Far Left Sheriff Dupnik Spoke Out Against Conceal & Carry Laws
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 4:57 AM
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has been a vocal critic of conceal and carry laws in Arizona. Dupnik believes that such laws would further endanger innocent bystanders in critical life and death situations.
Sheriff Dupnik even wrote an editorial on the subject at The Tucson Citizenin 2008:
Recent multiple homicides on college campuses, like those that occurred at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, have inflamed the national community and brought about a call to arms that is at once understandable and dangerous.
Currently, 13 states are considering legislation that would allow individuals with concealed weapons permits to carry weapons on college campuses, Newsweek reported Feb. 15.
The reasoning is that armed individuals will either deter outright or bring to an end a shooting incident on campus.
Arizona is one of the states considering such legislation. Sen. Karen Johnson has proposed SB 1214, which would allow students with concealed weapons permits to carry those weapons on campus.
This Senate bill would not allow school policies to limit permit holders from carrying their weapons on campus.
In the mayhem that ensues when someone begins shooting in a classroom or auditorium, it is unreasonable to think young, inexperienced students will have the presence of mind to quickly and calmly engage an active shooter.
In addition, if more than one student has a concealed weapon, how is it possible to determine which individuals are involved in the attack and which ones are trying to stop it?
The danger of crossfire and unintentional victims is multiplied exponentially.The danger is further heightened when law enforcement arrives on the scene.
In what are, by their very nature, dynamic and dangerous situations, active shooter scenarios present a challenge to all involved.
Imagine the confusion that will ensue when law enforcement arrives at an active shooter situation, with unconfirmed information about who the suspect is or even how many there are, and these same officers encounter multiple individuals with guns.
There is no doubt that the community is concerned about the safety of students on campus.
I fully support the people’s right to bear arms; however, the problem of violence on campus is much too complex for a simple answer such as “more guns on campus.”
Think back to Oct. 28, 2002, when our own community was rocked by a shooting by University of Arizona College of Nursing student Robert Flores, who shot and killed three nursing professors – Robin Rogers, Barbara Monroe and Cheryl McGaffic – before turning the gun on himself.
Witnesses in the room spoke of the chaos and confusion that ensued when Flores started shooting.
Enacting legislation to allow people to carry concealed weapons on school campuses is not the solution to this problem.
The reality is that such actions will further endanger innocent bystanders in these situations.
Further tragedy will occur when more lives are lost because well-intentioned but unprepared citizens faced these life and death scenarios.
Hat Tip Nita
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik also blamed Arizona’s gun laws for Saturday’s shooting rampage in Tucson.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
NEWLY DISCOVERED VIDEO Previously Scrubbed From YouTube Shows Trayvon Martin Participating in Local Fight Club
Published May 21, 2012 at 12:19 am - 77 Comments
bigL commented:
Approve the law and lets see what happens-if any of these spectres become visible. There was oneepisode wit a kid taking hostages and the teacher ran to his car two blocks away-the sch was a ‘gun-free’zone- got his gun and I think shot the kid. I can’t recall if the kid w/ gun was dead.
but becasue it was a positve story about a gun, the press dropped it like a rock.
Gun-free zones are a shooting gallery for our kids by creeps
Evil Otto commented:
Who needs concealed carry? I mean, the sheriff did such a fine job protecting the people during the shooting.
/sarcasm
vote for pedro commented:
Just get close enought to put your finger in the barrel! It works, I saw it on Mythbusters…oh wait!
Txn4Evr commented:
If Sheriff dumbdick had done his job this guy would have been in a state hospital or prison.
M Conservative Operative commented:
…If you would of issued a few more gun permits the whole situation may have been different. About 20 people pulling out 4O cals and blowing that son of a bitch to hell before he could get off a shot… , posted yesterday on M Conservative Operative M
CV1 commented:
Had the shooters at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois known there was potential for guns in the student body, there’s the liklihood that the shootings would have never happened.
The notion that there would be too much confusion when law enforcement arrives is anti productive and short sighted. Giving the bad guys total control is exactly what they need to carry out their evil. The sheriff’s position plays right into their hands.
If someone is planning a shooting spree, it doesn’t take a genius to assume that the shooter does NOT want his intended victims to have the ability to shoot back or defend themselves. In many cases, when this happens, the shooter will take his own life rather than be apprehended.
I would not want Dupnik to be my sherrif…unless I was the bad guy!
No Man commented:
Why am I not surprised?
What is wrong with the people of Pima County?
Probably too many retirees from CA, NJ, and NY . . .
