No one needs assault weapons. Why do you need an AR-15? Only criminals need these high-powered assault guns designed to kill a lot of people very quickly!
That’s what gun grabbers will tell you. As arbiters of what you need, they arrogantly remind you that this evil, high-powered assault gun, which you can spray fire indiscriminately and consequently kill multiple nuns and small children, should be banned, because no one needs it.
Three would-be robbers were shot and killed Monday when an Oklahoma homeowner’s son opened fire on them with an AR-15, authorities said.
Wagoner County sheriff’s deputies were called to the home in Broken Arrow, southeast of Tulsa at around 12:30 p.m. local time. When they arrived, they found the three dead suspects and two uninjured residents.
Mahoney said the suspects encountered the homeowner’s 19-year-old son, who opened fire after an exchange of words. Two of the suspects died in the home’s kitchen while a third was found in the driveway.
Subsequent updates to the story say the shooter was actually 23 years old, and the suspects were armed, with one wielding a knife, and another brass knuckles. To give the Washington Post credit, they did not hyperventilate over “assault” weapon use in this incident. They didn’t even mention the word. It’s nice to see.
Meantime, the Demented Mommies, Bloomberg, and other assorted gun-grabbing trash, I’m sure, are assiduously ignoring this story.
The owner of Dixie Gun and Pawn on Veterans Memorial Parkway in Cobb County, along with one other worker, had just opened the store when two men with ski masks and guns came in, according to investigators. Police say the owner pulled out his gun and fired, hitting one of the gunmen.
The second gunman took off in a silver Dodge Magnum and headed east down Veterans Memorial Parkway. Police are still searching for that man, and said they believe he is armed.
I wonder what kind of defective genetic material created two sub-moron cretins so stupid, they would try to rob an establishment in which the would-be victims are sure to be armed!
Someone so imbecilic, that I had to take time out from spending holiday time with family to point and laugh at the desiccated carcass of the glue-sniffing retard that was created when two idiots had drunken intercourse one night to spawn this nitwit!
DERP POTATO must have been strong with those two!
Good for the store owner! This is what I like to refer to as chlorinating the gene pool. Anyone who is stupid enough to attempt to rob a gun store, where they sell… you know… GUNS, and where the employees or owners are… you know… more than likely armed, because their establishment sells valuable merchandise that’s in high demand by savages who think they’re entitled to use violence to relieve others of their property, is much too stupid to be allowed to walk the streets without adult supervision, and probably would have throttled himself with his own shoelaces while trying to tie his shoes one fine morning in the not too distant future.
I wonder how long before the donors of the defective genetic material I mentioned above come forward and complain about how the gun store owner didn’t have to shoot their precious little boy!
In light of police shootings in the past couple of years and the resultant protests that have driven a gargantuan wedge between those who support police officers and those who believe police departments are inherently racist and disproportionately target minorities, I thought it would be relevant to publish this longer piece on police training.
As mentioned below, the author is a law enforcement and security expert. He understands training, stress situations, and security matters and approaches them from a realistic, educational perspective, rather than emotionalist rhetoric.
It’s something we should all consider.
Police shootings of innocent people aren’t necessarily the result of racism or a desire to kill black men. Stephen Didier presents another possibility and offers some possible solutions.
We would all do well to seriously consider his essay.
Law enforcement training and preparedness in the United States today is largely ineffective and irrelevant. This is due to its failure to adapt necessary training methodologies to address evolutionary changes both in technology and public expectations. However, there are effective solutions with accompanying practical policies that had been previously implemented on a national level, only later to be abandoned for political and fiscal ease. Such abandonment has turned out to be penny-wise and pound foolish in light of the increasing number of criminal and terrorist attacks on law enforcement and the concomitant fear such attacks create among the public at large. Before offering these solutions it is necessary to understand the complex social and human performance dynamics underlying this problem. It must also be noted that this article is not intended to be disrespectful of the courageous men and women who serve in blue. Rather, it is written to present realistic solutions to the problems they are facing both personally and professionally.
The rule of law and the peace officers entrusted with the responsibility to uphold it is the fabric of a safe and prosperous republic. Constitutional Republics like the United States, where a person’s private property rights and security supersede the wants of a government run by a communist despot or fanatical theocracy need virtuous men and women to keep the peace and uphold law and order. When selfless individuals volunteer to do so, society owes them leadership and consistent and fair rules. Moreover, it owes these officers the training, knowledge, skills, and equipment needed for the protection and betterment of society. These needs are not mutually exclusive from the needs of the people the officers serve. In fact, the better trained officers are, the less likely they are to infringe upon the rights of their fellow citizens.
The average junior high school ball player practices about four hundred (400) hours per year, and for the most part these players are mediocre: only their parents and fellow students come to watch the games. Sadly, most law enforcement agencies spend less than four (4) hours per year – after entry-level academies – training their personnel on the ethical, legal, and tactical dynamics of deadly force encounters.
