best quotes was: “personal safety is not a spectator sport.”  In short, he was working to establish cooperative partnerships with citizens to help themselves until law enforcement could arrive.

He is reminding citizens of an important fact that has gotten lost by the wayside.  No matter how many officers are on the street, each citizen is legally, practically and morally responsible for their own safety and wellbeing until law enforcement can arrive.  In much the same respect, people are not shocked or dismayed by a doctor announcing that if patients do not eat right, exercise, sleep and stay away from drugs and alcohol, any treatments they offer will not be effective.  Nor would people be scandalized by a mechanic reminding them to check the fluid levels and tire pressure in their vehicles to ensure it functions correctly.

A fundamental truth in any society, no matter how many government services are offered ostensibly to “protect” its citizens, there simply is no substitute for attending to our own welfare. We really do have to look before crossing a street.  Yes, pedestrians usually have the right of way, but that is small comfort if in failing to look or yield to a ton of metal and fiberglass not following “the rules”, we are smeared across the asphalt. The common response here is “I’ll just sue them,” does nothing to repair sometimes permanent catastrophic injuries suffered as a result.  In the same way, expecting to live one’s life oblivious or willfully ignoring the potential of being victimized doesn’t make that threat just go away.

It is troubling to watch the extent to which so many people are abdicating their responsibility to take basic steps for their own safety.  Cars are now being designed with “accident prevention” systems while drivers blithely drive distracted by cell phones, texting, putting on makeup or shaving, among other, frankly stupid behavior behind the wheel.  More than one person has given themselves a trip to the emergency room for walking and texting themselves into poles or down into stairwells or off ledges.  What is worse is that some do not learn from the experience.

Some of the folks complaining about Sherriff Clarke’s PSA are those who are sanctimonious about “those people” carrying guns being part of the problem.  In fact, those who so proudly eschew guns and violence are often the same people that fail to take basic steps to ensure their own safety.  They complain about law enforcement failing to keep them from being victimized or being too heavy handed, complain about others who concealed carry for being vigilantes or cop “wannabee’s”. Throughout all this complaining, they are nowhere to be found to attend safety or preparedness seminars, participate in neighborhood watch programs or even something so simple as putting phones and other devices away before driving.

Law enforcement has always and always will be a partnership and cooperative effort between the officers and citizens.  How well that partnership works depends on the participation and cooperation between the partners.  Sheriff Clarke, instead of being disparaged, should be commended for reminding his constituents of their duty and his efforts to support his citizens to achieve success in their endeavors. Law enforcement empowering their citizens to be active participants in securing their community ensures greater support for the department overall and leads to a far safer community than expecting law enforcement to deal with the aftermath of irresponsible behavior, rather than attending to apprehending the truly criminal element in society.

Milwaukee has an eminently practical, prudent and straightforward Sheriff in David Clarke Jr.  It is my hope that his citizens will take his excellent advice and partner with him to deal with the challenges that every city and county has of particular bad neighborhoods and pockets of criminal activity.  With his leadership, rather than abandoning them, Milwaukee citizens have a great opportunity to be empowered and partner with Sheriff Clarke to build a safer, more successful community together.

For more information on this article:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/sheriff-david-clarke-jr-skip-911-defend-yourself-86801.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-8TCx-sM1vw

Juli Adcock began her career in law enforcement with the Escambia County Florida Sheriff’s Office as a patrol deputy until she was injured in a riot situation. She transferred to Judicial Security and retired in 1998. Juli pursued career advancement training with an emphasis on officer survival, interviews and interrogation. She worked with a local Rape Crisis Center and in victim’s advocacy, complementing her college course work in psychology. She currently resides in New Mexico and is an instructor with The Appleseed Project (www.appleseedinfo.com). The Appleseed Project is a rifle marksmanship clinic teaching the fundamentals of firing an accurate round downrange every 3 to 4 seconds, out to 500 yards, as well as American history. She has trained military personnel at White Sands Missile Range who are certifying as Squad Designated Marksmen. Juli instructs basic handgun skills to new gun owners in preparation for responsible personal gun ownership. She also writes for The Badge Guys (www.thebadgeguys.com).  She can be reached at juliadcock222@msn.com or through Law Enforcement Today

