Quote of the Day: Placing Blame Edition Gun Control by Dan Zimmerman | Aug 03, 2013 | 92 comments facebook twitter linkedin email “If fewer civilians carried weapons, police might be less trigger happy.” – David Frum via twitchy.com comments Michael nieto says: August 3, 2013 at 07:05 What absolute bs fascist crap its non leos fault when a cop shoots an innocent. That makes as much sense as we must pass the bill to see what is in it. Reply Nine says: August 3, 2013 at 07:07 Why don’t police just carry fewer weapons? Reply Totenglocke says: August 3, 2013 at 07:33 Exactly. Not only do the numbers show that non-LEO’s shoot more bad guys, but they do it with far fewer innocent people being shot. Society would be better off if guns were reserved for only the situations that truly call for it. Not to mention cops would be nicer if they didn’t have the gun to make them feel tough – a cop without a gun issuing traffic tickets would most likely be a lot friendlier than the typical jerk who walks up with his hand on his gun after pulling over a soccer mom in a minivan. Reply Shire-man says: August 3, 2013 at 08:32 Makes sense. Cops use the excuse that they are in an arms race of sorts with criminals. Well, if each side keeps getting bigger guns because of the other sides bigger guns then shouldnt the cops do the responsible thing to protect and serve and tool down. If we are supposed buy their load of BS then the criminals would tool down in kind, right? Reply Blue says: August 3, 2013 at 10:30 Pinning on the badge and strapping on the gun belt is a privilege, not a right nor a requirement. If they don’t have the disposition, ethics and nerve, they should get a job elsewhere. Reply Byte Stryke says: August 3, 2013 at 07:09 by that logic, if we had fewer laws, there would be fewer criminals! Frum is an idiot Reply Mad Max says: August 3, 2013 at 07:54 Ayn Rand would agree with that logic. Reply Cliff H says: August 3, 2013 at 10:46 Ayn Rand believed whole heartedly in logic and realism and the liberty of each individual to look after his own interests and the State can FOAD. (See “Atlas Shrugged”.) Since Frum’s statement, and yours, contain none of these I doubt she would want any part of them. Reply Bret says: August 3, 2013 at 07:58 In a sense that’s true, but mainly due to excessive criminalization of non violent and non theft related activities Reply don says: August 3, 2013 at 08:32 If fewer of his criminal friends weren’t elected politicians we’d have a better country. Reply Matt in FL says: August 3, 2013 at 09:55 In a literal sense, that’s true. You can’t be guilty of a crime that isn’t a crime. Lots of malum prohibitum laws could go away. Reply Blue says: August 3, 2013 at 10:32 He looks nuts. Reply William Burke says: August 3, 2013 at 16:09 Fewer laws means fewer laws to break. You just pointed out something to yourself, without ever realizing it! You should pay more attention to yourself! Reply Bastiat says: August 3, 2013 at 07:18 Said the main champion of the Iraq War. How did that one work out for us, David? Guys like this should be sentenced to a lifetime of changing catheter bags at Walter Reed for the harm that they have done. Reply neiowa says: August 3, 2013 at 09:48 Was working out moderately well once we got serious. The elected Obuma who announced he was going to surrender. Then did. Reply Matt in FL says: August 3, 2013 at 10:16 Sure, it was working out well, except that we didn’t really need to go in the first place, we did so under false pretenses, we had a nebulous and undefined endgame, the long-term stability of the region was dependent our perpetual continued presence, and our people were still there, and dying, for no better reason than nobody wanted to see what would happen if we pulled out. Sure, Obama “surrendered.” He surrendered to the unavoidable forces of chaos in that region. If you put me in his chair and asked me to choose between the continued deaths of our people for no tangible or articulable reason, or allowing a bunch of ragheads on the other side of the planet to continue killing each other as they have for over a thousand years, I’d make the same choice. Hell, I’d fly the plane over to bring them home. Reply Bastiat says: August 3, 2013 at 10:57 Al Malaki refused to sign a SOFA because the Iraq War Logs were too embarrassing to make it politically possible. Obama wanted to stay but couldn’t negotiate it. And the war was a fVcking catastrophe. Remember when the geniuses that dreamed it up said that it was going to pay for itself, (war for free)? Remember when they said that we had to go in to nab us some WMDs? Remember when