One could argue that this can be read to mean "no sharp objects or sharp weapons." I don't really doubt their actualintentions here, but, compared to most other gun-banning places, the language hereseems pretty weak.It doesn't actually say anything specificallyabout guns orfirearms. The rule only says "weapons," and many will argue that a sidearm is a tool that only becomes a weapon when used offensively.
Guess what? The police that are there aren't there to protect you, they are there to arrest people after the fact. And those EMTs? I'd rather not require their services to begin with.
Police don't protect? Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't our prisons overflowing with violent criminals? Who put them there? They never catch people before they commit crimes? Of course police do. More specifically, they won't stop someone in that venue that exhibits violent behavior? Alcohol and drugs are always flowing at concerts.
So,you support policies that require leaving it in the vehicle where it could be stolen, or that require us to not carry at all as we travel to and from the pavillion (including wherever we may be before and after the show)?
I think you've talked yourself into a corner. I don't think you can actually put someone in prison before they commit a crime. You can put someone in prison before they commit all the crimes they might have planned to commit, but I don't think it would work out so well if you actually put someone in prison before they committed any crimes at all.
You missed my point completely. I don't intend to sound condescending, but maybe you should read my post again. My point is that before a person commits a crime, they are not a criminal. You can no more defend the public against that person than you can arrest someone for open carry (in Virginia) because they might shoot someone.
In fact, I would submit that if the presence of a LEO does actually prevent someone from committing a crime, by definition, nobody other than that thwarted criminal and their co-conspirators would ever know it. (If I must spell it out, in the case that the LEO does find out about a plan, then there is conspiracy, etc, and thus, that crime was not prevented, but rather discovered, and brought to justice.)
I don't consider ANYONE as being a "lowly citizen", and don't consider myself above ANYONE. I do believe LEOs have training and experience that gives them an edge in situations (just like an EMT may have an edge for someone having a heart attack). So you believe you are better than LEO? You shoot once a week? HAHA. So how many situations/encounters have you had where you have been to violent domestics where you had to kick in a door and walk in? How many times have you encountered someone with a gun/knife? How many groups of shady people have you walked up to in a dark alley at 3 am by yourself? How much senario based training have you undergone? Airsoft and simunition? I'm just curious. Going shooting at the range a few times a week and being a "good shot" does not qualify you as being competent for handling situations you are speaking about. I'm not saying that LEOs are superior to anyone else, but just with the experience of dealing with such violent situations and training does give them the edge.
I guess it depends on the jurisdiction, but I don't completely share your views on proactive policing. Maybe you were a daylight officer? No disrespect, but I know my squad works hard to stop people from committing crimes and we do. I also agree that I feel good for citizens who can protect themselves. I am not against citizens carrying guns, I am much for that. Of course tazers/o.c. are good tools, but ultimately, a gun is the most powerful item out there for protection. Stay safe out there man.In all my years as a LEO I can count on the fingers of one hand when I actually protected a victim from a violent crime in progress. Much more frequently (usually)I arrived after the fact and took a report and investigated. Somewhat more frequently I have had opportunities to stop property crimes in progress and arrest individuals for victimless violations of the law, whichlikely prevented future crimes. The point is that whenI was one of 4 or 5 officers covering60 square miles and "protecting" 30,000 people, I always felt better when a citizen could protect themselves. I can't remember a single time when a legally armed citizen acted carelessly and shot an innocent bystander, but I can remember plenty of situations where people died, got injured, raped, etc. because they had no means to protect themselves against violent criminals. I am very much pro-LEO, but I am also a realist.
The Nissan Pavillion presents a set of unique challenges for correctly deploying a firearm, but it doesn't mean that carrying there is not a good idea. I would say that training and good decision making are critical. Having additional tools like a tazer and/or peper sprayis all right for people with gun belts, but ifI could only have one thing in addition to my hands, it would be a gun.
TFred, I understand what you are saying. I guess it's up to you what you believe is someone who is a criminal. Legally speaking, someone needs to commit the crime/attempt/conspire to commit a crime to be considered a criminal. However, I believe people who have that intention who don't legally evolve to that point of legal determination, should still be considered criminal.
We must be speaking different dialects. This is now the third time I've tried to say the exact same thing.
I think that it all comes down to resources. I am very much for proactive policing, but when you have 4-5 officers working per shift (less if someone is sick, hurt or on vacation), you are usually "firefighting", rather than being proactive. Between taking reports, writing reports, court time, investigations, and other administrative duties, I probably spent less than half of my time on the road. If you subtract traffic enforcement, crashes, and other nonesense calls, less than 10% was actually spent on proactive policing. In the midwest where you have a lot of small police departments and many turf battles this is very typical. I noticed that in Virginia police departments are typically staffed better. However, an officer can't be expected to be everywhere there is trouble. I am very much in favor of every citizen taking the primary responsibility for their own protection. If an officer is there, that can be thought of as an added bonus. Stay safe as well.gis wrote:I guess it depends on the jurisdiction, but I don't completely share your views on proactive policing. Maybe you were a daylight officer? No disrespect, but I know my squad works hard to stop people from committing crimes and we do. I also agree that I feel good for citizens who can protect themselves. I am not against citizens carrying guns, I am much for that. Of course tazers/o.c. are good tools, but ultimately, a gun is the most powerful item out there for protection. Stay safe out there man.In all my years as a LEO I can count on the fingers of one hand when I actually protected a victim from a violent crime in progress. Much more frequently (usually)I arrived after the fact and took a report and investigated. Somewhat more frequently I have had opportunities to stop property crimes in progress and arrest individuals for victimless violations of the law, whichlikely prevented future crimes. The point is that whenI was one of 4 or 5 officers covering60 square miles and "protecting" 30,000 people, I always felt better when a citizen could protect themselves. I can't remember a single time when a legally armed citizen acted carelessly and shot an innocent bystander, but I can remember plenty of situations where people died, got injured, raped, etc. because they had no means to protect themselves against violent criminals. I am very much pro-LEO, but I am also a realist.
The Nissan Pavillion presents a set of unique challenges for correctly deploying a firearm, but it doesn't mean that carrying there is not a good idea. I would say that training and good decision making are critical. Having additional tools like a tazer and/or peper sprayis all right for people with gun belts, but ifI could only have one thing in addition to my hands, it would be a gun.