Down in Texas there is a debate going on about guns in the state house. Seems some idiot stopped in to visit his elected representative and was not able to do so. He then proceeded to the steps of the capitol and started lobbing shots around. He was tackled and disarmed and no one was injured but that started the debate.
The question is how to keep things safe at the Texas capitol. Should lawmakers prohibit gun posession there or allow permit-holding folks to enter with their sidearms?
The debate really comes down to this: Will a criminal be more likely to pull out a gun if he thinks he’s in a gun-free zone and is therefore safe from the immediate reaction of armed citizens?
Of course there are lots of questions and comments either way, but the stupidest one I’ve heard came from a Texas lawmaker.
The lawmaker says he believes security should be left to police. Armed volunteers could do more harm than help by confusing security officers if they pull out a weapon to defuse a dangerous situation, he said. “Who’s going to know who’s the good guy and who’s the bad guy?”
Here is a clue. The good guy with the gun will respond appropriately when authorities arrive! The bad guy will not.
Consider this scenario: Call goes out to police that there is a man with a gun in the capitol building. Before they get there an armed citizen pulls out his pistol and without firing a shot takes control of the situation by ordering the bad guy to drop his gun and lie down on the ground. For the sake of this scenario we will say the bad guy decides he doesn’t want to get shot and complies.
If the good guy is smart he will be holding his cell phone in one hand and his gun in the other. Into the cell phone he will be telling the dispatcher who he is, what he looks like and where he is standing. He will also tell the dispatcher that he is waiting for help and is holding an armed man at gunpoint.
Now the police arrive. The dispatcher has relayed the information our law-abiding gun owner has provided over the phone. When the police come in they are looking for something specific, not just a man with a gun. They will order everyone to the ground, including our hero (who should be saying “He attacked me!” while pointing his now empty hand at the bad guy.) The police will handcuff everyone and sort out the details in relative safety.
The point here is this: If you are the good guy with the gun, you had better know how to deal with a situation that involves the police. If you are holding a bad guy at gunpoint, move to a position of cover if you can and as soon as you hear police approaching, shout out: Help! I’ve been attacked. As the police draw near IMMEDIATELY put down your gun, follow police instructions and point out the bad guy. Then shut up and let the police sort things out. At that point the police should have control of the situation and you will have all kinds of time to tell your side of the story when no guns are pointed at anyone.
As far as I’m concerned this type of thing should be mandatory in all CCW classes and in all police academy scenario training. If you have a CCW, contact your local law enforcement agency and ask such a question. It will keep you thinking about it and it will keep the cops thinking about it.
Knowledge is safety.
This situation goes hand-in-hand with the idiot Starbucks manager in Montana who said he likes guns but doesn’t understand why you would want to have them “around women and children.”
How about this: You have the guns around women and children so you can PROTECT the women and children from the meth head who wants to rob the Starbucks!
Firearms are emergency life-saving tools. Sadly some idiots use them as offensive weapons. But the smart people can tell the difference.