they said that it would be easy? Clowns like this Frum character are what is most wrong with America. JusBill says: August 3, 2013 at 14:32 Um, I think the vast oceans of cash the “defense” contractors are raking in (and contributing to election campaigns) had something top do with the situation too… William Burke says: August 3, 2013 at 16:10 You have a new name: Obedient Hard Charger. Reply Roadrunner says: August 4, 2013 at 09:20 Well, there was that 9/11 thing, preceded by Iraqi involvement in the first WTC attack; Iraqi involvement in attacks on our embassies in Africa during the 1990s; the 550 metric tons of you-know-what that were quietly flown out of Iraq after the war in C-17s. Flawlessly executed? No. But not pointless. Reply tdiinva says: August 3, 2013 at 07:22 I know a few police officers who think that the more armed citizens the easier their job is. We take the first hit and if successful they just do a little paperwork. Reply Bob2 says: August 3, 2013 at 07:32 Really! Being a former military LEO, I can say his statement is absolute BS. Trigger happy civilian police is all about bad training. It used to be that police were trained only to fire the minimum number of rounds to take out a shooter. Today, they are trained to empty their high capacity magazines, reload, and repeat. Today, civilian police officers are taught to shoot when one of their other officers shoot regardless if they know why or at what. Today, police officers in some departments are taught to use deadly force merely because someone has a firearm in their possession regardless if the suspect is in a position to shoot. Law Enforcement has changed a lot since my time several decades ago. They claim that is because criminals have become more violent, but I do not see that at all. I should note that all police departments are different to one degree or another, and I have heard that some police departments, mostly small town departments, have come to their senses by changing their training. Reply tdiinva says: August 3, 2013 at 07:52 You also leave out another important factor — accountability. An MP who shoots the wrong person goes to jail. A civilian LEO gets a medal. Reply Bob2 says: August 3, 2013 at 08:37 I did leave that out, and I agree. I think I could write a fairly large book on this subject. Courts used to hold civilian police more accountable several decades ago. I remember reading an article once back then that police department refused to arm up with MP5s because the courts might declare its use as excessive force. I might add that in the military, we were always surrounded by law abiding armed people, and guess what, it was okay. Reply William Burke says: August 3, 2013 at 16:12 It all starts with the “us vs the world” mentality. Cops are not soldiers, and soldiers are not good by default. Cops need to wise the F up. After they’re used to tame and subdue us, they’re next. Ardent says: August 3, 2013 at 08:03 You’re absolutely onto something Bob. It’s entirely a training problem. Cops need to be a little more concerned about harming the innocent than they are about making the bust. In the hierarchy it should be ‘protect the innocent’ ‘protect one’s self’ ‘get the lawbreaker’ Too often these days we see over eager cops forget both 1 & 2 and go straight to what they think is 3. Reply Jay W. says: August 3, 2013 at 08:50 Also, one of the gun grabbers’ main reasons for disarming civilians is that the LEO-civilians (i.e. police) are better trained than non-LEO civilians and therefore are less likely to shoot a bystander. So, Frum is essentially saying that even though the LEO-civilians’ training is still inadequate or the LEO-civilians are incapable of not being “trigger happy” after training, let’s disarm the non-LEO civilians anyway, the 2nd Amendment be damned and let’s ignore too, that the courts’ have also ruled that the LEO-civilians are not legally obligated to respond to a non-LEO civilians’ 911 call. Clearly he has not envisioned himself in such a situation where he needs help and the LEO-civilians can’t rescue him in the nano-second that he mistakenly believes they will be there, but has only envisioned what he believes he needs to say to get re-elected. Reply stateievil says: August 3, 2013 at 07:39 Wow, what a dumb man. Reply Gov. William J. Le Petomane says: August 3, 2013 at 07:50 If cops weren’t so trigger happy fewer citizen might feel compelled to arm themselves. Reply Totenglocke says: August 3, 2013 at 07:53 If cops weren’t so trigger happy, every year hundreds of innocent people wouldn’t be murdered. Reply Davis Thompson says: August 3, 2013 at 07:53 