Say what you will about Jim Alderden, Larimer County's no-nonsense, politically-incorrect sheriff, but one aspect of the man is indisputable: he's not afraid to make a stand for his convictions.
He proved it again this week. After the Colorado State University Board of Governors voted to ban guns and other weapons at the Pueblo and Fort Collins campuses, Alderden went on record with the Colorado Springs Gazette to say that he would do all he could to undermine what he considers a dangerous policy. That includes refusing to book otherwise compliant concealed-carry holders who are arrested by CSU-Fort Collins campus cops into his jail, and testifying on behalf of them in court.
He told the paper:
This ban, which is broad and encompassing, basically denies students at the Fort Collins campus any defensive capacity at all. It's a weapons-free zone for law-abiding people, and it won't do a single thing to keep armed criminals off of campus. It will only ensure them a lot of defenseless victims. The people who did this are lost in their own world of ideological liberalism. You would think people involved in academia would want to deal in data and experience, but this has been all about emotion.
The near-tragic irony of the Board of Governor's decision was that it was taken the same day a gunman opened fire at Deer Creek Middle School, injuring two children before teachers tackled him. It's a different situation, of course, because guns are banned at K-12 schools under state law -- but it serves to underscore Alderden's point. The suspect in the middle school shooting is reported to have heard voices and struggled with anger issues. That guns are banned on middle school campuses obviously means nothing to people who are unhinged and bent on violence -- why increase their odds of inflicting mayhem on yet another defenseless population, college students?
In an interview with the University of Chicago Press, author John Lott, who analyzed crime data for all U.S. counties from 1977-1994 for his book More Guns, Less Crime, argues that allowing law-abiding citizens to arm themselves has a quantifiable impact on crime rates.
Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.
These findings are in line with common sense. Clear-thinking criminals (yes, a contradiction in terms) will think twice before opening fire. Mentally ill criminals will hopefully be stopped by law-abiding gun carrying citizens with fewer casualties than if no one was capable of firing back. It's lucky that the suspect in the Deer Creek shooting was armed with a single-action hunting rifle, requiring him to retract the bolt and eject the cartridge after each shot. That gave the heroic teachers time to react before he could get more shots off. Had he been armed with a semiautomatic rifle or pistol, the carnage could well have been worse, because teachers might not have been able to get close enough to stop him. In that case, a well-trained citizen or teacher with a handgun could have been a lifesaver.
All that is hypothetical, of course. But given the choice, I'd rather be surrounded by gun-toting civilians in such a situation than not. The next time I'm on the CSU campus, I'll be glad to know I have a sheriff who agrees with me.
Follow Greg Campbell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/greg_campbell
History is filled with the escapades of evil, hate filled men who stood up for their convictions. Idi Amin was convinced that eating an enemy's heart was the right thing to do. Stalin, Hitler, Franco, et al....
Why do you make it sound like a good thing (h/t Martha)?
Ya' know......wolves, and bears, and stuff.
Consider this: In the US we have tiers of government and tiers of jurisdiction. The federal laws apply anywhere in the US. State laws only apply in that particular state. County laws only apply in that county. City or municiple laws only apply in that city or municipality. Generally any subdivision below that cannot pass laws.
That being said, the FBI enforces federal law but cannot enforce a state law county law or city law. The state police can enforce federal law and state law, but not county or city law. County sheriffs can enforce federal law, state law and count law, but not city law. City police can enforce all the laws at or above them. These are of course generalities as there can be agreements between levels of jurisdiction.
In the case of a campus vs a county sheriff, remember that a campus is almost the same as a city, but not quite. Generally a campus will not have prisons/jails or courts. They sometimes have a "police force", but they have very little power. And like a city, the county sheriff usually has no authority to enforce campus codes. He can enforce federal, state, and county codes on the campus, but not campus codes.
Grow up.
A perfect example of why firearm rights supporters have made so many strides over the last 20 years.
In some states, a "no carry" sign has legal authority, meaning if you ignore and carry anyway, you are commiting a felony.
In other states, such signs have no legal authority, meaning ignoring them isn't breaking the law. However if you are detected and asked to leave because you have a gun, you have to leave or you can be charged with trespassing.
Which catagory does Colorado fall into?
Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.
The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.
According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken - though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted February 12-15, with 1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall survey.
Filed under: 2010 • CNN Polls
How creative.
Let me save you some time. You won't find any because there are none. No one has any "right" to police protection. The duty of the police is to enforce the law, not protect any individual.
As long as I'm respected it'll be fun for me, too.
I can only hope they are unarmed; carry permits or not.
Any civilian who hopes to take down a bad guy is just as likely to end up dead or wounded as not. A helluva way to get out of other responsibilities.
A few years back; I encountered a "cowboy" who came across a hostage situation in a west coast mall. Wisely; he left the building.
Unwisely, he retrieved his sidearm from his vehicle and returned to the scene.
He hopes his rehabilitation efforts will allow him to walk again; nothing wrong with a little bit of hope to get you through the day.
It only goes to show, you damn well better know how many shooters have you in their sights; police included.
This is the kind of stuff that looks good on a resumé if that's what you need to believe; some folks require more than mere survival.
I am certain, then, that you will be able to provide references to statistics showing that armed self-defense is successful, at most, in only fifty percent of attempts. Please do so.
"A few years back; I encountered a "cowboy" who came across a hostage situation in a west coast mall. Wisely; he left the building.
Unwisely, he retrieved his sidearm from his vehicle and returned to the scene.
He hopes his rehabilitation efforts will allow him to walk again; nothing wrong with a little bit of hope to get you through the day."
An anecdotal, unverified account does not constitute a valid, statistically meaningful data set.
I'm still waiting to see if my third post in all its edifying glory, yet appears.
How convenient it must be to retrieve information from a selectively compartmentalized meat puppet data dump.
The Sheriff can only interpret the law; not okay making up new ones as the occasion arises.
Speaking of which, I wonder how many parents with children at that University will allow them their "commencement"?
Funny how nobody brought that up before.
Semper fi