In an article titled “Reasonable Solutions Needed to End Gun Violence in America” the author Doug Gyllenskog asks what is unreasonable about banning guns that shoot a hundred rounds “rat-tat-tat” and limiting “clips” to 10 rounds.  The newspaper, “The Statesman Journal”, out of Oregon, is interestingly enough owned by Gannet Company, the same parent company of the New York Journal News, as well as a whole host of other publications, TV stations and radio stations.

As a refresher, the New York Journal News is the same one that released the names and addresses of registered handgun owners in several counties.  Try as I might, I could not find one letter to the editor in the Statesman Journal, in support of the Second Amendment, although I did find one letter bemoaning the fact that 65.9 percent of those responding to a poll done by the paper asking whether to ban “assault” rifles felt that no ban should be instituted, in Oregon, no less.

In a predictable routine, the media, in support of gun control, ramps up dramatic headlines and dusts off statistics to show the horrors that happen if a gun is in the hands of private citizens.  If the only information available were from the media, we could expect to be gunned down any moment by one of “those people”, you know, the ones who, gasp, like guns.

In particularly obtuse hypocrisy, the reporter writing the article releasing the names and addresses of gun owners, the Hollywood anti-gun elite, people like Mayor Bloomberg either have their own guns or an entourage of armed security surrounding them everywhere they go to instantly handle any potential attacker.  For the rest of America, well, we’re supposed to wait until law enforcement arrives and in spite of best efforts, often too late to prevent violence.

When Doug Gyllenskog asks the question what is unreasonable about banning particular guns or the number of rounds a particular gun can hold, he is in essence saying that government has supreme authority over the “rights” that Americans are supposed to be born with.

What he, and others like him, fail to understand is that when government can decide the limits of the Bill of Rights, the quintessential birthright of Americans and freedom- loving people everywhere, the nature of government will do all in its power to destroy those rights.  He, like so many others, has not learned from history, nor has he the foresight to understand the impact of incremental loss of liberty.  He has always lived in a free society and cannot comprehend that it wouldn’t always be that way.

Anti-gun people and those who are neutral and don’t see the big deal, ask what is so unreasonable about controlling “gun violence” miss two parts of an important equation.  The victims of violent death do not care what killed them, nor does any particular form of violence make it easier for the remaining family members to deal with the death of their loved one.  The second part of the equation is that governments have murdered far more of their own citizens than all of the mass shooters combined and the way they were able to do it was disarming their citizens.

India has a culture that abhors violence, even to the point that the police and military had a difficult time recruiting, equipping, and training their personnel.  That did not serve India well during the Mumbai massacre which struck at the heart of that nation.  They are learning the hard lesson that even as peaceful as they want to live, it did not protect them from those who did not share their aversion to harming others.

The survivors have come face to face with the fact that though their government was supposed to protect them, it simply couldn’t.  Unfortunately, very few of the measures to improve training and equipment for their police and military have been put into place.  More bloody lessons will have to occur before citizens learn this harsh truth.

At the surface, Mr. Gyllenskog, naïve as he is, is not the problem.  He doesn’t appear to be anything other than a citizen expressing a soft- hearted, go along to get along opinion.  There will always be people who are incapable of understanding the nature of violence.  The battle over every inch of the gun debate does not lie with these people, in fact, many of us serve in law enforcement, specifically to protect those who cannot or will not protect themselves.

The true battle over “gun rights” is with government officials like Mayor Bloomberg and others, regardless of political party, who have taken the reins of power as their own, rather than as a public servant truly serving the people he was elected to represent.  Instead, they gather power to themselves and enforce their will on every aspect of the lives they have gotten control over.  When these are the stakes, of living free or losing that freedom, the reasonableness of restrictions changes and lead us back to the question the founders looked at over 200 years ago.

