WI Sheriff urges people to arm themselves, get training, because of cuts to law enforcement.

There is a phrase which is becoming more popular:  I carry a gun – because a cop is too heavy.

Here is a story from Milwaukee which a friend forwarded.

Keep in mind that Milwaukee is not exactly a bastion of conservatism.

Wisconsin sheriff urges residents to arm themselves

A sheriff who released a radio ad urging Milwaukee-area residents to learn to handle firearms so they can defend themselves while waiting for police said Friday that law enforcement cutbacks have changed the way police can respond to crime.
In the 30-second commercial, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. says personal safety is no longer a spectator sport.
“I need you in the game,” he says.
“With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option,” he adds. “You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. … Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there.”
The ad has generated sharp criticism from other area officials and anti-violence advocates. The president of the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, Roy Felber, said it sounds like a call to vigilantism.
“That doesn’t sound too smart,” Felber said. “People have the right to defend themselves, but they don’t have the right to take the law into their own hands.”  [That is not what the sheriff said, though, is it.]
Under Wisconsin’s “castle doctrine,”[yep] someone who uses deadly force against an unlawful intruder to their home, business or vehicle is presumed to have acted reasonably. A spokeswoman for the state Department of Justice said that as of this week, there are about 155,000 concealed carry permits in Wisconsin.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Clarke said he just wants people to know what their options are. While self-defense isn’t for everyone, some people see personal safety as their own responsibility, he said, and they should be trained properly.
“I’m not telling you to `Hey, pick up a gun and blast away.’ … People need to know what they are doing if they chose that method — to defend themselves,” he said.


Read the rest, included some of the hysteria of the left, over there.

My take.

I agree with the sheriff.

Moreover, the issue of being trained, taking the classes is the key here, not just buying a gun.

I have taken concealed carry weapon license classes for multiple states. I have taken defensive hand gun classes. I have been shot numerous times in role-playing scenarios, as a matter of fact. This is sobering stuff, once you get into it.

In these classes a lot of time is spent on the law and the consequences of displaying, brandishing, discharging a weapon in a self-defensive or home invasion situation. They impress on you that one you do this, your life changes. Also, they go over very carefully what the “castle doctrine” is a about. They hammer away that you don’t shoot a guy because he is walking out the door with your flat screen TV. A human life is not worth it. Could you shoot him? Yes, and you would legally be within your rights. But it would be just plain wrong to shoot a guy over property like that. A lot of the training focuses on trying de-escalate conflicts so that it is not necessary to defend yourself physically.

My experience in taking these classes is that the other people in them leave with their eyes rather widened and with serious expressions.

The key to what the sheriff urged was the training, not just the arming.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Liberals, The future and our choices and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Supertradmum says:

    Great post, thanks and I shall pass this article around.

  2. The Masked Chicken says:

    “I have taken concealed carry weapon license classes for multiple states.”

    I know little about Concealed Carry Laws. Do you have to have permit for each state? In other words, if you are traveling by car from one state to another and you are car-jacked at gun-point, are you not allowed to defend yourself if you have a concealed weapon because you are out-of -state? Is this, yet, another reason not to travel?

    The Chicken

  3. Phil_NL says:

    Thank God for the second amendment – at least in the US. Over here, the situation is not one bit better in terms of police response, but armed self defense is all but illegal (the arms themselves too). And of course no cop here would have the guts to be honest about the situation, as this sheriff was. I’ll praise the day when we too have second amendment rights and castle laws.

    Chicken, check this site: http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

    Each state has the right to recognize, or not, each other’s carry permits. In general terms, ‘red states’ (politically) tend to recognize most permits, ‘blue states’ (ak.a. Dem states, aka the coastal ones) recognize far fewer permits. Three guesses why….

  4. Banjo pickin girl says:

    Chicken, first, it’s a license, not a permit. a license carries with it legal obligations that a permit does not. That is why it’s a hunting license but a deer permit.

    yes, the scenario you describe would be technically true. if you were in a state that does not have reciprocity with your home state’s license you would not be legally able to defend yourself. HOWEVER, some states have language written into their laws to cover such things.

    My Ohio license is okay for Kentucky and Indiana but not New York where I sometimes vacation, where nothing is legal, even drinking big sodas i guess.

  5. msmsem says:

    Ah… the wonderful retired priest at my parish decided to give his Sunday homily (note – there is a reason I’m not posting this in the “good Sunday homily” post…) on non-violence and our Christian duty to support gun control. Not a word about the readings or the Gospel. And we did have quite a few people give him a standing ovation… and I couldn’t help but shake my head.

    The crux of his argument was that the statement that “the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” is theologically flawed because it claims that only violence will stop violence. I agree that “just get more guns” is not the panacea to problems of violence and that the root of the increasingly violent attacks and murders lies within the culture of death that pervades today’s society (if only the priest had actually called it the culture of death and mentioned abortion… but nope).

    At the same time, I could not help but think that our society is based upon that very argument that we need good guys with guns to stop bad guys with guns. We call them the police – the “ordinary form,” if you will, of protection – but sometimes, as the good sheriff notes, we need the defense of peace and the maintenance of order through the “extraordinary form” of armed and trained citizens.

  6. Anne 2 says:

    There is a list of carry States that accept each other’s permits. You can find this info on most State websites. For example: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/FORMS/ReciprocityList.pdf

    The Sherriff is correct that people should remain familiar with the care, cleaning and use of any gun if it is to serve you well in an emergency, and do no more damage than necessary to stop an unjust aggressor. Go to a shooting range at least once a year. [Or month.]

    CCC: ” 2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life.
    Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.
    If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . .
    Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. “

  7. Anne 2 says:

    Any time a Priest, Bishop or any other Catholic states we must have “gun control”, ask him to please point to any Catholic Church teaching which requires this.
    He can use the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” as well as the Bible.
    He will soon learn that there is no teaching against guns, knives, baseball bats, automobiles, or other objects that have good uses but are merely abused by few.
    You can also ask him that since ovwer 25,000 people are killed each year through falling – if he would please pray that God outlaw gravity. :)

  8. LisaP. says:

    David Mamet has written on gun ownership, interesting guy, convert to conservatism.

  9. Clinton says:

    Many otherwise law-abiding people have been on the receiving end of New York’s harsh
    laws regarding gun possession. Google the names Ryan Jerome, Meredith Graves or Mark
    Meckler for the stories of folks who had licenses to carry firearms in their home states, visited
    New York, and tried to check their guns with authorities— only to be arrested and charged with
    felony possession. (Actually, in Mr. Meckler’s case, he checked his locked gun case with his
    airline when he departed California (legal), only to be arrested when he went to claim it on
    arrival at LaGuardia (illegal)).

  10. Lepidus says:

    The really funny thing in Milwaukee here, is how the lefties are spinning this. They are saying that the Sheriff is admitting that his department can’t do their job. Of course, the fact that the Paramedics suggest you get CPR training, doesn’t seem to mean the exact same thing.

  11. pmullane says:

    It seems, Father, that the kinds of things taught when applying for a concealed licence are the kinds of discussions adults have about self defence (when it is appropriate/what is the best means/how to be responsible/etc) whereas the conversation happening in America at the moment (eerily similar to the conversation here in the UK when handguns were banned here) is that of the hysterical child ‘something bad happened – Ban it NOW!!’. It reminds me of when my little niece bumps into a chair or table and my sisters have to give the inanimate object a telling off. Mabye once Oberfuhrer Obama has everyones guns he can get round to banning slippery surfaces, heights and raining on the roads at night.

Comments are closed.