Weird how overwhelming percentages of cops favor civilian carry. Maybe they like being trigger happy. Or maybe Frum is a moron. Reply Damocles says: August 3, 2013 at 09:39 Frum has a long history of pretending to be some sort of conservative, but he is simply a useful idiot to the civilian disarmament machine. And an idiot with a capital “I”. The guy is a class A buffoon. Reply William Burke says: August 3, 2013 at 16:14 This is really one guy? His face looks like a composite. Reply Azimuth says: August 3, 2013 at 12:00 Overwhelming you say? That hasn’t been my personal experience. I’ve had sheriffs tell me the exact opposite. That their jobs would be much easier if so many people weren’t armed. As in “law abiding” people, not criminals. Their opinion put “we” armed civilians as untrained dangers to ourselves and others. Ain’t that a kick in the short and curlies? It now seems like a LEO’s right to go home alive supersedes our right not to be wrongfully shot by them. Reply Davis Thompson says: August 3, 2013 at 13:03 I call 91.3% overwhelming. http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf Reply Azimuth says: August 3, 2013 at 19:34 Not to dismiss your link, but what people answer on a survey and what they would do in life can be, and often are, two different things. I didn’t want to veer too far of the topic of “Are cops becoming too trigger-happy?’ but as I said, I heard this from 3 sheriff’s deputies and one city LEO. It started with their surprise at my grouping and my defensive double-tap, assess, then another double-tap etc. I couldn’t believe they were concerned about my defensive shooting method or at keeping my shots on target. They all had a discomforting look on their faces. They wanted to know why I thought I had to be that capable with my firearm? Stunned, would be the word to describe my reaction. They looked incredulous when I said it was easier to count my shots in two’s, so I wasn’t left with an empty chamber when I changed mags. 7 double taps leaves the last round in the chamber of a 15 round mag. This seemed extreme to them. Ya. Counting your shots, leaving one in the chamber, who the hell does that? That’s when they hit me with the armed civilians are a concern remark. The last thing I expected a LEO to volunteer was their unease at having so many armed civilians and how it makes their job that much harder. They never know when an armed civilian may decide to start shooting at them. It was at this point when I began to wonder how many LEO’s share this same opinion of armed civilians. Everyone I’ve told the account to has been surprised that a LEO would express such an opinion. I swear to G-d it’s all true. And I happen to think my local sheriff’s are a pretty good bunch, given the transitory nature of Florida and our expansive influx of tourists year round. Could I have run into the few rare LEO’s who think this way? Sure. But what are the chances of that happening from both the county and city police? You have a survey, I’ve heard it first hand. Back to the topic. Are police more trigger-happy because they know more people are carrying, and may mistake the police for bad guys and shoot them? One deputy cited domestic calls as being the reason most cops are concerned about who is armed, which I suppose could be true. Does that mean we are all a threat to the police simply because we’re armed and capable, and one day it might be our house they have to stop at for a domestic dispute? I don’t know, I only know what I was told. Is shooting an unarmed civilian by mistake a better choice than not shooting them, and being wrong, in which case, they don’t get to go home tonight? As I said, is my right to not be mistakenly shot by the police, a secondary consideration to the police not getting shot, or their thinking that they might shot? What bothers me is, if I get pulled over for,..speeding let’s say, is the LEO going to treat me as a possible felon waiting to shoot him, until I prove that I’m not? What are we told to do if we’re stopped? Don’t move around, don’t get out of the car, keep both hands on the steering wheel…WTF? We’re told to behave as though any move we make might get us mistakenly shot, and that it would be our own damn fault if we did. So ya, that sounds a little like being trigger-happy, if only out of an overly-extreme sense of caution on the part of the police. If you get stopped by a trigger-happy LEO, scratching your balls could be considered a furtive enough motion to get you shot. “Ya, it looked like he was reaching for a weapon, so I shot him, because my right to go home alive and see my family is greater than