Seems like a preferred alternative to having your kid hide in a closet, hoping the burglars don’t find him while he waits for the police to arrive. Granted the “kid” in this case is 18-years-old but, as a parent, you should be able to make the call on whether or not your child is mature enough to be left at home with access to firearms. That’s a statement that may not sit well with everyone but, it my opinion.
-Gary
I drove past the scene of this incident on my way home from an indoor IDPA match and dinner with a half-dozen shooters last night. Somehow, it just didn’t look like a traffic accident as indicated on the TX-DOT electronic billboards as I pass through the area. The large percentage of police vehicles relative to other emergency vehicles and no wreckers in sight might have been a giveaway…May be.
In all seriousness, this is not the first time this has happened and it won’t be the last. The next incident may not be a mass shooting per se. It might “just” be a robbery. And while there is no guarantee that being armed would have changed the outcome for all, it might have changed the outcome for those who got shot and those who died if they and they been armed and trained. To me at least; having a plan and having the option to meet and exceed by 1, the level of force of your assailant, would be better than being shot in the back as you ran down the street.
I am sure that as soon as the bad guys were gone, someone was able to call 911. In the meantime, they robbed the store and they robbed the patrons inside. The police, for all their hard work and dedication to the profession, could not and did not protect anyone in this store. It simply is not possible for them to do so. The point lurking here is the same one preached by every gun advocate…You are on your own. When the fecal matter hits the spinning impeller; that problem, whatever it may be, is yours to solve until help arrives and there is no guarantee that help is coming anytime soon. Call 911 on a truly busy night in any major city and you’ll see what I mean. Sometimes, as the old Public Enemy song says, “911 is a joke.”
-Gary
“On Tuesday, July 30, 2013, police were called to the Trillium Theater in Grand Blanc Township (Michigan) on a report of a man wearing a bulletproof vest (BPV) and in possession of a gun was in the theatre. Cassidy Delavergne was found wearing a BPV and in possession of a gun as he sat among theatre goers. Delavergne was held for a mental examination after his arrest.
The police located Delavergne as he was watching a movie. Delavergne did not outwardly threaten any of the movie goers. The oddity of an armed individual wearing a BPV among a crowd of people required a quick and prudent police response to circumvent a potential. As the police approached Delavergne, he identified himself to be a federal agent and produced a fake CIA ID badge.
Delavergne was taken into custody without incident. He was in possession of a 9 mm semi-automatic firearm and 34 rounds of ammunition. This led to a search of Delavergne’s car, where an additional 111 rounds of ammunition was confiscated.
Of greatest concern is that Delavergne is licensed as a Michigan concealed carrier. His arrest is based solely on a federal offense of possessing fraudulent government identification. Charges were not filed against Delavergne for wearing a BPV when he was considered armed and dangerous. Once processed, Delavergne was released on a bond.”
Now, this can be viewed as either A) a tragedy prevented, or Nazi Thug Cops harassing a man who has committed no crime and is exercising his rights.
Well, what do you you folks think? Should cops have responded? Should they have left him alone until he acted out? No crime had been committed when they responded. So, should they have even responded at all? (Remember, the ONLY crime committed was providing false ID, which only occurred after the police response.)
This is the problem I have expressed on the air about folks who simply want to “prove their point” about gun rights. Every fool that walks around with his gun displayed for the SOLE PURPOSE of filming the inevitable police response is clouding the future police response to someone who may very well be an active shooter about to begin. I can only assume that the suspect in this story exposed his pistol for all to see, otherwise, how would they have know to call the police? Unless Michigan is open carry friendly, which I do not know off the top of my head…
In Texas, is it legal to own/wear body armor? In most instances, yes. Is it legal to carry your pistol? With a valid CHL, yes. Is it legal to carry your rifle around? In most cases, yes.