Bobbi commented:
Look, this guy was born in 1936. He turned his back to several of jared’s “criminal actions”, because jared’s mom was on the County board of supervisors.(maybe his friend) now we know that the high school Jared attended was funded by the Chicago annenberg challenge and used the curriculum of Obama/ ayers buddy, Michael klonsky, the official leader of the us Maoist party which has infiltrated k-12 to teach our children about the nastiness of capitalism visa-bus “social justice”
The chickens have come home to roost
Conservative to the Core commented:
Not surprising; the Lefties were *against* racial profiling before they were *for* it.
donh commented:
This is more proof Sherrif Dipstick is in the pocket of the Mexican Drug cartel. He wants to restrict gun rights to law abiding citizens to make things easier for the criminals he represents.
listingstarboard commented:
What is the Obama regime up to while all of this attention is being focused on the Giffords shooting? The one thing I have seen happen over and over is the sneaking of unpopular and unethical crap while the public is preoccupied (by design) What about the suspicious death of 37 year old Ashley Turton in D.C.–what about the delay of voting on Obamacare repeal? What about the proposed taxpayer bailout of Puerto Rico? The leftists will exploit this tragedy relentlessly. They have no decency.
Ohio Granny commented:
When I first heard about the shooting, I was horrified. Then when I heard NINETEEN people where shot, I was stunned. 19 ! If any one of them had had a conceal or even openly carried gun, this number would have been 2 or 3 – max. But I think if the shooter knew he was going to be in a situation where it wouldn’t be shooting fish in a barrel, he would have stayed home and sulked and smoked more pot. These guys are never courageous. They exist because we disarm the public.
Brandon Delaney commented:
Why is this always the backlash and not, “hey, look at how bad marijuana is! Look what it made this young man do!”
Cynic commented:
I think most intelligent people knew this would turn into an opportunity for anti gun laws instead of increased security for law abiding citizens and justice for the victims.
theBuckWheat commented:
Dunpik’s solution to madmen is to force his victims to die like Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s husband died on the Long Island Railroad. If this does not show how dangerous lefts are to the rest of us, what will?
NC Cop commented:
I remember when they first proposed concealed carry here in NC. I thought it would be a disaster. I WAS WRONG! It’s a wonderful program and if you look at the stats almost very state that has approved concealed carry has seen some sort of drop in violent crime.
Reaganite Republican commented:
These poor folks must be plenty jealous of Maricopa County… we’re they’ve got a real sheriff
Ginger commented:
The Kenyan fraud is campaigning for 2012! His so called moment of silence and calling the family of the persons who were murdered and now going to funerals. That fraud could care less about the dead one’s and their family. It is all about HIM!
myohmy commented:
Who is paying this guy? He is supposed to keep law and order and NOT act as a political hack. He is a big failure. Arizona should vote out this guy. He failed his constituents in protecting them. He had a run in with this lunatic and he did not do anything. Instead, he consumed himself in playing politics. What an ugly, ugly bloated man.
raugaj commented:
We don’t know if he ever heard right wing radio or read right wing sites, but we do know this:
He was a fan of Mao
He was a leftist
He was very likely insane
He had threatened people
He was mad at Giffords since 2007 (before Palin had her “crosshairs” site)
He held no conservative views and was unlikely to be swayed by right wing rhetoric
The people that are trying to lay blame are being, at best, disingenuous. More likely than that is that they are just dishonest. In the case of the sheriff, it is also likely to be a large portion of deflection.
bigL commented:
Forget Term limits.
The voters need to man up and vote these boat-anchors out of office. Usually sheriff’s are pretty much like kings in counties. they are not subject to the Counter Supervisors. Plus they know everything on everyone. That is why itis such a dereliction of duty that the Sheriff didn’t “take-care” of this kid. Thisi s serious stuff to not even roll a squad car to sit in front of the Safeway. Even if the cops were sitting in the Starbucks, it sends a message.
Also the COO of a security co thatthe Capitol Police use in D.C. said that there is usu. one access to the Congressperson and then out the other way and someone watches the crowd and the hands and pockets-i.e behind thetable looking out. More dereliction.
John Gargano commented:
The sheriff is in denial because he refuses to acknowledge the truth. He’s also in transference because he is trying to attribute the cause of the shooting to something other than what it actually is. When regular folks do this, its problematic. When law enforcement does this, its tragic. The shooter was not a political operative. He is simply (very) mentally ill.
As the facts become more and more clear, the sheriff adamantly refuses to acknowledge them. Instead of revising his position to reflect what is known, he doubles down on his illogical statements because his stubbornness causes him to be blinded and his staunchly held political views cause him to draw the wrong conclusion. This is a clearly case of square peg – round hole, but he’s going to keep trying because he has a learning disability.
The shooter has hope because with good medical care he may one day, a very long time from now, be able to recover. The sheriff is much worse off because he suffers from stupidity for which there is absolutely no cure or treatment, he will never recover.
