Round-the-clock police coverage would cost $500,000 per street...Of course, there's always a cheaper alternative--but somehow, the sight of armed men without uniforms fills the hearts of "Only Ones" and cud-chewers alike with terror...
Protecting one street for 24 hours would require five officers at an annual cost of about $100,000 per officer, he said. [More]
[Via Ed M]
The exact cost of most anti-gun mayors' police bodyguard teams!
ReplyDeleteLet's be fair here. Florida has one of the best citizen armament policies in the nation. And they were the first to do it.
ReplyDeleteIt appears to me it is the citizen begging for more police protection who is negligent in his duty. Florida has provided them with a legal avenue to defend themselves. NO, it's not perfect in that a permit is still required to carry concealed and that is a violation of the constitution, but the avenue is available. Should those citizens perform their duty and protect themselves, their loved ones, their community and their property in an effective manner the crime from which they wish others to protect them would diminish to a miniscule percentage of what it is.
Once that was demonstrated then 2A advocates just might have a chance to eliminate the statutes requiring state sanctioned permission. However, so long as citizens beg for a protector in the form of surrogate Daddy's the state has no reason to view them as responsible persons who may be trusted to do the right thing.
I hate to say this, believe me I do. But, I agree with cops on this one. Those people already have an economical way to secure a safe neighborhood, therefore there is no justifiable reason to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to do for them what they will not do for themselves.
God! that hurt!
Not exactly.
ReplyDeleteThe police deterrent works on sight. Not so with citizens.
Open carry, including of long arms by citizens is not a social norm.
Unless and until it is, just plain folks are still looked on as potential prey.
Not so with the uniform.
Well, now we have the cost for those who would prefer to carry a cop on their back over a gun on their hip. The gun is much cheaper.
ReplyDeletewell, David, this only the second thing upon which we disagree. It doesn't take long for the word to pass among the miscreants that a certain neighborhood is to hot to hot in which to ply their trade.
ReplyDeleteA uniform can be watched and timed and his or their schedule(s) can be noted and worked around. Not so with an armed citizenry. They cannot be timed or evaded by awaiting their departure. They don't depart, they live there. The uniform is only good when it can be seen, the armed citizen is good all the time, seen or not.
that was supposed to be a double "o" not a repeat of a mistake, Damn I hate drunk fingers.
ReplyDeleteWe shouldn't be in disagreement on this. My point is, despite the clear "shall not be infringed proscription," We the People are denied the ability to be a visible deterrent without "Only One" interference. I have two more cases of open carry arrests in AL and GA in my in box right now.
ReplyDeleteOur options are limited by edict and/or police response. There can be no disagreement with that--it simply is.
Mostly you're right about the uniform, David. Most crooks still respect and fear it, but some of the worst lowlifes are beginning to look at it as a target.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to get hung up on "uniform" but rather focus on the fact that in many locales, the ability to provide a visible deterrent to where things don't have to get "hot" is denied us.
ReplyDeleteThe assumption we need to change is that the sight of an armed citizen NOT wearing a uniform is something for everybody--as opposed to just the predators--to panic over.
Ok, now I have discovered the point of our demarcation in the philosophical as well as the practical aspects of the question.
ReplyDeleteWe are still not in total agreement, though I find no fault with your thesis.
I view my position as a separate issue from the one you raised as regards the visible warning supplied by open carriers of weapons to the would be and actual predators.
Whereas you seem to view the issue as one of police and government discouraging and thwarting the open carry of weapons as the main cause of the disparity in deterrence between the parties (police as opposed to the citizen). I do not. At least not in this case for the state in question.
Here are my reasons. Florida is an open carry state and if memory serves, no permit is required, except in the case of concealed carry. Therefore the law is amenable to the citizen supplying that visible warning to predators, much as the sight of an armed cop does. However, the people in the neighborhoods under discussion and many others are the first to call 911 with "man with a gun calls".
It is not illegal, it should not be frightening unless the man with the gun is committing a violent and unwarranted act. Yet, these people still call and want to hire someone else with a gun to come and give them the illusion of safety. For so long as the majority of citizens act in such a hysterical and irresponsible manner the police and politicians have the cover and excuse of "protecting the public". This cover gives them popular support to abuse the law abiding gun bearer, even if they must violate the law themselves to do so.
Any fully developed adult understands that all state power will be abused. It's not a matter of "if", it's only a matter of "when and how often". Even though the power they wield may be illegitimate, if supported by a large enough segment of the population, that power can be wielded with no consequences for those invoking its use against innocent men and women.
Ergo, I return to my original point. "It appears to me it is the citizen begging for more police protection who is negligent in his duty. Florida has provided them with a legal avenue to defend themselves. NO, it's not perfect in that a permit is still required to carry concealed and that is a violation of the constitution, but the avenue is available. Should those citizens perform their duty and protect themselves, their loved ones, their community and their property in an effective manner the crime from which they wish others to protect them would diminish to a miniscule percentage of what it is."
I only discussed concealed carry in my original comment because we are all too aware of the propensity of the hysterical beggar to "finger" and support abuse of the law abiding open carrier. Hence, I still maintain that the fault lies with people of the neighborhood, because it is their irrational reactions that cause the problem. We cannot lay this issue at the door of the cops until they are no longer receive that public support and then continue to abuse the innocent.
These people are not deserving of the benefits of the risk others might take or funds others might expend when they will not do for themselves that which they should, and for which they are supplied with the means of doing so.
It's pretty damn difficult to view these people as responsible adults for me, how must the police and politicians see them?
A point of clarification:
ReplyDelete"We cannot lay this issue at the door of the cops until they are no longer receive that public support and then continue to abuse the innocent."
I do not think acceptance of visibly armed citizens by the public will stop the abuse by the cops. At least, not initially. But we can't really state that as fact until we remove all their excuses. I am a believer in removing excuses. Once that is done, consequences ensue.
Still not in disagreement. I acknowledge the social norming aspect.
ReplyDeleteHell, most of our political problems can be traced back to a derelict citizenry.