Has human nature changed?  When a government official imputes the authority upon him to regulate every aspect of behavior, right down to what is eaten or how much of a soft drink a person can consume, where does it stop?  Could he decide that he is now elected for life, therefore no more elections would be held?  We can see from various court decisions throughout American history that the judicial branch cannot always be relied upon to preserve our God given rights nor does it have the means to deal with an out of control tyrant with an armed force under his authority.

To live in a free society, there are risks to deal with and the Second Amendment is part of the answer.  It is not, nor was it intended to be the first answer.  It is not a threat by law abiding citizens, but an insurance policy to be utilized when all other means have failed. Dealing with the violence from law breakers is a worthy conversation when it leads to realistic solutions.  Depriving those already obeying laws the means and the right to defend themselves, even in small increments violates the entire premise our government was founded upon, that of protecting the rights of individual citizens in their lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness, which includes the Second Amendment.

Interestingly enough, the genesis of the renewed gun ban conversation that of preventing school shootings, already has a solution that required no new laws, no gun bans or restrictions, that of vigilance and community participation.  The Second Amendment is the last resort when our best effort to prevent violence has failed and should be protected for that reason.

For more information on this article:

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20121231/OPINION/312310023/Reasonable-solutions-needed-end-gun-violence-America

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20121222/OPINION/312220036/Response-gun-control-poll-appalling?odyssey=obinsite

http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico/albuquerque/Reported-school-shooting-threat-foiled/-/9153728/17221250/-/item/1/-/143ql1h/-/index.html

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/234245/158/Teen-Planned-Potential-Violent-Incident-At-Laurel-High-School-

http://www.policemag.com/blog/swat/story/2012/11/remembering-mumbai.aspx

Juli Adcock began her career in law enforcement with the Escambia County Florida Sheriff’s Office as a patrol deputy until she was injured in a riot situation. She transferred to Judicial Security and retired in 1998. Juli pursued career advancement training with an emphasis on officer survival, interviews and interrogation. She worked with a local Rape Crisis Center and in victim’s advocacy, complementing her college course work in psychology. She currently resides in New Mexico and is an instructor with The Appleseed Project (www.appleseedinfo.com). The Appleseed Project is a rifle marksmanship clinic teaching the fundamentals of firing an accurate round downrange every 3 to 4 seconds, out to 500 yards, as well as American history. She has trained military personnel at White Sands Missile Range who are certifying as Squad Designated Marksmen. Juli instructs basic handgun skills to new gun owners in preparation for responsible personal gun ownership. She also writes for The Badge Guys (www.thebadgeguys.com).  She can be reached at juliadcock222@msn.com or through Law Enforcement Today.

The Boston Globe is well known for its liberal viewpoint.  Capitalizing on recent active shooter incidents, they used the most recent Empire State Building shooting as a springboard for a gun control argument in an editorial.

In essence, the Globe took those shootings and built a “straw man”.  In classical debate, the straw man is a logical fallacy or false argument.  Purdue University explains it this way, “Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent’s viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.”  You see, when I was in high school, I learned some things about debate.  There wasn’t much else to do back in Western Nebraska, so I “got my geek on.”

The Globe created a straw man argument by stating, “Still, the incident, in which innocent bystanders were also shot, raises questions about whether police were too quick to assume a broader terror plot was underway.”  The implication here is that NYPD screwed up.  I do not know anyone on the Boston Globe’s editorial staff, but since no credentials of use-of-force training were offered, so I am going out on a limb here and assume that the writer doesn’t know a muzzle from a breech.

The other straw man is the gun-rights advocate.  The Globe’s assumption is that since police acted poorly (not established as fact), it follows that armed citizens would act in a similar manner by getting “into the mix.”  This is known as a non sequitur, Latin for “It does not follow.”  Just because LEOs run toward a shooter to neutralize the threat, it does not follow that citizens who arm themselves for protection will react the same way.  One is armed to protect others; the other is armed to protect him or herself.

