Internat'l Law Enforcement Educator & Trainers on mass shootings
The legendary Massad Ayoob is attending the annual conference of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association. He writes:
"Thursday afternoon, I chaired the panel of experts discussion on deadly force issues. I had been able to assemble ten superstars of police training. [He lists them, and their credentials are indeed impressive].
One of the topics that inevitably cropped up was response to mass murders in schools and other public places. Among us was Ron Borsch, instructor at the Southeast Area Law Enforcement Academy in Ohio, who has been an advocate of “sole response” entry into such situations by the first responding officer. Though controversial in law enforcement, his theory was validated recently by the courageous 25-year-old cop who entered a mass murder scene only a few weeks ago at an old folks home, and stopped the killing with a single bullet from his Glock .40 service pistol coolly and expertly delivered to the gunman’s chest.
Borsch’s impromptu discussion revealed the fact that some 25% of mass murder shooting sprees he has researched were ended by armed private citizens. This led in turn to a discussion of the Israeli Model, in place since the Maalot massacre of schoolchildren decades ago, in which teachers and other school personnel were trained and discreetly armed with handguns, which has proven famously successful ever since in Israel. Across the ten-member panel AND the dozens of police instructors attending the discussion, not a single voice was raised against that concept, and many spoke enthusiastically in favor of it.
Don’t listen to the politically motivated figureheads. Talk to the REAL cops. They’re the ones who best understand the dynamics of violence, and of protection of the innocent from evil."
"The best defense against lawless rogues who possess _______ is for law-abiding nations/individuals to surrender their own _______________."
b) nuclear weapons
e) None of the above.
Correct answer: None of the above. This statement is a logical fallacy. There is no dependent relationship between possession of items by lawless rogues and possession of the similar item by law-abiding individuals.
Posted by: Jim D. at April 25, 2009 08:39 AM
Perfect information for my forthcoming civil rights, RICO Act, & Admiralty/Maritime lawsuit as a merchant seaman against the United States! It fits the maritime environment just as neatly as it does the college/university environment.
Any links to transcripts or published papers from this conference?
Posted by: Don Hamrick at April 25, 2009 09:38 AM
I predict that when proposals to liberalize or restrict various gun-related legislation receive the scrutiny they deserve, folks like Ayoob will only play a stronger role in advising legislatures. And as a result, I can see systematic bills to eliminate the various "gun free zones" coming in the near future.
Like Mr. Hamrick, I'd be interested in reading transcripts of the Conference.
Posted by: Carl in Chicago at April 25, 2009 05:15 PM
Sadly, Israel has long ceased to be as awesomely pro-gun as people in America think it is. For the last 13 years the policy of the government has been to slowly eliminate gun ownership.
Posted by: MicroBalrog at April 25, 2009 08:06 PM
These are petty shootings in light of what we have coming down the pike. Lets look at the solid foundation that is going to see the up coming mass shootings that will make any thing in the country pale.
First off we have almost zero ammo to buy in the country. Yes, I've read all the hype about Americans are buying it faster than it can be produced. No one will answer my question on ammo; Where is all the Wolf, Hot Shoot, Golden Tiger and the rest of the Russian ammo? This is a huge red flag along with one new key development and that being a reloading ban through the Treaty scam to get around the Constitution. This intent to outlaw reloading is the next step after shutting down the normal supply sources. The next part of that foundation is to restrict gun sales and registration that is happening on a number of different angles.
These will be in play sooner than most think and once they are who are the folks that have hijacked out government going to go after. That question is no longer a question because its been answered when the Department of Homeland Security's report.
I just sit back and can't believe the groups like the NRA, GOA and all the front people fighting for the Constitution. (note: any Second Amendment supporter knows the rest are just as important so in effect we are people that are the solid support network behind the Bill of Rights) The one thing that drives me to tears is how little any of these groups and supporters refuse to make issue with the fact that: Our 1968 gun laws are taking word for word from Hitler's 1938 gun laws. HELLO!!!!! Say nothing of this report from DHS attacking the core base of lawful and decent Americans as terrorist. Bare in mind that the word, "homeland" is not and American word but came from Hitler's bag of tricks. Homeland was taking from nazi Germany's propaganda of "fatherland".
