Virginia Tech Versus Trolley Mall

Let’s contrast Cho’s “freedom to kill” with the recent planned massacre at Trolley Mall in Salt Lake City. Both Cho and the Trolley Mall killer, Sulejmen Talovic, bore multiple weapons and lots of ammunition. Both apparently expected no armed opposition. Cho killed 32 people at his leisure — unopposed. Talovic killed just five before he was stopped by an off-duty Ogden cop. The same contrasting scenes have played out from Columbine to Long Island and Texas to Mississippi. Wherever armed cops or citizens were present, the careers of psychotic killers have been cut short — or aborted entirely.

I have unanswered questions. There are both criminology and public administration programs at VT. How many off-duty cops were on campus, unarmed that day in obedience to VT’s immediate-expulsion policy? How many may have actually been in Norris Hall? I’m afraid we’ll never know because the knowledge could be “embarrassing.”

We know significant numbers of VT students, including military veterans, have Virginia CCW permits. There are military and naval science courses and ROTC programs. How many staff would have been armed if people singularly unqualified to make decisions about bearing arms and the judicious use of counter-violence were not setting lethal “feel-good” policies, which condemn good people to death? Were any cop’s kids killed in Norris Hall?

Nationwide over the past 40 years, crucial decisions on the right to keep and bear arms, possession of weapons, and even the fundamental right to self-defense have been increasingly made by those least qualified to address the subjects. Politicians who simply prefer unarmed peasants, scare-tactic ideologues, and emotionally crippled hoplophobes have dictated legislation and public perception, resulting in such twisted, lethal fantasies as “gun-free zones” — and, let’s not forget those “gun-free zones” apply to off-duty officers as well as concealed-carry citizens.

Simply put, those who want an unarmed populace, or who see weapons as evil, animate objects, or who cannot differentiate between skilled, trained, sworn professional peacekeepers and psychotic criminals are unqualified to address these issues. Those who don’t understand the basic dynamics of violence and judicious use of counter-violence are unqualified to make such critical decisions; not on this earth; not in this dimension.

Within law enforcement, increasing numbers of LE agency chiefs have placed onerous restrictions on — or prohibited — off-duty carry. One of the Salt Lake area agencies forbids officers from carrying their issue sidearms off duty. They cite “liability concerns.” HR-218 has been law since 2004, yet hundreds of agencies still refuse to enable it, scared spitless of possible liability lawsuits. Should fear of feral lawyers trump our oaths, our duty to the people, our right to self-defense — our lives?

Cops Gone Wild?

Overall, we are moving ever closer to the socialist-state model, which is, “You may be armed when you are on duty, directly doing the bidding of your political masters. Off duty, we do not trust you. Assume the position — peasant.”

Are we sworn to protect and serve only when we’re on the clock? If so, let’s make that clear in our oaths. If empty suits tell us their concerns are over faux-liability issues — which do not seem to exist in reality — “Cops gone wild?” Where? When? — Then, let’s balance them against the carnage committed by killers gone unchecked. Make them admit they simply don’t trust us. Then we can make informed decisions about how much loyalty we owe them.

Had enough wimping? Had enough killing? No more “gun-free zones,” no more “conditional oaths”? Ready to say, “No, thank you. I’ve had enough?” Maybe it’s time.

One lone cop will be dismissed. One hundred will be heard. A thousand — ten thousand? — listened to closely. One bite at a time, friends