“In a mass murder situation in progress, if you choose to peacefully resolve the situation yourself without the use of violence or calling the police, please let me know how that works out for you. The police will come and take photos of the bodies, call the Coroner and investigate the crime.” – Sheriff Brad Rodgers in ASK THE SHERIFF: Can violence be solved with more guns? [at goshennews.com]
Truth from a good guy with a gun.
Well done! I am so glad to start my week off reading about someone who agrees with me and can put their thoughts into a susinct manner to refute the constant barrage of idiocy and ignorance about those who carry.
God bless Indiana.
^^ What he said. ^^
Yet another Indiana Sheriff with a concrete grasp on reality.
Here is another example of an Indiana Sheriff who “gets it”:
That is one of my favorite pro -gun YouTube videos of all time. It even shows the guy at the end with a backpack full of revolvers doing the “New York” reload. It doesn’t matter the ammo capacity, only the intent of the shooter.
It also helps if the shooter has a little imagination/creativity.
What I noticed was all the shooters swapping mags with the last round in the pipe. Saves time, but is unrealistic unless you have an uncanny ability to count shots during a gunfight.
Shhhh! Don’t tell that to gun-grabbers!
Yes, I noticed that and had the same thought as well.
Of course the counter argument is simple: all an enterprising spree-killer has to do is carry a second or third semi-auto pistol and they don’t have to worry about changing magazines … just like the demonstration with revolvers.
True, but spree shootings aren’t typically gun fights, not initially, anyway. When I think gun fight, I think of two sides who don’t want to be there, who are shooting at each other, who both want to live and who usually encountered each other by chance (not always, but let’s say far more often than never).
Those are basically the opposite of a spree shooter, who decided to be there, chose the time and place, expects to die, expects to be the only shooter for the first several minutes, etc. These are resigned individuals, sometimes on calming drugs of whatever type. I think many of them could count their rounds in advance of a mag change, especially if that were specifically a requirement of their plan.
Then again, there are so many variables that it’s difficult if not impossible to say precisely what would happen any given time. It’s clear to me, at least, that magazine size limits aren’t going to make any difference overall. It’s possible to tackle someone changing mags, but it’s possible for them to keep their distance or have another gun, too.
Does counting or not counting rounds have anything to do with the demonstration? Even if a spree shooter fires to slide lock, the time between changes is not going to lengthen just because the mags weren’t changed with one round left in the chamber. Where this video is effective is facing gun haters with the fact that just because they cannot manage a quick mag change does not mean every spree shooter will have the same or any measure of delay. When talking or writing, all these lefties live in their own world, aware of their own fears and inabilities, projecting both onto every other human. The mag change video video can at first be laughed-off as being a demonstration by professionals. But the introduction on a relatively unskilled shooter changes the game. We should be non-stop emailing/twiting the video via every contact tool we have.
I have a friend who keeps looking for tracer ammo so he can load one as the second-to-last in all his magazines. His thinking is, “You see the tracer go downrange, you change magazines.” Wait, I said a friend, right? Yeah, a friend… not me. Definitely not me.
And he’s not bedazzled with bangles.
I’m thinking I like this guy.
‘If you are in the midst of a mass murder situation, and you believe the situation should be handled without violence, and you call 911, you are calling the force of government to protect you from the murderer.’
If you don’t approve of the individual right to carry a firearm and yet you’d have no problem with calling 911 in a criminal emergency, you are a hypocrite. What difference does it make if you defend yourself with violence or you employ others to commit acts of violence for you?
The antis don’t get that, though. Not at all.
Calling 911 to fix a crime problem is just like calling a plumber to fix a plumbing problem. It’s just another way of outsourcing to achieve the same end result. Some non-professional people have more plumbing skills and tools and are prepared to solve complex plumbing problems on their own. Similarly some non-professionals have more skills and tools and are prepared to solve more complex crime problems without immediately calling for assistance.
