Question about John Walsh of America's Most Wanted, re: guns for defense

[peacefuljeffrey]

I know that I have come across comments by John Walsh, of America's Most Wanted, that put down the idea of carrying guns for personal defense -- a position that doesn't make sense to me given he knows that every single day, average people are brutally victimized by violent criminals.

I know that Florida just passed laws regarding protecting gun owners in various ways, among them protecting the identities of holders of concealed weapons licenses from public inquiry. (There were newspapers that, for nothing but spite, had been publishing lists of CCW holders! This was putting us in danger, needlessly exposing people who have been vetted by the FBI and the state and authorized to carry concealed handguns to the possibility of burglaries or other vindictive attack.)

So now I presume a civilian cannot go finding out if someone has a CCW license.

I find myself wondering, since his show is on t.v. right now, whether John Walsh walks his talk, or whether he pulls a Dian Feinstein and carries a gun while admonishing us lowly ordinary people not to.

Does anyone know if he, wherever he lives, has a CCW license and carries a gun of his own?

-Jeffrey

[ADBF]

I admire John Walsh for turning the tragedy of his son's death into an anti-crime crusade. He's been hard on the heels of many of these jerks for many years and has helped to put quite a few behind bars. I would be disappointed, though, to learn that he has an anti gun mindset and more disappointed to learn that he preaches about it. Having an anti-gun mindset does not really mix with an anti-crime mindset. In fact, I believe they are mutually exclusive.

One more comment. There's little that's more disgusting than hypocricy. I really despise the people who preach anti-gun and then carry one, or, worse yet, have a paid, armed body gaurd walking beside them. They're saying, in effect, "Do as I say, not as I do. I'm more important than you are." Quite a few names come to mind.

[webley445]

Rosie "I'm an Elite-ist and you're just lowly foder who don't know any better and should listen to me because I'm a celebrity which means I'm smarter than you and know whats best for the public because I would have never gotten to this status if it all that wasn't true..oh and I'm also so full of myself too" O'Donnell


I can't stand her (and believe me text cannot come close to expressing the loathing in my voice when I say that out loud)

[LowWorm]

Rosie "I'm an Elite-ist and you're just lowly foder who don't know any better and should listen to me because I'm a celebrity which means I'm smarter than you and know whats best for the public because I would have never gotten to this status if it all that wasn't true..oh and I'm also so full of myself too" O'Donnell


I can't stand her (and believe me text cannot come close to expressing the loathing in my voice when I say that out loud)



:lolhammer:

That's the one I was thinking of, too. What she did to poor Tom Selleck on her show... :(

[Lunal_Tic]

:lolhammer:

That's the one I was thinking of, too. What she did to poor Tom Selleck on her show... :(


I just read the transcript of that, ack what a mess. He seems like he knew what was likely to happen and he still went ahead. You can't argue or have a civil discussion with someone like that. I'm glad that she hasn't made it to Japanese TV yet.

-LT

[Jeff9266]

If I recall, John Walsh was living in Florida when his son was tragically the victim of a crime.* I admire the fact that he took his personal loss and used it as motivation to try to help authorities catch other criminals.* I would not be surprised if he carried a gun, as he has helped in the arrest of many lowlifes profiled on his show over the years and probably receives more than his share of threats.* However, he has also recited the skewed statistics often presented by gun control advocates and there was an incident a few years back when his show sort of unfairly surprised guests who were part of a pro-gun organization.* http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200304\NAT2003 0430d.html*

Still, it would be pretty hard to top the level of Rosie's hypocrisy.

[ADBF]

Jeff9266,
That was a good link to that article. Thanks, I put CNS on favorites list. I think Mr. Walsh really needs to think more thouroughly over his position on guns. If he wants to state his opinion on his own television show, that's fine, but he needs to know the truth, not a few propaganda statistics from the anti-gun crowd. If you stand back, so to speak, and take a good objective look at the gun issue in this, or any other country, it's apparent that gun control does not address the issue of violence. Gun bans, knife bans, blackjack bans, you name it, do not deal with the fact of human intent; the malevolence in the hearts of many people. You can ban everything that is an obvious weapon and throw them all into the ocean, but there will still be axes, sticks, chains, rocks, pipes and an untold number of other improvised weapons to assault someone with. The human heart is the issue, not guns and knives. In fact, the reason many of us who are responsible citizens own guns is because we realise that it's a dangerous world sometimes and too many people will do violence at the drop of a hat.

