TexasCHLforum.com

An article in today's Dallas Morning News discussed some recent robberies in the Dallas area where victims who respond to bogus craigslist ads are robbed at gunpoint at vacant houses. So the Garland and Richardson PD's provide these thoughtful hints:

1. Meet in public places.
2. Never take large amounts of cash to a meeting with a stranger.
3. Have a friend wait in the distance so they can contact police if necessary.
4. Never enter a house if someone yells for you to "come in."
5. Be aware of your surroundings.

Every list I see like this (there is probably at least one of these "helpful" lists in the paper every month) is the same in that there is never this suggestion:

6. Arm yourself if licensed, and if you're not licensed, consider getting licensed so you can legally carry.

Why are police departments so hesitant to publicly support CHL carry? Or are PD's suggesting this, only to be filtered by the public media? Are there any PD's in the state that have gone on record to recommend concealed carry as an effective means of crime deterrence?

Probably because carrying a gun isn't less likely to put you in one of those situations. Yeah, you may then pull the gun and shoot the BG or get shot yourself, but I don't see how that would be better than getting robbed. I agree that by making sure to follow those recommendations would help prevent a robbery much more than concealed carry would.

Nachos Libres wrote:Probably because carrying a gun isn't less likely to put you in one of those situations. Yeah, you may then pull the gun and shoot the BG or get shot yourself, but I don't see how that would be better than getting robbed. I agree that by making sure to follow those recommendations would help prevent a robbery much more than concealed carry would.

Then why carry concealed at all? I would think most of us here have a concept of "situational awareness," do not visit vacant houses, etc. Does that mean it's OK for us to leave our weapons at home as long as we maintain our "situational awareness"?

To me, it's nothing less than a cop-out (no pun intended). I see the same advice given by PD's over and over...here's an example I just came across today, about a home invasion robbery:

"Hoppe [of the Chisago County Sheriff's Office] said that homeowners "have the right to protect themselves in their homes," but advises that victims not confront thieves and simply call 911." (Source: http://www.startribune.com/local/279920 ... yP4O:DW3ck" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

BTW, carrying a gun isn't more likely to get yourself into such a situation. And given the choice of shooting the BG or getting robbed, I'll take shooting the BG any day.

So what can be done to persuade PD's to start publicly supporting the position that being armed is certainly a better situation than being unarmed?

brianko wrote:Why are police departments so hesitant to publicly support CHL carry? Or are PD's suggesting this, only to be filtered by the public media? Are there any PD's in the state that have gone on record to recommend concealed carry as an effective means of crime deterrence?

IMO, I think it's a matter of trying to perpetuate the illusion that the police are "the authorities" and are in control and can protect their citizens. If citizens need to be armed to protect themselves and their families, doesn't that imply that the police can't or aren't able to perform their job adequately? I also think that most PDs don't believe that regular citizens have the required qualifications or are competent to carry and shoot a weapon like their "highly trained" officers.

I am not aware of any PD that has an "official policy" that supports, condones or recommends concealed carry, but there have been a few police chiefs that have gone on record supporting concealed carry and armed citizens. I am always pleased to read news articles which publish quotes from these LEOs.

Our city police dept provided the CHL course we attended. It was taught by an off duty police officer.

In 1977 (?) the FBI surveyed police departments nationwide. The consensus was a demographic onslaught of criminals in the years ahead would be more than they could handle. The police said the public would have to fend for itself, and as I recall the recommendation of most police chiefs was for the public to gun up. Unfortunately, I can no longer find a link to this information. Here in Louisiana the overwhelming majority of police officers are in favor of licensed concealed carry of handguns.

I might add that internet auctions resulting in robberies in the upper Central Texas area have made the news before. Buy with caution. A sad commentary on the state of affairs today.

And how long will it be before some psychopath acting as a buyer finds his victims in the sellers? The stuff of fiction, maybe? I think this scenario may have already played out once in the Dallas area after some joker bought an airplane online and then killed the owner at the inspection point.

WildBill wrote:

brianko wrote:Why are police departments so hesitant to publicly support CHL carry? Or are PD's suggesting this, only to be filtered by the public media? Are there any PD's in the state that have gone on record to recommend concealed carry as an effective means of crime deterrence?

IMO, I think it's a matter of trying to perpetuate the illusion that the police are "the authorities" and are in control and can protect their citizens. If citizens need to be armed to protect themselves and their families, doesn't that imply that the police can't or aren't able to perform their job adequately? I also think that most PDs don't believe that regular citizens have the required qualifications or are competent to carry and shoot a weapon like their "highly trained" officers. ....

Actually, the Supreme Court ruled a while back, IIRC, that police are under no constitutional obligation to protect you. Thus, you must be prepared to protect yourself if necessary. The next time some anti suggests you substitute cops for personally owned firearms, remind them of that. Therefore, your choices are, realistically, either to protect yourself, or to go without protection.

Besides, even in cities with the best of intentions, and the best relations between police and citizens, police simply can't be in all places at all times. That distinction is reserved for our Creator, and He may be as likely to call on us individually to be the agents of our own protection as He is to provide a cop at the right time. We need to be prepared to be called, whatever His purpose for us.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Actually, the Supreme Court ruled a while back, IIRC, that police are under no constitutional obligation to protect you. Thus, you must be prepared to protect yourself if necessary. The next time some anti suggests you substitute cops for personally owned firearms, remind them of that. Therefore, your choices are, realistically, either to protect yourself, or to go without protection.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of those cases that the Court decided that the police are not obligated to protect the individual. That is why I used the word "illusion" in my OP. I guess most people don't know that fact.

It's nice to know from Mrs. Fosforos' post that some local PDs actually sponsor CHL classes. I think that is a real community service activity that will create positive feelings and support for local law enforcement.

WildBill wrote:[
It's nice to know from Mrs. Fosforos' post that some local PDs actually sponsor CHL classes. I think that is a real community service activity that will create positive feelings and support for local law enforcement.

Amen to that!