Police Academy assignment on CCW benefits – please help!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

islander-11

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
27
Location
Nantucket, MA
In two weeks I am going to present a five minute talk about the benefits to society about concealed carry weapons. Obviously, I have some great sources right out of the gate, particularly John Lott’s books. I just want to ask my THR friends for your tips, help, suggestions, etc.

In particular, I’m hoping someone can tell me the name of the small east-coast college where a kid went crazy and shot a professor and a student, but was stopped by two classmates who had their own concealed carry weapons with them. I wish to use this as an opening, showing how much it was downplayed by the media.

I thank you all in advance for helping me with my homework!
 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott14.html

Basic info is covered in link on the App. school shooting and the biased or omitted facts about officer/students use of firearm.

Read some of his other columns for more info about CCW and legally owned firearms, concealed or otherwise, used in stopping/preventing criminal activity.

Adios
 
you know reading Lotts article it makes me hope that certain THR people will realise that the media is generally poor, instead of lauding it when similar journalism happens to produce something they believe advances their cause / reinforces their beliefs.
 
Thumper,
I think what Ag is saying is that from time to time when a British newspaper prints something about godawful London crime rates since their several gun bans, we're supposed to take it with the same grain of salt that we read poorly written, badly researched, anti-gun articles here in the states.

I happen to agree with that.
 
Thanks to all for your help!

My goal is to help 42 new cops understand that CCW holders are folks with a respect for the law, as well as being people who refuse to walk through this world as sheep.

Thanks again!
 
Good luck on your talk. if your pursuasive the benefits could be felt by everyone who happens to contact your fellow officers for a long time to come.

on a side note, as much as agricola generally irks me his is right about this one thing. We need to be carefull about latching onto ANY piece of press regardless of wether it helps or hurts our stand on any topic.
 
My – I trust very logical – outline follows:
1. The right of self-preservation (family and innocent defense, as well) is clear, well established, validated by history, and globally sanctioned by governments and religions.
2. In an ideal world, there would be no life-threatening violence; however, the facts demonstrate no perfect society has ever existed.
3. Societies and governments create laws – and law enforcement – to protect citizens.
4. But – with the exception of a very few individuals who have extensive, full-time, professional protection, such as the President and the Pope – law enforcement/security cannot be omnipresent.
5. Therefore, since society simply cannot protect us, we must protect ourselves; concealed weapons provide an efficient, effective, and safe way to do so.

I would then begin with Professor Lott’s “more firearms, less crime and violence†arguments, with the linkage that #5 (above) is demonstrated through common sense, trough validated statistical analyses, and through academic studies (e. g., Lott).

Best regards – Roy
 
From Jeffery Snyder, author of "A Nation of Cowards", this was written approx 1997 (did a Yahoo search on "self defense concealed carry")

Executive Summary

"Ten years ago this month, a controversial "concealed- carry" law went into effect in the state of Florida. In a sharp break from the conventional wisdom of the time, that law allowed adult citizens to carry concealed firearms in public. Many people feared the law would quickly lead to disaster: blood would literally be running in the streets. Now, 10 years later, it is safe to say that those dire predictions were completely unfounded. Indeed, the debate today over concealed-carry laws centers on the extent to which such laws can actually reduce the crime rate.

To the shock and dismay of gun control proponents, concealed-carry reform has proven to be wildly popular among state lawmakers. Since Florida launched its experiment with concealed-carry in October 1987, 23 states have enacted similar laws, with positive results.

Prior to 1987, almost every state in America either prohibited the carrying of concealed handguns or permitted concealed-carry under a licensing system that granted government officials broad discretionary power over the decision to grant a permit. The key feature of the new concealed-carry laws is that the government must grant the permit as soon as any citizen can satisfy objective licensing criteria.

Concealed-carry reform reaffirms the basic idea that citizens have the right to defend themselves against criminal attack. And since criminals can strike almost anywhere at any time, the last thing government ought to be doing is stripping citizens of the most effective means of defending themselves. Carrying a handgun in public may not be for everyone, but it is a right that government ought to respect."