the rights of the guy I just shot, of not getting shot.” Case closed, no charges filed, but I’m still dead just the same. “It looked like he was reaching for a weapon.” could be the get out of being charged for involuntary manslaughter, excuse. I realize that they have to deal with the worst of society, but does that mean they get to treat us all that way, like we’re just another perp who is deserving of a bullet, or a barrage of bullets? Judging by some of the recent headlines, it seems that civilian right are somewhat less than a LEO’s rights. Nordic says: August 3, 2013 at 23:38 It’s called self-selection bias. The only thing that poll is good for is evaluating the attitudes of the people who chose to be a member of that website that chose to participate in that poll. You are talking about a self-selecting subgroup of a self-selecting subgroup. That poll just doesn’t have a lot of value to it. Davis Thompson says: August 4, 2013 at 13:31 To reply to Azimuth. First of all, you’re absolutely right that LEO’s rights seem to trump citizen’s rights. But then, they have a pretty hard job all in all. I work hard, but my life is rarely, if ever, on the line. As for behavior at a traffic stop, even though I live in a non shall-issue state with very few CC permit holders, I still put my hands on the wheel if I’m pulled over (which, thankfully, is rare.) I understand the cop thinking on this. Approaching a vehicle has to be a scary proposition. Showing the hands is common courtesy. A state cop friend of mine (who, along with most of his peers favors civilian CC) told me that showing the hands not only makes the cop more comfortable, it send a signal that you have a cop friend. Anything you can do to ratchet down the tension of a traffic stop is a good thing. It tells the cop you understand his or her point of view. Heck, it might even help get you out of a ticket. As for evidence of LEO mindset toward CCW, the survey I quoted is broad statistical sampling of 15,000 LEOs from all over the country. You provide counterpoint with anecdotal evidence from a tiny sample taken from one place. I’m going to go with the survey as well as what I hear from the LEOs I shoot with. (NYC cops, mostly, who can’t hit anything because of their lousy triggers.) As for Frum, it’s up to him to present evidence to support his claim. I could come out tomorrow and say civilian ownership of guns leads to higher crop yields, but if I didn’t present both correlation and a mechanism for causation, I’d be doing what he did. Speaking from total ignorance. Matthew Jude Brown says: August 3, 2013 at 15:47 Sheriffs and chiefs of police are essentially politicians rather than police, and quite often differ from the majority of their officers. Reply William Burke says: August 3, 2013 at 16:15 My short and curlies just up and ran in terror from the ones you’re describing. They don’t seem of a mind to ever come back, either… Reply Joe says: August 3, 2013 at 07:59 By the same logic if women dressed less provocatively there would be less rape? Reply DavidT says: August 3, 2013 at 14:21 Unfortunately that is exactly what some of them think, that it is her fault. It never is, of course, but that is how their twisted minds work. Reply William Burke says: August 3, 2013 at 16:17 Ugh. That mentality you describe makes my skin crawl. A woman’s appearance and dress never has forced anyone to rape them. If you or I went around in only a diaper, I seriously doubt anyone would feel forced to change it. Reply ST says: August 3, 2013 at 08:03 Logical.Police being civilians,they’ll be much less trigger happy if they’re unarmed. Reply Sock Monkey says: August 3, 2013 at 08:30 Ah, man, I was gonna say that. [kicks rocks] Reply Nazgul says: August 3, 2013 at 08:03 This guy is a reminder that not all republicans support the Bill of Rights. Reply Gov. William J. Le Petomane says: August 3, 2013 at 08:06 Or most Rinos don’t. Reply racer88 says: August 3, 2013 at 08:05 Ah…. so, it’s “CIVILIANS” that are the “enemy,” not CRIMINALS. Reply Purphaze1952 says: August 3, 2013 at 09:42 “If fewer civilians carried weapons, police might be less trigger happy.” – David Frum via twitchy.com If fewer CRIMINALS carried weapons, police might be less trigger happy. 