Went To A Talk About Self-Defense

packingdressagerider · Nov 14, 2008

imported post

Tuesday, I went to a talk given by local police about self defense for physically challenged. Everything was fine until one woman asked about having a firearm for self-defense. I don't think this guy has ever read "More Guns, Less Crime" when it came to how many times a gun is taken away from somebody. I believe according to Lott, it is 1 %.

But he acted like none of us foolish woman should have a firearm for self-defense. Besides some other unbelieveable stuff I heard. I'll have to see if I can remember all of it. He said if a gun is on a car seat, and (you are stopped by an officer), if the officer can't see it, then it is "concealed." This is my favorite, "if a gun is available in the home, you are more likely to do something stupid, and not think something out--if you have one of these evil guns in your house." I think maybe he meant an accidental shooting, or suicide.

But in his opinion, nobody is as trained as the police, and we should call them if we have a problem. It was a lot of nonsense crap. So the one other lady who wanted to know about carrying a gun, after he left, I got her aside to tell her that I could put her in contact with a NRA instructor in Lexington. Which I have, since I called him today. I told her I am as trained as the person who spoke.So far none of my guns has leaped out of their cases, or have I done any stupid things with them. I told her to join the VCDL, sent her the info about them.

I guess I'm floored that somebody like that officer doesn't think something really bad could happen around here. I belive in being prepared since violent crime can happen any where, even in this area.

hsmith · Nov 14, 2008

imported post

Generally not surprised about the "we know better, we are the law" type of attitude.

Sad really.

packingdressagerider · Nov 14, 2008

imported post

It was sad. But I did damage control. So I have her pointed in the right direction as far as instructors go, cause she wants to get a CHP.

DrMark · Nov 14, 2008

imported post

Well dome, packingdressagerider.

Dutch Uncle · Nov 14, 2008

imported post

I agree, nice job. Its just a shame that the others will go home with the LEO's propaganda in their heads. Because he's an "expert", they will likely assume that keeping a firearm for self defense is dangerous and ill-advised.

Its too bad we can't install "BS meters" at talks like this. It would have been screaming through a lot of his presentation.

SouthernBoy · Nov 14, 2008

imported post

Dutch Uncle wrote:

I agree, nice job. Its just a shame that the others will go home with the LEO's propaganda in their heads. Because he's an "expert", they will likely assume that keeping a firearm for self defense is dangerous and ill-advised.

Its too bad we can't install "BS meters" at talks like this. It would have been screaming through a lot of his presentation.

Right. All too often, people believe police have a more in-depth knowledge of firearms than anyone else and are somehow, experts. This is bunk. Police have no special handle on gun savvy. Some don't even care for the things.

There are a few signs that will tell you something about their knowledge, or lack of it. Do they use the word "clip" when speaking of a magazine? Do they say things like, "this .45 will blow a man's head off" or "a .357 has been known to knock people off their feet". There are a host of others, but you get the point. These same things are uttered by non-police and those uttering them actually believe what they're saying.

Citizen · Nov 14, 2008

imported post

Would a pointed letter to the editor, copy to the Chief be in order?

They really have no justification for the editorializing. If they want to talk about home security, lighting, fences, door locks, etc., fine. But its utter nonsense to discuss self-defense by saying, essentially, don't--call us instead.

What arrogant, elitist false information. "Oooooo. You're too stupid. In fact I'm so convinced you're too stupid that it doesn't even occur to me to try to educate you or tell you where to seek training. Nevermind that once upon a time, before I becamea thoroughly trained master, I knew nothing about it either and was in the same shoes as you. Being a cop, alone, means I was trainable. But obviously, you're not."

If it was all women,hammer the sexist angle. Better yet, find out whohis wife is, and just by coincidence bump into her at whatever social circles she travels in. See if she knows he has this attitude about women.

packingdressagerider · Nov 14, 2008

imported post

DrMark wrote:

Well dome, packingdressagerider.

Thanks!

packingdressagerider · Nov 14, 2008

imported post

Dutch Uncle wrote:

I agree, nice job. Its just a shame that the others will go home with the LEO's propaganda in their heads. Because he's an "expert", they will likely assume that keeping a firearm for self defense is dangerous and ill-advised.

Its too bad we can't install "BS meters" at talks like this. It would have been screaming through a lot of his presentation.

I didn't want to be a smart alec, so I kept my mouth shut. This is not the first time that I've heard an officer say something like this. Lexington PD is as bad about this as some of the other places in Rockbridge.