The public expects officers to demonstrate professional ball player-level performance. This training-performance disconnect will not be solved by body cameras or more restrictive rules for the use of force. Rules are generally written by the tactically unknowing in response to political demands for deadly force encounters to unfold as they wish them to rather than how they truly do. This is another reason why judgment-based training is far superior to rules-based training. Rules-based training is a linear solution to a nonlinear problem.
Despite all the negative press, police officers in America have and continue to do an incredible, and often thankless job, protecting and promoting the societies and secure communities in which many of us live and work. They are the people who respond at 2:00 AM when something goes “bump in the night.” Moreover, the actual number of suspects who succumb to police officers’ use of deadly force is astoundingly low (Note: an increase in media coverage is almost certainly responsible for the perception that police shootings are at epidemic levels). Annually, in a nation of 330 million persons, police officers are assaulted at least 66,000 times. Of those assaults, at least 15,500 are committed with a dangerous and deadly weapon. (As discussed, below, this trend is getting worse). As a matter of law, if a suspect assaults a police officer with a deadly weapon, that officer can use deadly force in self-defense. Yet, despite these numbers, police officers only kill approximately 600 suspects per year nationwide: about the same number of murder victims in Chicago in that same timeframe. So, this notion – repeated time and again by woefully or willfully ignorant members of the press – that police are on a rampant killing spree is a nothing less than a lie.
Nonetheless, as communities grow and evolve, whether due to population increases, changing political and cultural norms, values, criminal activity, etc., so must the police. Since the 1960’s, there have been innumerable police reform initiatives in America, with several recent efforts driven by both political and social demand. Given the broad responsibilities of the police, and often-limited resources, police leaders continually develop policies to prioritize and focus their activities. Unfortunately for the individual police officer, most of the evolution and changes occur within the realm of administration, policing programs, enforcement initiatives, law changes and service orientations, and not in the individual officer’s physiological and psychological ability to be effective against the ensuing increase of personal attacks or terrorist threats against them or the public.
Dear Chip –
As an Army veteran, a mother, and a Second Amendment rights advocate I feel a “tremendous responsibility” to address your November 30th letter to your customers in which you “respectfully ask people not to bring firearms into our stores.”
My husband and I will, of course, respect your wishes and never enter any of your stores again. If you don’t value our business (nor our safety concerns about having to leave our defensive tools at home, or worse – in our cars without positive control) enough to keep your politics away from your company, we will certainly oblige by keeping our business away from you and your products.
To be sure, you have every right to make this request. The stores are Levi’s property. I fully understand that, and I accept your choice to only do business with disarmed potential victims. That’s fine. Your property rights are as important as my right to defend myself, so I will abide by your request and never take my gun into your stores again.
But I do want to address some of your claims, so bear with me.
You claim to be a former Army officer and a father. I’m sure, if you have ever deployed to a war zone (probably not, judging by your dates of service), you remember that your firearm has kept you safe in some pretty hazardous situations. That’s why it is interesting to me that as someone who has served his country, you have so little understanding about the safety and security carrying an effective tool of self defense can provide. Actually, maybe it’s not interesting… given that you even fail to capitalize the word, “Army” in your open letter (out of respect, if nothing else), tells me a lot about what you thought of your military service. Four and a half years in the military from 1979 to 1983 should have given you some perspective, but I guess not.
I’m also puzzled that as a father, you prefer to see customers cowering and parents trying desperately to shield their children from those who will undoubtedly ignore your respectful request, rather than armed citizens who are accountable for their own safety and the safety of those around them and are willing to take responsibility for said safety.
You describe how impacted you were by the attacks in Nice, Paris, and Orlando, and yet, you fail to mention that France has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world, which somehow failed to stop the attacks there, and that the Orlando shooting took place despite the Florida state law that prohibits carrying concealed firearms into an establishment that serves alcohol. This tells me you’re either acting from a place of emotional hysteria, or you intentionally ignore the facts in your effort to genuflect in front of unhinged cowards, whose petty little feelings of dread at seeing a regular citizen carrying a self defense tool are more important to you than the actual safety of your customers.
“It boils down to this,” you claim, “you shouldn’t have to be concerned about your safety while shopping for clothes or trying on a pair of jeans. Simply put, firearms don’t belong in either of those settings. In the end, I believe we have an obligation to our employees and customers to ensure a safe environment and keeping firearms out of our stores and offices will get us one step closer to achieving that reality.”
I agree with you, Chip. You shouldn’t have to be concerned about your safety while shopping, which is why neither my family nor I will ever shop in a Levi Strauss & Company store again. Rather, we will spend our hard-earned money in an establishment that respects our right to defend ourselves, rather than bowing to cowards who soil themselves at the sight of a tool.