• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

My dad was 5 minutes too early!

bobestes

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
49
Location
Aberdeen, Washington, USA
imported post

911Boss wrote:
If I was in the bank and a guy came in wearing a hockey mask, I most certainly would pay close attention and if it appeared to me he was robbing the place I certainly would intervene.

What that intervention would be depends on the unique circumstances of what he did or didn't do. Hard to address all of the variables in this format, but I would at the very least attempt to detain him until the cops arrived, and I would under many circumstances shoot him if the situation warranted or allowed it.

That said, it would depend of course on whether I had a shot, had a clear background, etc. I am not looking for a gunfight, I carry because I know that I may find myself in such a situation and I am not the sort of person to just stand back and watch.


So long as people in society are happy not getting involved and unwilling to go in harms way, leaving it to the professional police, we are unlikely to see much improvement let alone a solution to the plague of criminal activity in our society.

"Not my problem", "They have insurance", "I only carry for personal protection, not to defend others", etc. is very short sighted. Crime is everyone's problem. We all pay to cover the losses from crime. Whether it be through taxes, insurance premiums, loss of personal freedoms or liberty, fear, or losing "territory" to gangs, etc. The only difference is we are paying indirectly instead of directly.

Criminals rely on society's unwillingness to "get involved" in order to succeed at what they do. Whether that be someone interfering in the act itself or not wishing to be bothered with being a witness or testifying in court (in the unlikely event it gets to that). As far as I am concerned, anyone unwilling to get involved for the good of society shares culpability and responsibility for the problems we face.

The idea of "professional" police is relatively new to society (google "Robert Peel"). Prior to the early 1800's it was private citizen's who banded together to fight crime and bring criminals to justice. Everyone in the community had a responsibility and interest in keeping order. This is not the same as vigilantism, citizens can take the offensive and yet still work within the rule of law. As the idea of paid police expanded, society readily abdicated it's responsibility for the common defense.

People enjoy what they consider the "right" of self-defense under clearly described circumstances, but far too many ignore what I consider the responsibility of acting if they are present during such events. The selfishness of "not my problem" isn't much different than the selfishness of a criminal taking what is not theirs as far as I am concerned.

Police staffing runs about 1-1.5 Patrol Officers per 1000 citizens. Mind you that is not 1-1.5 on duty, but 1-1.5 total. Taking into account three shifts and furlough days, you are looking at about 1 on-duty patrol officer per 2500 citizens or so. Not real good odds as far as being able to really prevent crime, and explains why the police are frequently just a "clean up" crew.

You want to know why there is never a cop around when you need one? Because there just aren't enough to satisfy the need. Why is the need so high? Because too few citizens are willing to take responsibility for anything other than themselves. Society can't afford the tab for the number of officers that would be needed to really have an impact, and even if they could, that number of cops would create other problems. It is a vicious cycle.

Criminals by nature are lazy and take advantage of the situation. It is a simple risk vs. reward calculation, and to be honest I am surprised there isn't more crime. We are all taught growing up that the good guys win, the bad guys get caught and punished. It is a myth that fortunately serves to keep things somewhat under control.

I fear that the next 5-10 years are going to show the myth for what it is and we are going to see crime spiral as more and more folks either learn the truth about the way the system works or are put in difficult circumstances as a result of the economy and realize they have little to risk by going to the other side. Those who are for big government will use this as the excuse for further infringement of our liberties and to take control of more and more aspects of our lives.

"It takes a village to raise a child" is a true statement, it also takes the village to protect the village. A few appointed folks (the police) can't do it alone and neither can the government. Their jobs are primarily to manage the system, they need the support and assistance of all of us if we actually want the system to work. We are gradually enslaving ourselves to the system out of selfish desire.

As another poster stated, all that is necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to stand by and do nothing. Ben Franklin's admonishment of sacrificing Liberty for Security comes to mind as well. If citizens aren't willing to to exercise the liberties we enjoy to stand against crime for fear of consequences of that act (security) we have all but surrendered to the criminals.

I don't wish to be enslaved by criminals anymore than I do the government. I'd rather die standing than live on my knees.
I basically agree with what you said, but there is another issue to consider. When one exercises his right to defend himself or another against a criminal aggression, one usually finds himself in more trouble with the law than the criminal would have been in for his criminal action.
 

tyguy808

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
346
Location
Not Here Anymore
imported post

I have only recently started OC'ing. I finally worked up the nerve to go into my bank armed today. I waltzed into the Cordata branch of Chase (WAMU) to very little fanfair.

I went in filled out my slip and stood in line. When my turn came up, the gentleman called on me, and I started my transaction. He asked me if my car broke down the other day outside the bank, I replied "no". A pregnant lady had her car stall in front of that branch in the pouring down rain and wind on Thursday, so I stopped to help. I asked how he recognized me, he replied that he seen my gun on my side and it had reminded him. I finished my business and left.

No problem at all.
 
Top