Kinda sums it all up for me.

I'd also look up a lot of Jim March's writings and revelations concerning CCW for the elite and special friends of various Sheriff's and/or the denial by same Sheriff's for us "common folk".

How many criminal types would go through, let alone pass, the required background check, fingerprinting, class training, pay fees, etc?

I'd personally also try to limit any of Lott's info due to the small controversy surrounding him at this present time... but that's just me. YMMV

The real challenge is the proscribed "benefits to society" requirement whereby you may need to point to anecdotal and/or real life scenarios which are more of a play by play, individual thing as opposed to a "society" at large or populace as a whole. Hard to quantify that one.

And, playing devil's advocate here, you could always state that since the police now have a list of registered gun owners, you will always be able to "Round them up first" should a NAZI/Commie "POLICE STATE" gov't become the order of the day... that ought to make some people in your class think for a moment or two...just in case it is up to you guys to become the ones to "Pry from my cold dead fingers" (I think the saying goes)... history could provide you with glaring examples of that despicable gov't behavior in the last century.

Conversely, you could point out that in times of REAL Need, the police force has a list of reputable citizens to draft into an "Un-organized Militia" or Auxiliary Force to assist the Department to boost manpower.

It'd be interesting to read what you eventually offer to your class members and hear their comments.

Adios
 
Islander:

Whether you can say that concealed carry reduces crime is a tough call.

What you can say, with conviction, is that it does NOT increase crime.

Also, you can say that criminals don't need a carry law, because they already are carrying.

The only people who wait for the passage of a carry law before carrying are the law-abiding people.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement did a study in that state and found that those with carry permits commit crimes at a rate of about 1/100th of that of the general population. Put another way, a member of the general population who does not have a carry permit is 100 more times more likely to break the law than someone with a permit.

When the police encounter someone with a carry permit, they are dealing with a government-certified "good guy."
 
Definitely bring up the school shootings. Ask a rhetorical question along the lines of, "what do you think would have happened at Columbine if a couple of teachers had been armed?" THEN bring up the Appalachian School of Law shooting as an answer.

As for benefits to society, just use basic logic. Tell the class to put themselves in a criminal's shoes for a minute. Would you rather rob a person that you know to be unarmed, or a person that may be armed?

Benefits for LEOs - you know they are the good guys, because bad guys don't submit themselves to an invasive background check, fingerprinting, pictures, fees, and training.

There will inevitably be some in there that are on a power trip and don't think that anyone but them should be allowed to have a gun. It's the fence-sitters you need to focus on.
 
In my opinion, the argument that resonates best among cops is that the permitholders as a class are no longer terrified to speak to cops about crimes or problems in their neigborhoods.

They are all familiar with the big-city problem of daytime shootings in the middle of a busy street, but "nobody saw nuthin'" for some strange reason.

Permitholders don't act that way. They're no longer terrified poodles looking for a carpet to pee on. They're not vigilantes, they're not supposed to view themselves as "semi-cops" and that's something that must be dealt with in training - but they ARE responsible citizens who have an extra level of respect for the problems the cops face and usually act in a more adult fashion when dealing with cops.

Philly PD in particular noticed greater citizen cooperation growing in the five years following their shall-issue conversion...individual street cops actually discussed it on an episode of "Cops" :).

If they still haven't made up their minds and are not in a shall-issue area: tell them to call up agencies where shall-issue is the norm, and ask other street cops how much or little trouble they get with permitholders.
 
CCW Holders and the Police

The guy (a retired LEO) at the range I did my CCW training at in 2002 was wearing a T-shirt with graphics set up like a sports scoreboard showing the number of LEO’s hurt by CCW holders “0†and the number of times CCW holders had saved/assisted LEO’s “34?â€.

I am not sure of the 34 saves/assisted number, if it’s even true, or where to find such info. If you have access to that type of information, I think it would be very interesting to your audience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top