[nontypical]

If I recall, John Walsh was living in Florida when his son was tragically the victim of a crime.* I admire the fact that he took his personal loss and used it as motivation to try to help authorities catch other criminals.* I would not be surprised if he carried a gun, as he has helped in the arrest of many lowlifes profiled on his show over the years and probably receives more than his share of threats.* However, he has also recited the skewed statistics often presented by gun control advocates and there was an incident a few years back when his show sort of unfairly surprised guests who were part of a pro-gun organization.* http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200304\NAT2003 0430d.html*

Still, it would be pretty hard to top the level of Rosie's hypocrisy.


Can you say Hillary Clilnton :( :idiot2: :knuppel2:

[LowWorm]

,<snip>.... The human heart is the issue, not guns and knives. In fact, the reason many of us who are responsible citizens own guns is because we realise that it's a dangerous world sometimes and too many people have evil intentions in their hearts.


True enough...people had no problem starting wars and hurling cauldrons of hot oil at each other prior to guns. To me, the real issues about guns are:

a) Safe storage/keeping of them in households with children.

b) Distinguishing the fine line between gun control laws that actually improve public safety and those that unreasonably compromise personal defense. So much is assumed about guns, with little empirical evidence to go on.

[Goldtanker]

Archie Bunker, trying to explain to his daughter who was complaining about murders involving guns, that HOW people kill each other really isn't the issue. "Would ya rather they waz pushed outta windows?" ;)

[peacefuljeffrey]

b) Distinguishing the fine line between gun control laws that actually improve public safety and those that unreasonably* compromise personal defense.* So much is assumed about guns, with little empirical evidence to go on.



Um, what gun control actually does accomplish making the public safer? :(


-Jeffrey

[webley445]

Just ask the experts, gun control does work.
Stalin, Mau, Hitler.........

[Bob Lindell]

Let's be frank, here...* part of our EDC should be an NRA membership card in our wallets.

Don't get me wrong, I've found this forum to be very valuable and a great resource.* I value it.* I also love cool stuff, and there's definitely a place for one more "annoyance preventer" in my pocket or on my belt.* But there's also an unspoken "******* contest" quality to many of our posts here...* the "look how tactical I am for buying this latest titanium-mega-gizmo-ultra-mil-spec-multi-lumen" thing.

With the prices they're charging for the crap we buy and the amount that we spend on it (usually for stuff we ALREADY have more than one of), a $35 annual NRA membership is NOT financially difficult for most of us.

Yes, it can get annoying to receive the requests for contributions.* As I get older, though, I realize more and more the value of the NRA.* Our Bill of Rights and our 2nd Amendment is something to protect from the "Social Engineers" of our nation and the world.* We're privileged here, comparatively, and we need to remain vigilant. I figure that passing on some of the tip money I get from work is worth it for me, my family, and the future...

My $0.02

Out...

[Goldtanker]

It's ammendment #2 - which is right after #1. If we let that one go, how close are we to losing #4?

[Bob Lindell]

To clarify: Mr. Walsh and Ms. O'Donnell are certainly welcome to their views. I defend their right to voice them. Thanks to Goldtanker !

[greenLED]

I seldom see stories of people with CCW's preventing or stopping crime from hapenning (actually, I've only see one such report on-line). I don't doubt this happens (and it could be a lot), as I'm not against guns. I'm more interested in learning why that would be the case? Is it a media bias (where telling the story of a dead child sells more than a story of a would-be rapist stopped by an armed citizen)?

[webley445]

To clarify:* Mr. Walsh and Ms. O'Donnell are certainly welcome to their views.* I defend their right to voice them.* Thanks to Goldtanker !


And I agree, however I find it hypocritical to go on and anti-gun campaign/media blitz decrying to uselessness of such items, but then its ok to go have your personal bodyguard apply for a CCW, pay for it, buy the piece, an have him carry it to protect you and your's.
Oh we don't need such protection because we're not special celebrities, but its ok for her? I don't think so.

[webley445]

I seldom see stories of people with CCW's preventing or stopping crime from hapenning (actually, I've only see one such report on-line). I don't doubt this happens (and it could be a lot), as I'm not against guns. I'm more interested in learning why that would be the case? Is it a media bias (where telling the story of a dead child sells more than a story of a would-be rapist stopped by an armed citizen)?



thats a good portion of it. I have a scanner and hear what the cops are actually dealing with on the streets. People are shot and stabbed, but no one hears about, media doesn't report it unless the victim dies.
CCW holders preventing crimes isn't a common everyday occurance, but it has happened.

One stipulation of using your sidearm to come to the aide of someone is that it has to be a violent felony" (violent crime and/or the imminent danger or threat of great bodily injury and/or death).