I wish I had thisinfo handy at the talk on self defense. I wanted to tell him so bad that police protection is a myth. I'll have to show this to the two ladies who got 'shot' down over this issue.
Myths of Police Protection Explored.

This article is from the talk.politics.guns Official Pro-Gun FAQ, by Ken Barnes with numerous contributions by others.

1.0 "You don't need a gun, the police will protect you."
Recommended reading: "In The Gravest Extreme,"by Massad Ayoob
[available from Police Bookshelf, P.O. Box 122, Concord, NH 03301],
ISBN 0-936297-00-1, (1980)

"The Truth About Self Protection,"by Massad Ayoob, Police Bookshelf,
ISBN 0553-23664-6, (1983)

"Armed and Female: Twelve Million American Women Own Guns, Should You?,"
by Paxton Quigley, St. Martin's Press, ISBN 0-312-95150-7, (1993)

"Not An Easy Target,"by Paxton Quigley, Simon and Schuster,
ISBN 0-671-89081-6, (1995)

"Strong On Defense: Survival Rules to Protect You and Your Family
from Crime,"by Sanford Strong, Pocket Books, ISBN 0-671-52293-0, (1996)

"Firing Back,"by Clayton E. Cramer, Krause Publications,
ISBN 0-87341-344-X, (1994)

"Stopping Power: Why Seventy Million Americans Own Guns,"by J. Neil
Schulman, Synapse-Centurion Books, ISBN 1-882639-03-0, (1994)

"Gun Laws and the Need for Self-Defense (Parts 1 and 2),"hearings before The Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 1st session, March 31, 1996, SuDoc# Y 4.J89/1:104/43/Pt.1, and 2nd session, April 5, 1995,
SuDoc# Y 4.J89/1:104/43/Pt.2 [These hearings, called in response to the fledgling Republican Congress' efforts to repeal the 1994 Clinton/Feinstein gun ban (see 3.3 and Appendix I), featured testimony from a number of scholars cited elsewhere in this FAQ, including James Wright, Joyce Malcolm, David Bordua, Robert Cottrol, and
Daniel Polsby, as well as law enforcement officers and crime victims.]

A selection of relevant cases [most of which are listed and
discussed in 'Dial 911 and Die!' by JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) 2872 S. Wentworth Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53207,
Ph: (414) 769-0760, FAX: (414) 483-8435 JPFO also has a website:
http://www.jpfo.org/
[Note: For convenience of the reader, legal citations in this FAQ
have been rendered in a more familiar "bibliography" style form,
rather than standard legal citation form. Real lawyers would cite
the first case below as 59 U.S. (18 How.) 396, 15 L.Ed. 433]

South v. Maryland, U.S. Reports (18 Howard) v.59 p.396, Lawyer's
Edition v.15 p.433 (1856)
Riss v. City of New York, N.Y. Supplement 2nd series v.293 p.897,
N.Y. Reports 2nd series v.22 p.579 (1968)
Keane v. City of Chicago, Illinois Appellate Court Reports
2nd series v.98 p.460 (1968)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, California Appellate Reports
3rd series v.46 p.6, California Reporter v.120 p.5 (1975)
Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, Federal Supplement v.471 p.1262
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (1979)
Warren v. District of Columbia, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
2nd series v.444 p.1 (1981)
Bowers v. DeVito, Federal Reporter 2nd series v.686 p.616
U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Cir. (1982)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
2nd series v.468 p.1306 (1983)
Cuffy v. City of New York, N.Y. Reports 2nd series v.69 p.255 (1987)
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, Southeastern Reporter 2nd series
v.376 p.247 North Carolina Court of Appeals (1989)
Kircher v. City of Jamestown, New York Reports 2nd series v.74
p.251, Northeastern Reporter 2nd series v.543 p.443 (1989)
Marshall v. Winston, Southeastern Reporter 2nd series v.389 p.902
Virginia (1990)
Berliner v. Thompson, et al., Appellate Division (NY) 2nd series
v.174 p.220, New York State 2nd series v.578 p.687 (1992)

In summary: Police can only act once a crime is occurring or has already been committed. They cannot be held liable for failure to arrive in time to save any particular individual from harm, so long as they aren't someone who has a special relationship with the police, like a protected witness. Indeed, it's_extremely_unlikely that police officers will be able to arrive and_save_you from harm faster than
an attacker can harm you. There aren't, and there ought not to be, sufficient police to act as personal bodyguards for every citizen, 24 hours a day, and any guarantee to that effect would be extremely expensive in terms of both money and liberty.