Many people just couldn’t imagine owning a pipe wrench and don’t see how it would benefit them. I wonder if there is a big overlap with people who couldn’t imagine anyone owning a firearm.
You might be on to something. However I doubt you’d find very many people morally opposed to DIY plumbing and demanding laws to prevent it. That certainly describes the mindset of those who don’t oppose carry but would never own firearms themselves though.
As someone who has moved WAY too many times in the last 5 years I’d be willing to put aside my love for freedom to consider anti DIY plumbing laws.
Water flows DOWNhill, people.
@piersonb, I take it you’ve encountered the inevitable drainpipe-that-slopes-up scenario. I’ve had to fix one in just about every place I’ve lived (exceptions being apartments with professional maintenance). Every house that’s more than about 10 years old or has had more than two owners/occupants seems to have one of those hidden somewhere.
You are overlooking an important distinction in the eyes of gun-grabbers:
(1) It is somehow morally wrong if a plebe uses violent force to defend innocent life.
(2) It is somehow morally right if a government agents uses violent force.
Note that I left off the words “to defend innocent life” at the end of sentence number (2). The reason is simple: gun-grabbers worship the state. By definition the state can literally do no wrong in their eyes. And, since firearms owners are a threat to the state in the eyes of gun grabbers, it is perfectly okay if state agents use violent force against firearms owners for any reason or no reason.
That is why gun-grabbers are on board with state agents doling out violence … and why they oppose plebes doling out violence even in defense of innocent life.
Not really overlooking the statism, hypocrisy is hypocrisy regardless. Supporting state sponsored violence while opposing individual violence, regardless of the necessity for violence is still hypocrisy. It also requires suspension of belief in reality to believe the state has the power to disarm criminals.
Of course the state can do no wrong now, but that wasn’t the case 8 years ago. If there’s a guy in office with an (R) by his name the state can do no right. This is the folly of statism. Even if you are lucky enough to enjoy the reign of an enlightened despot, he will someday be replaced by a not so enlightened one.
The lack of common sense of some people is almost incomprehensible to me…
I resemble that remark!
I’m always glad to have him as my sheriff.
This is the sort of “message” that needs airing through as many public outlets as possible, preferably by well-known organizations supporting gun rights. Slam the media outlets with the article. An internet search turns up only a couple of references to an interview with Fox News (I presume the national, rather than local), but no other name-brand news organizations. The linked article here should not just be circulated amongst ourselves on blogs and at pro-gun rallies and confabs.
Please suggest how to get widespread coverage in the
state propaganda machinemainstream and liberal media.
(Note: no snark implied … this is a fundamental hurdle for which no one seems to have the answer, including myself.)
In the era of 24hr news, fodder is needed to keep people watching commercials. The interweb and its offspring are not owned by liberal media tycoons. Major industry and gun rights support groups have media consultants, but appear to be more interested in legislation, rather than overwhelming the other side with positive stories, ads, submissions, examples. A gun owner who has a facebook, twitter or instagram who is not constantly spreading the good news is actually helping the gun-grabbers. When moms and assorted lefties were/are demonstrating in front of grocery stores and restaurants, where were the pro-gun advocates? Smug in the warmth of their own righteousness? We miss great opportunities. News people will always publicize a protest, especially if there are two camps of protesters. Point is, gun owners are ceding the information war to the anti-gun gangs.
Glad he’s a Hoosier.
Read the linked piece. This Sheriff is talking good sense. We ought not to carry HOPING for an opportunity to deploy the firearm, but against the situation where deploying the firearm is the avenue of last resort to save lives, including our own. Even so, when the Cops arrive you might not want to be the first person they see with gun in hand.
For a second I thought that hat had no brim.
The police will come and take photos of the bodies, call the Coroner and investigate the crime.” I love GFZs.
What’s the difference between a pacifist and a coward?
Physical courage does not just take the form of combat; firemen demonstrate this daily.