😉 Reply Ardent says: August 3, 2013 at 08:10 I’ve been trying to fix that ignorant statement. I think I’m onto something: If fewer subjects exercised their rights fewer enforcers would have to shoot them. Anyway, way to blame the victim. Until we have prosecution of police officers for aggravated assault, attempt murder, murder for these sorts of things we wont have improvement. They should be just as worried (or not at all) about pulling out their guns, pointing them at people, and firing on them as the rest of us. Put a few in prison for manslaughter, and a few more for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and watch how fast the rest fall (back) in line. We’re well past the point where the police exist as a separate and unequal class. I submit if I come to your house to talk and I shoot your dog you have civil recourse (also depending on your location I’ve likely violated criminal law). Police shouldn’t have a separate standard. Start looking for prosecutors who will actually prosecute a police officer (rare as hens teeth) then vote them in. Reply Bret says: August 3, 2013 at 08:14 This from the same idiot who advised Obama to act outside of Congress to enact gun control, and use the crap they pulled on big tobacco. Reply Pascal says: August 3, 2013 at 08:18 If government and police did the work to eliminate criminals, I would not need my gun for protection and could focus simply on recreational shooting. Sadly, Frum is a director at the Republican Jewish Coalition. Another member of the Jewish community who rather be a victim from this week of stories. Reply stokeslawyer says: August 3, 2013 at 08:33 Maybe if less dogs were carrying guns, cops wouldn’t have to shoot them. Reply anna keppa says: August 4, 2013 at 22:09 This! All across America, trigger-happy cops who can’t wait to actually kill a living thing, are settling for dogs when it would be …inconvenient…to kill a human. Reply PavePusher says: August 3, 2013 at 08:37 If police are shooting people for exercising their Constitutional Rights, I think I see what the real problem is. David Frum is a @$%$#@* #^**@!*%[email protected]& #&*(#@@!!!! Reply Chuck Pelto says: August 3, 2013 at 08:40 TO: David Frum RE: Heh If the police did their jobs, fewer people would feel the need to carry weapons. Case in Point #1: NYC Transit officers hid themselves while a brave man had to take on a knife-wielding serial killer on the subway. Case in Point #2: LA area CopChick murders an unarmed homeless man. Case in Point #3: Uniformed, on-duty police rob convenience store. Hope that helps….but I have serious doubts. Regards, Chuck(le) [NEWS! Police begin campaign to run down jaywalkers.] Reply Jeff says: August 3, 2013 at 08:53 i.e. the “stop making me hit you” defense. Reply Ardent says: August 3, 2013 at 09:10 Oh man, so simple and so accurate at the same time. Around my place we blame everything on the dog (jokingly). I tell him all the time, ‘It’s not your fault, but we’re going to blame you anyway’. Of course this is only funny when there are no consequences and you get pet afterwards. It’s a pretty serious problem when you die as a result. Reply jwm says: August 3, 2013 at 11:07 Beat me to it. Frum should be wearing a stained wife beater and drinking a can of Bud when he makes comments like this. Reply janitor says: August 3, 2013 at 08:55 i saw this movie where only the police and military had guns…..its call Schindler’s list. Reply Ardent says: August 3, 2013 at 09:12 When the government is so far off it’s rocker that it’s contemplating genocide the only defense is an armed one. You can tell your government has lost it’s mind when it wants to disarm you. Waiting for additional indicators has proved fatal. Reply Jay in Florida says: August 3, 2013 at 09:35 Frum must be from Mars. Cops should be disarmed. They can have a can of mace and a few twist ties. This way they wouldn’t be weighed down too much. No doughnutz too. Civilians should be the only gun holders as per the 2nd Amendment being a civil and natural right for common folks.. Where in the Constitution does it even allow for Cops??? Ive always wondered about that one. Me Ive been on this Earth for almost 60 years. Other then to say hello to a cop as I would anyone else. Never have had a need for one. Seems my tax dollars would be better spent on Coffee. Reply Dyspeptic Gunsmith says: August 3, 2013 at 09:53 Frum is only barely able to escape the term “red diaper baby” because in his formative years, his political inclination wasn’t communist, only socialist. Frum is the very picture of the neo-conservative in US politics. A pro-Israel Jew with leftist domestic political inclinations who woke up one day to find out that the domestic left in Canada (his homeland) and the US no longer like (or recently, tolerate) Zionists, he decided to break bread with people on the right because they support Israel, not because he is a ‘conservative’ in any shape, manner or form. Others have followed this path in US politics, notably