TFred · Nov 14, 2008

imported post

Here's a fairly easy to read web site which has the entire FAQ posted:

Official Pro-Gun FAQ

http://stason.org/TULARC/society/pro-guns/

TFred

AbNo · Nov 14, 2008

imported post

So basically, Packing, what this officer said was that women are too stupid and weak to know how to use a gun for self defense?

At least, that's how I've heard Kendo_Bunny interpret the type of BS that guy was spouting, and she's good at examining things in a logical sense like that.

I'd file a complaint.

Tess · Nov 15, 2008

imported post

Good job, packingdressagerider ...

I went to a similar forum a couple of years ago ... my sorority did a "keep yourself safe"-themed meeting, and invited the Fairfax County Police SAFE Program.

A male officer and two female officer did the presentation, focused on trying to get us signed up for the SAFE program, of course, and some of the comments were over the top.

The male officer couldn't answer my question about what training was required for a CHL in Virginia.
One of the female officers told me that guns are too easily taken away from those who try to defend themselves.

Although they say 90% of self-defense is the prevention of an attack, I never bothered to tell them I had a gun in my purse.

zoom6zoom · Nov 15, 2008

imported post

I wanted to tell him so bad that police protection is a myth.

An easy question to remember to ask: "What's the average response time for your department?" When seconds count....

nitrovic · Nov 15, 2008

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Would a pointed letter to the editor, copy to the Chief be in order?

They really have no justification for the editorializing. If they want to talk about home security, lighting, fences, door locks, etc., fine. But its utter nonsense to discuss self-defense by saying, essentially, don't--call us instead.

What arrogant, elitist false information. "Oooooo. You're too stupid. In fact I'm so convinced you're too stupid that it doesn't even occur to me to try to educate you or tell you where to seek training. Nevermind that once upon a time, before I became a thoroughly trained master, I knew nothing about it either and was in the same shoes as you. Being a cop, alone, means I was trainable. But obviously, you're not."

If it was all women, hammer the sexist angle. Better yet, find out who his wife is, and just by coincidence bump into her at whatever social circles she travels in. See if she knows he has this attitude about women.

What??? Find out who his wife is? :uhoh:

nitrovic · Nov 15, 2008

imported post

packingdressagerider wrote:

Tuesday, I went to a talk given by local police about self defense for physically challenged. Everything was fine until one woman asked about having a firearm for self-defense. I don't think this guy has ever read "More Guns, Less Crime" when it came to how many times a gun is taken away from somebody. I believe according to Lott, it is 1 %.

But he acted like none of us foolish woman should have a firearm for self-defense. Besides some other unbelieveable stuff I heard. I'll have to see if I can remember all of it. He said if a gun is on a car seat, and (you are stopped by an officer), if the officer can't see it, then it is "concealed." This is my favorite, "if a gun is available in the home, you are more likely to do something stupid, and not think something out--if you have one of these evil guns in your house." I think maybe he meant an accidental shooting, or suicide.

But in his opinion, nobody is as trained as the police, and we should call them if we have a problem. It was a lot of nonsense crap. So the one other lady who wanted to know about carrying a gun, after he left, I got her aside to tell her that I could put her in contact with a NRA instructor in Lexington. Which I have, since I called him today. I told her I am as trained as the person who spoke. So far none of my guns has leaped out of their cases, or have I done any stupid things with them. I told her to join the VCDL, sent her the info about them.

I guess I'm floored that somebody like that officer doesn't think something really bad could happen around here. I belive in being prepared since violent crime can happen any where, even in this area.

I don't know where the lies started about the officer having something against women. I am failing to see the part where he said women shouldn't have guns. It is unreal how posters just plain lie on this board. Like Citizen's post about ,"finding his wife", unreal.

nitrovic · Nov 15, 2008

imported post

AbNo wrote:

So basically, Packing, what this officer said was that women are too stupid and weak to know how to use a gun for self defense?

At least, that's how I've heard Kendo_Bunny interpret the type of BS that guy was spouting, and she's good at examining things in a logical sense like that.

I'd file a complaint.

When did the officer say this? Or are you just lying?

AbNo · Nov 15, 2008

imported post

zoom6zoom wrote:

I wanted to tell him so bad that police protection is a myth.

Click to expand...

An easy question to remember to ask: "What's the average response time for your department?" When seconds count....

I'll bet you'd get a lot of :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: from them if they were asked that. :lol:

Kendo_Bunny · Nov 15, 2008

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

AbNo wrote:

So basically, Packing, what this officer said was that women are too stupid and weak to know how to use a gun for self defense?