People that want gun control are simplistic and also in denial. They too are trying to transfer blame for gun crimes on the guns themselves. Crimes should be attributable to people that commit them, not the instruments they use in the process.
We also have a problem in this nation in that we allow severely mentally ill people to roam the streets when they should be in psychiatric hospitals. Its nothing more than that.
Our lawmakers are out to lunch on this issue and have been for quite some time.
Andreas K. commented:
“The reasoning is that armed individuals will either deter outright or bring to an end a shooting incident on campus.”
Correct.
And a shooter will carry a gun to campus anyway. Does anyone really think that someone, who wants to kill, will be stopped by a sign saying “no guns allowed”? I mean really?
Ok, it may stop him if you pick it up and whack him to kingdom come with it… but outside of that… OI!
Let’s look at this from the criminal’s point of view for a second.
Who will the criminal target?
1) a defenseless victim
2) a victim where he may possible get hurt or even killed
The answer is, of course, 1.
Criminals are bastards, but they’re not idiots. They go for the easy prey. They will assault the 5’3″ petite woman, who’s not carrying, but won’t attack the 6’8″ tank of a guy, who is clearly carrying. That’s how it is.
How else can one explain that every 4 minutes a woman in Germany is assaulted?
Easy prey.
Just like a crazy nutjob with a gun. Look at all the school shootings. They always picked the easy targets. Columbine. No resistance. VA Tech. No resistance. Why? Because nobody carried. No students, no teachers.
Resistance is the one thing criminals don’t expect. They usually plan on their victim to panic. But if the victim doesn’t panic, if it fights back, then the criminal will be stopped.
Just recently there was a case of a serial robber in Germany. The man was always targetting women. He managed to strike at three and the fourth finally managed to get the police on his butt. But importantly, the other three also fought back and foiled his plans.
Imagine someone would have been carrying at VA Tech during the shooting. Or now in AZ. A sudden, determined resistance by a trained shooter would definitely have stopped the attacker.
As for gun control…
Let me get this again, from http://themadmanraves.blogspot.com/ :
Here’s another way of looking at the gun control issue.
Imagine, if you will, a grade school classroom with 30 kids and one teacher.
Now, let’s say the teacher creates three for the classroom, rules the kids must follow, rules that keep the classroom orderly and conducive to learning.
The three rules are
1. No talking during lessons
2. Stay in your seats during lessons.
3. Respect your fellow classmates.
Now, suppose that despite those rules, ten out of the thirty kids repeatedly do not follow them and continually disrupt class. In addition, they push the other kids around.
Okay–now suppose that in order to punish the ten kids for not following the rules, the teacher decides to create more rules of conduct.
The ten kids still don’t follow.
So the teacher creates even more rules.
In every instance, the twenty kids who actually follow the rules are finding themselves saddled with more and sometimes stricter rules.
They’ll follow them, of course. They’re good students.
But those ten kids repeatedly do not.
And the teacher creates even more rules.
Think about this for a moment.
As a solution, does it make sense?
Go ahead. Think about it.
No. It doesn’t make sense.
Here’s the thing: this is exactly what gun control is doing.
The ten kids (criminals) are breaking the three rules (established gun laws) so in response, the teacher (gun control advocates) create more rules to make sure the three rules are being followed.
Now let me ask you: if you thought the classroom example didn’t work, what makes you think gun control efforts will?
Totally spot on.
the pirranah commented:
Funny how the media doesn’t look into the background of sherriff Dupnik Fife. If this was a conservaitve sheriff pointing the finger at liberals with inuendo, he would have been pilloried by the press to the point of how many time he stroked the monkey while in high school, at the same time saying victims blood is on his hands since he didn’t take this madman off the streets with all the warning signs.
GrayRider commented:
How the H did this loon get to be a county sheriff? Was he put there by the Open Borders Reconquista burnouts? This dupe is far more qualified for an upper level DOJ position holding Holder’s hand.
Arch commented:
I could not disagree more. Making any venue a free fire zone for criminals is wrong headed. Criminals, even those who are a few bricks short of a load, want to commit their crime with minimum risk. They are not afraid of police. What they all fear is an armed victim.
If you are trained in self defense, that training should include techniques of engaging an attacker in a constricted space with others nearby. Whether you are in a classroom at Va Tech or a parking lot in Tucson, when shots are fired, people hit the deck. That’s good, because it leaves the shooter standing and gives you a clear shot. If you miss, the bullets will pass over by the victims and into a wall.