the Kristols of the Weekly Standard (etc) and various other DC policy parasites throughout the 80’s and 90’s. The thing to remember about these particular “conservatives” is that they never were. They’re simply hanging out around conservatives because they want to support Israel. That’s it. Reply Cameron S. says: August 3, 2013 at 09:58 But the police are most trigger happy in places where legal carry isn’t allowed. It’s like his argument doesn’t even make sense at all. Whoda thunk it? Reply tjlarson2k says: August 3, 2013 at 10:08 Talk about transparency. Politicians want to be in control, and the best way to do that is have a disarmed civilian populace and a militarized police force. God forbid the average adult citizen owns weapons and is capable of defending themselves vs. criminals, you know, because the police aren’t around during crimes the majority of the time. The police are there to count the bodies and take notes after the fact. In most DGUs. Sure, the police are effective when they know where a bad guy can be, but that’s also up for debate. Armed citizens tend to have a much better track record vs. bad guys than the police because we tend to get the drop on the obvious bad guy simply because we had a concealed weapon they didn’t know about. It’s easy enough to avoid an officer in uniform. And yes, there are good cops out there and I’m very happy they’re busting their butts on the street, however, that is no reason to disarm civilians. That disarmament mindset equates to a tyrannical power grab and is easily referenced through out history as being ineffective and immoral. Acting like law-abiding citizens aren’t capable of responsibly owning firearms in this day and age is just moronic if you have access to any sort of internet or FBI database for the facts. Millions of people already own and responsibly own firearms. Fact. Yes, there will always be maladjusted or mentally ill people that will get access to guns, knives, bombs, and whatever else and carry out their goal of killing themselves and others to make it on the news. The media loves it when they do and they reward them for it by making them “stars”. Heck, you might even make it on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine. So, before you start blaming the average citizen for dutifully exercising their natural God-given right to bearing arms and citing the 2nd Amendment to protect themselves, loved ones, hearth and home, maybe you should blame the media and self-serving parties out there that glorify murders and criminals — they’re the real problem. There are hundreds and hundreds of stories of people protecting themselves that never make it on the news every day that never get reported. If only people knew how many lives gun ownership and responsible use save on a daily basis by average law abiding citizens. Reply Blue says: August 3, 2013 at 10:29 The vast majority of people gunned down by mistake aren’t carrying like what happened to the man in Pensacola. That isn’t the first guy that didn’t have a gun that the sheriff’s deputies in Escambia county gunned down. Reply Paul53 says: August 3, 2013 at 10:33 If we voted for smarter politicians there would be fewer stupid statements to the press. Reply Ralph says: August 3, 2013 at 11:40 It’s a big relief knowing that cops enjoy shooting women, children, family pets and innocent men with cell phones because they might be armed. I always thought it was because so many cops were psychopaths. I suppose that we could spare a lot of innocent lives if we just got rid of that pesky 4th Amendment and armed all uniformed officers with plunger handles. Reply JusBill says: August 3, 2013 at 14:41 I think a lot of LEOs’ excessive reaction coomes from subconscious fear. They’re exposed to a steady and constant stream of terrorist “threats” from the Feds and regional fusion centers, and are armored up as much as a soldier in the sandbox when they get on the job, so what else do you expect to happen? Reply Ralph says: August 3, 2013 at 15:19 what else do you expect to happen? I expect them to grow a pair and stop killing us. Fear does not explain why the same trigger-happy hooples shoot puppies, little girls, unarmed men, crying women or shove plunger handles up a guy’s culo. That’s not fear. That’s just criminal psychopathy at work. Reply Russell says: August 3, 2013 at 11:57 Toten, Davis, I tend to agree with you- It would be helpful to have a cite for the numbers you cite, for the benefit of those visitors new here. My experience is the same, but its anecdotal- that experienced cops aren’t threatened by responsible gun owners- rather, they