There is one hypothetically armed citizen that the Globe fails to consider… Steven Ercolino, the victim.  There was a long history between the shooter (Jeffrey Johnson) and victim.  Both had filed restraining orders against each other.  Police had been called many times.  What made the difference?  Two things:  restraining orders are not printed on Kevlar and only Johnson was armed.  The restraining order was just as ineffective as having a law against murder.  Had the victim been armed, Mr. Ercolino might have died anyway (a pistol is not a magic talisman) but he would have had at least a fighting chance.

Another theme I noticed in the Glove’s op-ed is very familiar.  Someone (who presumes to know better than the unwashed masses) decides that people are incompetent to make decisions for their selves.  The people cannot be trusted with such power.  Accordingly, some of their freedoms must be taken away.  It’s for their own good after all.

There is a problem with this viewpoint; one has to rewrite our history, our Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution to buy into it.  The reason is that rights come from the Creator; power flows from the people to the state – not the other way around.  These self-evident truths exist whether or not government or the fourth estate likes them.

Ultimately, Boston Globe’s straw man argument makes even less sense than Oz’s Scarecrow.  At least Scarecrow made no pretensions of having superior intellect…

I would not be just a nuffin’

My head all full of stuffin’

My heart all full of pain

I would dance and be merry

Life would be a ding-a-derry

If I only had a brain

Bruce Bremer, MBA is LET’s technology contributor. Bruce retired from the Submarine Service after 21 years of in-depth experience with complex electronic technology. Since then, he has been involved in fleet modernization and military research analysis. He teaches electronics and alternative energy at a Virginia college. Besides his MBA, Bruce earned a Bachelor of Science degree in computer networking. He has been volunteering in public safety for many years.

Learn more about this article here:

http://articles.boston.com/2012-08-31/editorials/33503371_1_gun-violence-police-officers-gun-lobby

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/

“When seconds can mean the difference between life and death, the police are only minutes away.”  That is the rationale behind citizen gun ownership.  This is no measure of disrespect to law enforcement.  Rather, it is the stark reality of violent crime, criminals, and victims.  As good as you are as a LEO, you cannot be everywhere at all times.  It is natural that a good segment of the population will want to have the means to defend themselves from attack.

For years, two U.S. cities have exercised the most stringent gun control laws in the country.  Washington D.C. and Chicago have enforced laws making it almost impossible for ordinary citizens to own a handgun for self-defense.  Twice, the Supreme Court decided on the issue and twice the court found in favor of the citizen.  First was District of Columbia v. Heller in 2009.  It was followed by the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision.  You might think that the issue would have been settled since then… right?  Wrong.

Fox News reported on the issue recently.  The story chronicled the difficulty that Emily Miller, a crime victim and senior opinion editor of the Washington Times, experienced after the 2009 D.C. ruling when she attempted to legally purchase a handgun.  Yes, it is lawful to purchase a handgun… but there’s a catch… there are no licensed gun dealers in Washington D.C.  Miller had to buy her handgun out of state… but there’s a catch… there is only one person alive who is authorized to transport the handgun into the district… but there’s a catch… it costs $125 to exercise your right.  Well, a senior editor at the Washington Times might be able to do that without a problem, but many other crime victims aren’t so flush with cash.

So she purchased her handgun and arranged for transport.  Good to go, right?  Wrong… there’s a catch.  Miller didn’t count on the multiple trips to the police department to register her handgun.  Check.  OK, we’re good to go… but there’s a catch… you have to submit your handgun for ballistics testing.  The district wants to fingerprint your firearm… but there’s a catch… first, they have to fingerprint YOU (separate trip).

Great!  All that’s done… but there’s a catch… Emily must have approved firearm training by a licensed firearms instructor… but there’s a catch… there are no licensed firearms instructors in Washington D.C.