Another option variable is ammunition. If you expect to encounter trouble from criminals in the open, load hollow point ammunition. These rounds have two advantages – they inflict a debilitating injury likely to end the threat and they are less prone to ricochet causing unintended harm. The disadvantage is that they will not penetrate a car door or even safety glass with sufficient energy. Full metal jacket bullets have more penetrating capability, but they will glance off a hard surface. What I do is load my primary magazine with alternating FMJ and hollow points for the first six rounds which I shoot in pairs. The remainder of the rounds are jacketed.
Rather than passing a law which denies citizens their right to self defense, why not teach gun owners how to use their weapons safely and effectively?
Highlander commented:
There are a couple of really big holes in Sheriff Dufus’s argument….
First of all, our Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms, in order to PROTECT ourselves. Nobody is really proposing that CC permit holders assume the role of law enforcement, but when someone bursts into a classroom with a gun and starts shooting at me, I have a right to be ready and able to defend myself. Denying law-abiding citizens who hold CC permits the right to attend school (or go anywhere else for that matter) with a weapon to protect themselves is a huge violation of their second amendment rights under the Constitution.
In my opinion, anyone who prohibits a person from lawfully exercising their right to carry should be held liable for any injury that person might sustain in an assault. Additionally, prohibiting law abiding people from carrying weapons in any particular area effectively sets up a “gun free zone” where criminals know they can go to launch their attacks unchallenged. I believe that by setting up these zones, the responsible parties become complicit in any crime that might occur. They should be held liable for any assault-related injuries sustained by ANYONE who happens to be in their “gun free zone”.
Secondly, the Sheriff assumes that CC permit holders would be shooting wildly at the suspect, and that innocent people would be hurt in the process. There is absolutely NO evidence to support that claim. Permit holders are well trained and have been shown to be very responsible. To my knowledge, there hasn’t been a single incident where a permit holder has reacted in such a way, nor have any innocent people been shot. The purpose of carrying a concealed weapon is to protect ones self … not to take the place of law enforcement. Permit holders are taught to fire their weapon only if directly threatened, not in an aggressive manner.
Many people in law enforcement support concealed carry. They are wise enough to understand that the more good guys there are out there carrying, the better off everyone will be. I hear a lot of this anti-concealed carry rhetoric coming from sheriffs, who seem to have a different attitude than the regular beat cops. I believe it is because they aren’t typically out on the streets getting shot at, so they don’t see the value of having an extra gun on their side in a tough situation. They seem to feel threatened, or even insulted, by CC permit holders, not because they might get shot by them, but because they are infringing on their authority. They need to get over their self-important attitudes, and realize that until they can guarantee they will be around to defend every last citizen in a crisis, citizens have the right to do it for themselves.
Henry Hawkins commented:
@NC Cop #16 – Absolutely. I’m a NC resident too and I have CC permit. The training was 8 hrs, which seemed light to me, but I was wrong. It was very thorough and comprehensive and included qualifying at a range. The trainer was excellent, a retired career police officer and Nam vet. Knew his stuff, as did his wife who handled the presentation of the legal aspects, when you can and cannot use your weapon and other pertinent laws.
A concealed weapon at the AZ shooting likely would not have prevented it, but it may well have cut down the victim count had someone dropped him early on. That happens more often than the media cares to report.
dunce commented:
Who needs personal protection with super sherif numb nuts on duty 24/7.
Lemonaide commented:
I agree with Sheriff Dumnik completely. It’s so much easier for the police to differentiate the bad guy from the victims when the victims are all on the ground dead.
Spike commented:
How did this fruity as_ ever become a Cop?
Militant Conservative commented:
#16 January 11, 2011 at 7:35 am
NC Cop commented:
Many LEO’s think the street will run with blood. The stats now prove that an armed society is a polite society. The cop down my street knows I’m the civillian that can and will assist the good guy’s if the bad guys get the jump on a uniformed officer.
Look up Kennesaw Georgia. They passed a law over a decade ago that if you own a home you MUST own a gun. Amazingly crime went down in Kennesaw but up in the surrounding cities. Thieves do not want to have to work under fire. Especially since Georgia has the castle doctrine.
powder is dry.
Freedom Warrior commented:
No Law has EVER stopped a hell bent criminal so more gun laws are only passed so gov. has more control over the people period end of story on that! my question is who was that nut job left wing politician on tv today saying he wants to ban all high capacity ammo? what the hell is high cap. ammo? i was a 45bravo/30 sm. arms repaiarman in the service and have been dealing with firearms my whole life and have never heard of such a thing these know nothing jack a$$ politicians need to figure out what the hell they are talking about befor getting on tv and making a total a$$ out of there self to anyone with half a brain LOL!
bg commented:
++
if guns are banned, the insane & criminal
elements of our society can’t shoot US..
like not calling Islamist terrorists Islamist terrorists will
make them think twice about attacking US ever again..
that’s how liberals think..
==