support them- they appreciate what citizens with CCW do to help the reputation of a community, that makes it more safe, like those in FL where crime rates went down dramatically, when CCW was promoted, than those where legal gun ownership is hard to do, and CCW is unavailable, like DC or Chicago. Management has to be politically correct, and in big cities, where Sheriffs or PD Chiefs are elected or appointed by more liberal voters, they have their hands tied, and have to toe the party line, despite what they have learned works after years on the street. Other places, like CO, where you find a large number of elected Sheriffs in conservative areas, are not afraid to speak up for the truth, and oppose the liberal voters in Denver and Boulder, when they are just plain wrong. Reply Davis Thompson says: August 3, 2013 at 13:07 Done and done. http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf Reply Russell says: August 3, 2013 at 12:35 Read David Frum’s Wikipedia entry – he’s been a Republican all his life, speaking up about what he believes, bravely in some cases I think, and has paid for it. I personally think he is one of those genuinely well-meaning people who still thinks you can have an honest conversation with those on the left, who dont play by the rules, and think the ends-justifies-the-means. And he is just wrong on gun ownership, as the reaction by the rest of the country to the gun-grabbers over-reach post-Newtown is proving out, since he wrote this for CNN in Feb 2013: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/18/opinion/frum-obama-plan-b-on-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_c3 The value of TTAG as I see it, is to keep sticking to the facts- dont fall into the liberal trap of name calling, becuause that just lowers you to their level, which is what the trolls want- it distracts from the facts, which they cant dispute, and are losing the battle with the rest of the American public, which is smarter than they think. And I think thats the same thing Mr Frum is struggling to figure out- when you have been part of the elite as long as he is, you start to think you are smarter than the folks in flyover country, and you forget to listen. Maybe he can find his way here, and lurk for awhile. I hope so. He has a lot to offer, and he seems smart- and over time he could be persuaded by the facts- like a lot of people, as they get older, they evolve, and he has the potential to do so as well. Reply Davis Thompson says: August 3, 2013 at 13:17 You’re right. Calling him names, while fun, probably isn’t helpful. I will amend my remarks above to say he made an foolishly offensive statement in complete ignorance of the facts. (Facts such as 91.3% of cops in a recent survey support CCW?) http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf But you must admit that it is maddening to hear people like Frum, who clearly haven’t bothered to do even the most basic research on the topic, mouthing off in such a manner. (The fact that, in the CNN article you linked to, he quotes David Hemenway, who’s research has been thoroughly debunked and is another of those “scientists” who refuse to let others see their data or methodology, proves his ignorance.) What he said: people who carry concealed are the real reason cops are so trigger happy, and thus are the real reason innocents get killed, is far more offensive than any (admittedly juvenile) insult levied against him in these posts. Reply Totenglocke says: August 4, 2013 at 07:15 I read about a paragraph of Frum’s BS in your CNN article before I had to close it out. I don’t care what party the man registers as, he’s NOT a conservative at all. Thinking that he can be reasoned with and “made to see reason” is exactly why the Republican party is filled with so many RINO’s that are opposed to everything Republicans stand for (see John McCain and Chris Christie for other examples). Reply Russell says: August 3, 2013 at 12:42 * PS: to the liberals reading here, I forgot to edit carefully- and this applies to those of you who consider yourself liberals in the classical sense of the term- I should have said “progressive-Alinskyite” corrupters of the label liberal, those who like the Marxists who turned the Soviet Union into a totalitarian state, or the Nationalist Socialist Party in Germany who annnihilated millions in the name of knowing whats best for Germans, the current crew of leftists that inform the “liberal” side of the Democrat Party are simply wrong, and dangerously so, because they think they know they are right, and have the right to tell us all, and worse, to break the rules to get