At least, that's how I've heard Kendo_Bunny interpret the type of BS that guy was spouting, and she's good at examining things in a logical sense like that.

I'd file a complaint.

Click to expand...

When did the officer say this? Or are you just lying?

The insinuation that a woman with a gun in the house is likely to do something stupid with it is insinuating that women are too stupid to own guns. It is suggesting that women are too weak-willed to fire at an intruder and will have their guns taken away. It is suggesting that women are overemotional and prone to sudden fits of suicidal mania, rather than rational creatures. Telling women straight out to rely on the police is telling women that they can not protect themselves, and they must rely on men to take care of them in an emergency.

I'd ask how many women are in his department, and does he trust them with guns? Or is the uterus an organ specifically at odds with firearms?

nitrovic · Nov 16, 2008

imported post

packingdressagerider wrote:

Tuesday, I went to a talk given by local police about self defense for physically challenged. Everything was fine until one woman asked about having a firearm for self-defense. /size]

He said if a gun is on a car seat, and (you are stopped by an officer), if the officer can't see it, then it is "concealed." This is my favorite, "if a gun is available in the home, you are more likely to do something stupid, and not think something out--if you have one of these evil guns in your house."

But in his opinion, nobody is as trained as the police, and we should call them if we have a problem.

.

I have taken all of the original posters opinions out of the test. The above is what the officer said according to the poster (doubtful that he said "evil guns" by the way). Anyway, the response from posters to the claimed facts of what the officer actually said went like this-

hsmith wrote:

Generally not surprised about the "we know better, we are the law" type of attitude.

Sad really.

Dutch Uncle wrote:

I agree, nice job. Its just a shame that the others will go home with the LEO's propaganda in their heads. Because he's an "expert", they will likely assume that keeping a firearm for self defense is dangerous and ill-advised.

Its too bad we can't install "BS meters" at talks like this. It would have been screaming through a lot of his presentation.

Citizen wrote:

Would a pointed letter to the editor, copy to the Chief be in order?

They really have no justification for the editorializing. If they want to talk about home security, lighting, fences, door locks, etc., fine. But its utter nonsense to discuss self-defense by saying, essentially, don't--call us instead.

What arrogant, elitist false information. "Oooooo. You're too stupid. In fact I'm so convinced you're too stupid that it doesn't even occur to me to try to educate you or tell you where to seek training. Nevermind that once upon a time, before I became a thoroughly trained master, I knew nothing about it either and was in the same shoes as you. Being a cop, alone, means I was trainable. But obviously, you're not."

If it was all women, hammer the sexist angle. Better yet, find out who his wife is, and just by coincidence bump into her at whatever social circles she travels in. See if she knows he has this attitude about women.

AbNo wrote:

So basically, Packing, what this officer said was that women are too stupid and weak to know how to use a gun for self defense?

At least, that's how I've heard Kendo_Bunny interpret the type of BS that guy was spouting, and she's good at examining things in a logical sense like that.

I'd file a complaint.

This is what I came up with at the time of the original post. Here are the responses to the OP from some of our board members who simply made up their version of events and ran with it. To the OP, is this what you heard (the above accusations of the officer, such as "what this officer said was that women are too stupid and weak to know how to use a gun for self defense"?

nitrovic · Nov 16, 2008

imported post

Kendo_Bunny wrote:

nitrovic wrote:

AbNo wrote:

So basically, Packing, what this officer said was that women are too stupid and weak to know how to use a gun for self defense?

At least, that's how I've heard Kendo_Bunny interpret the type of BS that guy was spouting, and she's good at examining things in a logical sense like that.

I'd file a complaint.

Click to expand...

When did the officer say this? Or are you just lying?

Click to expand...

The insinuation that a woman with a gun in the house is likely to do something stupid with it is insinuating that women are too stupid to own guns. It is suggesting that women are too weak-willed to fire at an intruder and will have their guns taken away. It is suggesting that women are overemotional and prone to sudden fits of suicidal mania, rather than rational creatures. Telling women straight out to rely on the police is telling women that they can not protect themselves, and they must rely on men to take care of them in an emergency.

I'd ask how many women are in his department, and does he trust them with guns? Or is the uterus an organ specifically at odds with firearms?

My question stands, when did the officer say this? The "insinuation" is some of the usual anti-police rhetoric that we always get on this site. There are many women in the FFX PD. That has nothing to do with the officer's presentation, nor does all the made up BS that you people have "insinuated". The poster stated the class was for the self defense of the physically challenger. Nowhere did the poster say the class was for women only.

Went To A Talk About Self-Defense

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Lone Star Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member