Tuesday, January 10, 2012

It's for the children...

When law enforcement efforts and public policy focuses on the “evil” of firearms, there is a cost. Stay at home moms are not able to protect their children. Schools do not have armed resource officers on campus and suspects are more likely to bring weapons to a school. Money and resources that should be spent on salaries and equipment are wasted on programs to “end gun violence” and “reduce gun crimes.”
So what is the take away? What should LEOs make of all this coverage? Well, I believe I was right at the outset. It is all about protecting our children.
An interesting read from Blue Line Lawyer. You should check it out.


Chris said...

Most people are seemingly hard-wired to protect children, as he noted. And that this instinct, if you will, transcends the artificial boundaries of arbitrary groupings of people: political, religious, etc. The danger is when some people try to portray anything they want to do in the infamous "for the children" excuse. Shooting an armed intruder to protect your young child: valid. Demanding some pet legislation be passed to further fleece the taxpayers and reduce our already thinned-out rights: not so much. (As always, IMHO.)

Anonymous said...

To borrow from the movie "Death Wish", I suggest that we've become too "civilized". We've become so concerned about the rights of the accused, so worried that we might execute - nay, punish in any way - an innocent man, that we're losing the ability to deal decisively with criminals. Indeed, we find ways NOT to even blame a crook: he was driven to it by economic circumstances; he was on drugs; his mother smoked crack; vicious political rhetoric drive him to it; etc.

Unfortunately, our "civilized" attitude hasn't reduced crime. It still occurs, and people feel the need to do SOMETHING to protect themselves and their children from it. Robbed of the ability - even the attitude - to deter crime by harsh punishment, we've had to turn to trying to eliminate the means of crime. Witness Britain where even pointed kitchen knives are being outlawed.

I do not espouse kangaroo courts, lynching, or a return to the draconian punishments of ages past, but I do say that we need to change our paradigm from "preventing" crime to DETERING it by punishing it. Crooks should know that they take will be taking their lives in their hands if they decide to commit a crime: if a potential victim doesn't get them, the rest of us, through the agencies of our police, courts, prisons, and gallows, certainly will.

Anonymous said...

Ol Remus at woodpilereport.com did a piece on "precrime" this week

Worth the read.


Justthisguy said...

Meh. The man says "LEO" too much. I prefer Peace Officers. We need to dig up Bobby Peel and resurrect him, and have him give a good harsh lecture to that "LEO."

Justthisguy said...

doc, if we did it right, and looked out for each other, the perpetrator would be either lying on the ground bleeding out by the time the preferably-unarmed Peace Officer arrived, or be running toward the nearest police station ahead of the hue and cry, that being the safest place for him at the moment.

Yah, that may seem unrealistically idealistic these days, but that is the way it used to be done in our culture, when we still had one.

Anonymous said...


Shades of Northfield, MN!