I have a hunch that many Americans are going to be in between a rock and a hard spot sooner than they have any idea. So for the time being lets not talk about the proof we have at hand that we have a hijacked government and lets talk about points beyond that.
Once the game is in place we are going to have mass shootings but they are going to be in front of big open ditches. Yea, yea I know it can't happen here.
Posted by: AvgJoe at April 26, 2009 07:00 AM
"Borsch’s impromptu discussion revealed the fact that some 25% of mass murder shooting sprees he has researched were ended by armed private citizens. "
Does anyone know if Borsch has published a study validating this claim? If true, this data point would be a powerful argument for liberalizing conceal carry laws in states that do not have them yet, and for reforming reciprocity laws between states that do.
Posted by: Left Coast Conservative at April 27, 2009 09:04 AM
Hi there. I'm an aussie police officer from SA, which recently brought in the 'tough new gun laws' mentioned on this site in another article. My State's policy (bearing in mind we have no 2nd amendment or such) is that it's the State's right to determine who may or may not possess firearms, and that firearms possession and ownership is a privilege. BUT, and I stress this, we recognise the need for firearms in recreation, business and society. Our recently introduced firearms prohibition orders (FPO) target specific individuals who have shown a propensity for violence (based on their crime history), or who are involved in the illicit drug trade (the nexus is unquestionable) AND who are a risk to the public/public safety AND it is in the public interest to ban them from possessing or accessing firearms. This will work for us because we have a controlled regulatory scheme requiring owners to be licenced and their firearms registered. The FPO allow us to search a subject person on sight, and any vehicle/vessel/aircraft they are in charge of, and any premises they own, or have care/custody/management/control over. This allows us to target the criminal, not the law abiding owner, a major step which has met very high support from all sectors of our community, particularly the gun lobby. The FPO are also appealable to our District Courts as an administrative appeal. It's tough, but in the US I believe your felons lose the right to vote...In Aus, everyone votes, but we can take away their guns.
Posted by: Aussie Cop at April 28, 2009 12:33 AM
Aussie Cop: In the US Felons lose full citizen status.
The feds forbid them firearms, and individual states can further restrict felons ( most states withhold voting rights, as you noted ).
Posted by: Kristopher at April 28, 2009 11:41 AM
I think the main difference between this and your FPO, or a brit ASBO is that in the US, you actually have to get convicted of a crime first ... a judge just can't take your rights away because you have a bunch of misdemeanor offenses, or a bad attitude.
Posted by: Kristopher at April 28, 2009 11:44 AM
We wouldn't get an FPO up on somebody who is a clean skin with no history, or a history of minor matters. The basis of the doctrine is that a person, through a history of convictions for felonies, has shown a propensity for violent anti-social behaviour, then we slap an order on them, and from that point on it's open season for our Police to search them. It's a means by which we can focus on the criminal, and not have to over-regulate our legitimate firearms owner who does the right thing. We also have provisions for mandatory reporting where medical or psych professionals can warn us of concerns in relation to an individual who they consider could pose a risk of a potential shooting or mass shooting incident - we can put an order on these people as a means of mitigating the risk of such. Hopefully, it will work, but we aren't faced with the level of soft-target shooting incidents that the US has.
I've found it interesting that while our rank and file are fully supportive of the legislation, feedback I've had from some US police is that they think it's too much of a breach of civil liberty. I find that odd (from my perspective), as by taking this path we have lessened the need to impose sanctions or restrictions on the entire population for the sake of a few bad apples, by targetting the known risk individuals.
The ironic thing is that the first person we placed an FPO on was involved in a gang related shooting about 2 months later, in breach of the order, and is now looking at an extra 15 years lockup for his trouble (breach an order and the max penalty is 15 years).
Posted by: Aussie Cop at April 28, 2009 08:04 PM