their way, including on guns. So, to those liberals who are NOT of that flaver, my apologies for the shortcut. . Reply Lance says: August 3, 2013 at 14:05 If Cops and federal Army had no guns there be less Cop Shootings!!!!!!! Reply Lance says: August 3, 2013 at 14:05 And never let a armed cop near your pet Dog or cat LOL!! Reply SGC says: August 3, 2013 at 14:06 I’m sure the Nazi’s had similar thoughts for the German people…well played DumbFrum. Reply Rick says: August 3, 2013 at 14:42 You keep using the word “civilians.” I think the word you mean is “citizens.” Cit-i-zens. Don’t let the PO-leece preempt the language. It particularly irks this retired Senior Chief when cops use the term “civilians.” to refer to non-cops. If you’re not drawing a paycheck from DoD and subject to the UCMJ, then officer YOU are also a “civilian.” Reply Blue says: August 3, 2013 at 15:07 Face it, the higher command of police agencies have used “civilians” to refer to citizens for decades. I agree that it should be stopped. Reply KAT says: August 3, 2013 at 15:24 “If fewer civilians carried weapons, police might be less trigger happy.” Nonsense! In a small town in Texas Hill Country, an elderly gentleman was threatening to shoot any LEO that came unto his property cause he thought they were there to take him to a nursing home. Had them pinned down behind their patrol cars. Did they send him to his maker? Nope, called his son to talk the old man down. No charges filed. Not too long afterwards, old guy moved to nursing home peaceably. Heck my elderly mother called police on me for same reason. Same result, not long after went into nursing home, much to my and my brother’s relief. . Although nothing quite says “I love you” like calling the law on your only daughter. Got to watch out for the old folks, they maybe frail but they are feisty! Nothing like small Texas towns for LEOs who still believe in Protect and Serve, as far as I know dogs in that county feel pretty safe as well. Reply Roadrunner says: August 3, 2013 at 16:30 In an odd way, the stupidity that flows from the mouths of of the elite (wasn’t Frum a speechwriter for George W. Bush?) encourages me. If people can have this kind of idiocy bouncing around in their skulls and rise to serve in the highest offices in the land, there’s hope for me too. If more civilians, the good ones, had guns there wouldn’t be a need for as many cops, and certainly not trigger happy cops. Reply Mark says: August 3, 2013 at 20:22 This guy must live is some sort of parallel universe. The prevailing attitude among police these days seems to be “Whatever it takes to get me home safe”. “Whatever” is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Personally I believe there should not be any laws that give the police any greater latitude or protection ie: laws that make it a felony to assault a police officer when “assault” can mean touching in a non violent way yet they can “touch” us with impunity. We get to defend ourselves in the same manner with the same protections. Reply Nelson says: August 3, 2013 at 21:41 one more reason to hate the pansy “Axis of Evil” RINO NeoKunt scribe asshole from Canada, butting into American way of life. Boot this motherfucker back to Canucksville! Post-haste! Reply Pat says: August 4, 2013 at 00:39 Dumb ass libtard (democrat) commie. Reply Chris says: August 4, 2013 at 06:26 I just got back form vacation, are police not civilians anymore? Reply Totenglocke says: August 4, 2013 at 07:35 They haven’t been considered lowly civilians in a very long time. Now kneel before the superior race or be shot (along with your dog). Reply Blue says: August 4, 2013 at 08:45 Po-Po gets jumpy around cats too. http://2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/c/6/collegehumor.50d6c8dc861b3861438bd586beb60f7f.jpg Reply Alan Srout says: August 5, 2013 at 01:03 What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts Reply jwm says: August 5, 2013 at 01:24 With skill, tactics and courage, and a little luck, a handgun can get you an assualt rifle, rpg, or even an mg. If you lack any of the above, then a handgun is worthless. Reply AJ says: August 5, 2013 at 09:59 So using this guy’s logic, if women didn’t wear sexy/revealing clothes there’d be less rape? Immediately his supporters jump up and say “That’s different!” No, no it isn’t. It’s a perfect example of how one thing has nothing to do with the other. Police shooting people too often is a POLICE issue. Specifically training, or the lack thereof. Totally unrelated to how many people own firearms. Reply Write a Comment Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.