Finally, after all of the above gyrations, Emily Miller, victim of violent crime, was able to arm herself and exercise her 2^nd Amendment rights.  But there’s a catch… it cost nearly $500 above and beyond the cost of the firearm itself.  For the same $1,200 Emily spent in the long process, your average D.C. gang-banger can pick up three handguns in about a half an hour… most often stolen from law-abiding citizens… like Emily.

If this all sounds familiar, you may be reminded of this famous scene from the movie, “Catch 22.”  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln81Y87DHQA

Bruce Bremer, MBA is LET’s technology contributor. Bruce retired from the Submarine Service after 21 years of in-depth experience with complex electronic technology. Since then, he has been involved in fleet modernization and military research analysis. He teaches electronics and alternative energy at a Virginia college. Besides his MBA, Bruce earned a Bachelor of Science degree in computer networking. He has been volunteering in public safety for many years.

Learn more about this article here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/23/gun-ownership-very-difficult-despite-supreme-court-rulings/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29#ixzz1nJAgUVCw

A bill pending before the Virginia legislature (H.B. 2069) seeks to amend existing law that would effectively change the state from “shall issue” to “unrestricted” concealed carry of a loaded handgun.  Concealed handguns are unrestricted when state law does not require a license or permit; shall-issue is a form of concealed carry permit or license.  Currently, there are three unrestricted states, Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont.  Vermont is unique because, unlike Alaska and Arizona, there is no provision for anyone to obtain a permit/license for reciprocity in other states.  These states rely on existing laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by convicted felons and those convicted of domestic violence (i.e. the Lautenberg Amendment).

Currently, a Virginia CCW holder does not have a legal requirement to notify an officer that he or she is carrying a weapon upon being detained.  However, Virginia State Police maintains a database of all valid CCW permits and ties this information to the vehicle license plate and driver’s license for use by an officer calling in this information.  A prudent citizen would not rely on this system, but inform the officer immediately.  However, such is not a requirement under current law.

The division among the general public on the subject is well known for quite some time.  Gun-control advocates such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (BCPGV) and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) oppose citizen concealed carry, insisting that it leads to increased violence.

The Virginia Citizens’ Defense League (VCDL) is a pro-second amendment organization instrumental in changing Virginia law from “may-issue” to “shall-issue”, placing the onus on the government to prove a lawful reason that a citizen may not carry a concealed firearm (shall-issue).  Previously, a citizen was required to demonstrate his or her suitability to carry (may-issue).  Regarding H.B. 2069, VCDL is neutral, but would heavily support the change if the requirement that a Virginia resident carrying a handgun immediately inform an officer “as soon as practicable” when approached was removed.  Really?

I have a long affiliation with firearms and have held a Virginia CCW for 12 years.  I frequently exercise it.  There have been only a few occasions in which I felt the need to expose my weapon to prevent a situation from “getting out of hand”, but the only time I “cleared leather” was when a neighbor’s pit-bull charge me (last I checked, Ole Blue is still with the living).  On the other hand, I have loved-ones in law enforcement.  I can wait to spout-off on the second amendment after they get back to the cop shop in one piece.  Far too many haven’t been so lucky.

I believe VCDL is wrong in this instance, but not because they believe in unrestricted carry.  Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont have nothing on Detroit, Washington D.C., and Chicago when it comes to firearm violence.  My point is that I WANT an officer to hear it from me that I have a .40 S&W on my 3 o’clock rather than finding it out by himself.  It should be a legal requirement to identify oneself as a CCW holder when approached by a LEO.  It’s just safer, better, and more gentlemanly to leave surprises for birthdays and Christmas/Hannukah.

Photo Taken at Campbell Ohio Open Carry Protest 2010

Learn more about this article here:

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/01/gun-issues-highlighted-general-assembly

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?111+sum+HB2069

http://www.vcdl.org/static/2011leg.html