But know that the police will probably be called if someone sees a gun, and the police will respond, and the police will probably treat you as a potential threat because they can not read your mind. They only know there is a “man with a gun” call being dropped. If they say, “well, carrying a gun around IS perfectly legal” and slowly respond, and it turns out to be an active shooter, lives are lost. If they respond fast and treat you as a potential threat, the worst that usually happens is bruised egos and the gun owner sues the cops… You could either end up with another Aurora Theater tragedy or another Mark Worley / CJ Grisham type incident. I wish cops were perfect. I wish cops could predict who is harmless and who is harmful. But we can’t. Should cops be polite and professional when confronting armed folks? Depends on the situation.
I know everyone has rights. I am pro second amendment, pro CHL, pro standard capacity magazines, pro AR rifles, pro ordering ammo online, pro gun in general and pro self defense. I just ask folks to look at the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation you place the police into by walking around in some type of open carry. You have the right to do so, just be aware of what actions may result.
You tell us… Did the Michigan police handle this properly? Was a tragedy averted? Or, were this man’s rights violated?
-Jason
Chicago toughens ban on assault weapons amid violence – Yahoo! News.
Albert Einstein once said that that doing the same thing, over and over again while expecting different results was the definition of insanity. Apparently, insanity is running rampant in Chicago. Chicago City Councilman Robert Fioretti voted to expand Chicago’s existing ban on modern firearms but, also said, “No legislation, no matter how strict, will keep weapons out of the wrong hands. We all know that…” If you know it doesn’t work…What is the point?”
-GM
By now you may have heard of a new app available on the Google Play Store and likely coming to the Apple iTunes Store soon. It’s called Gun Geo Marker and it’s developer claims the app is designed to help protect children by allowing anonymous users to mark the homes and businesses of “potentially unsafe guns and gun owners.” The Gun GEO Marker F.A.Q. claims the app does not invade anyone’s privacy because it does not “connect U.S. government database, PRISM, or utilize any magnetic remote sensing applications or satellite systems…to invade our privacy.”
The developer, Brett Stalbaum, is listed as a lecturer in the Visual Arts department of the University of California, San Diego. In spite of his locale, place of employment, or the stated purpose of his app to out gun owners, Stalbaum claims he is a “gun owner who wants to see our rights preserved.” He goes on to claim his intention is merely to simply give parents and community members a means to alert each other to dangerous conditions in their neighborhoods. Stalbaum also parrots the Obama claim that 90% of the American People want what he calls “commons sense, constitutional measures” to improve gun safety.
The app itself, as mentioned earlier, is on the Google Apps Play Store and free to any user. Users, according to the developer’s website, are anonymous. And once a location is marked, IT CANNOT BE UNMARKED, though Stalbaum claims these markers will eventually be deleted (presumably by him) for the sake of keeping the data “fresh.” There are no specifics on how long it takes a location to be deleted from his database. Stalbaum claims that anyone expressing concern about the potential criminal use of this application is simply paranoid. He goes on to say that the U.S. Constitution does not protect anonymous gun ownership or stop others from speaking freely about gun owners. His view is that it’s the gun owners’ responsibility to keep the fact they own a gun a secret (never mind that some states/municipalities don’t give you that option) and that criminals would look for softer targets like the homes of those whose cars sport NRA bumper stickers.
Stalbaum says he can’t be held responsible for the criminal miss use of his app. Painful as it may be, I have to agree with him on that single point but, guns are actually a federally regulated item. Though we have a right to keep and bear arms; at present, anytime we buy a gun from a licensed dealer, we have to submit to a background check. That’s been the law since NICS went online in the late 1990s. There is no background check to Stalbaum’s app. As much as people of his ilk claim that access to guns it too easy, his app makes it too easy to mark innocent people as potential targets for home invasion , strong-arm robberies, or domestic violence should an abusive husband/wife use the app to locate an estranged spouse. But he seems too short sighted to see any of these concerns because, as usual, it’s for the sake of the children. Never mind how many children the app itself might endanger.
-Gary