[Goldtanker]

Good points greenLED and webley445. CCW permits are granted for personal protection only so the armed citizen is not a substitute for the police. The criminal act has to fit the deadly force test as it applies to you. If you have another avenue of retreat, you are required to take it and disengage. I think part of the reason you don't hear much is because the type of person who takes the time and effort to get a permit is not the type of person who is likely to be a crime victim. These people tend to be observant and aware of their surroundings and generally more security conscious. I only know of one instance of a permit holder involved incident in Minnesota and it was regarding a foiled carjacking. It did not make the paper so I called and the editor told me it wasn't "newsworthy". No doubt there is "advocacy reporting" regarding firearms. When the Minnesota law was enacted a group of 12 (by the count of the reporter live at the scene) people showed up on the capital steps to protest. The protest was run on the local news stations as the lead story with a picture of a giant gun displayed behind the news reader. Like I said before, it's not about guns-it's about rights. If you let #2 go, #4 won't be far behind. It's a lot easier to regulate the behavior of law abiding citizens than it is to go after and punish criiminals. My$.02. ;D

[greenLED]

Good points greenLED and webley445. CCW permits are granted for personal protection only so the armed citizen is not a substitute for the police. The criminal act has to fit the deadly force test as it applies to you. If you have another avenue of retreat, you are required to take it and disengage.That's really interesting. So, if you bumped into an armed kidnapping attempt (say a person -not the one carrying the gun- is being forced at gunpoint into a vehicle). If I'm understanding things right, other than dialing 911, you should not do anything else involving your weapon. Unless, that is, if the perpetrator for some reason points their gun at you and you fear for your life. Did I get that right?

I complete agree it's easier "to regulate the behavior of law abiding citizens than it is to go after and punish criiminals."

[webley445]

That's really interesting. So, if you bumped into an armed kidnapping attempt (say a person -not the one carrying the gun- is being forced at gunpoint into a vehicle). If I'm understanding things right, other than dialing 911, you should not do anything else involving your weapon. Unless, that is, if the perpetrator for some reason points their gun at you and you fear for your life. Did I get that right?

I complete agree it's easier "to regulate the behavior of law abiding citizens than it is to go after and punish criiminals."


No, kidnapping is a forceable felony, so, technically, you have every right to step in and try to help out. If you so choose.
You are not obligated to do so.
You have the right to pull it out, point it at them and yell freeze or stop and try to prevent the kidnapping. But let me ask you this, then what. What if they shoot at you? what if you get hurt or killed? What if you return fire and kill an innocent?
Let me tell you, if a cop got a call of an armed kidanpping in progress, he would not neccessarily rush right over. He will more likely get close to the scene and stage while awaiting back up.
It would not be looked down upon you if you did the same. Just food for thought.

You can ause your firearm to come to someone's aide but only certain circumstances, meaning you can only use the gun under certain circumstances.

Something else to ponder, alot of what happens to you afterwards depends on what happens before. Meaning the outcome can have effect on your conscequences.
Every goes good, you save the day and your a hero. Something goes bad, someone gets hurt, you're a bad guy, same as happens to the cops.
Also the investigator has alot to do with it. you get a responding officer that thinks armed citizens is ok, he lets you off. then the seargent shows up, who doesn't believe in CCW and he starts an invest.
A detective then shows and finds you not at fault.
then it goes to the Assistant DA, and he presses charges because it'll look good on his resume.

You often see cops who are hesitant to do certain things due to possible repercussions, same goes with CCW. I would rather call 911 with vehicle tag info and descriptions than run over and jump in. However if they start shooting or I se the person is about to get killed I'll probably try to do something. Can't tell till it happens.

anyone trying to snatch a cjhild infront of me is gonna get a world of hurt though. regardless of what happens afterwards I'll at least put one into the tire to hinder his escape. that is where I draw the line.

[Goldtanker]

greenLED - that starts to enter the grey area. In Minnesota the law says(in part) deadly force is justified "when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person". I'm not a lawyer, and my thinking is colored by 27 years in law enforcement. The example you cite, while possible, dramatically exceeds the training levels of most citizens. For example, you might end up shooting the victim. Would lesser force have been practical? Did your intervention escalate the situation, etc. What is taught in the CCW course is that you should be prepared to go to court no matter what the circumstance if you fire the weapon. This is why the training course is required and may be another reason why you don't see a lot of examples of citizen shootings. I'm certainly not an authority in this area. Perhaps there is a lawyer amongst us who could give you a better answer.

[0dBm]

1. I know that I have come across comments by John Walsh, of America's Most Wanted, that put down the idea of carrying guns for personal defense -- a position that doesn't make sense to me given he knows that every single day, average people are brutally victimized by violent criminals.

I know that Florida just passed laws regarding protecting gun owners in various ways, among them protecting the identities of holders of concealed weapons licenses from public inquiry. (There were newspapers that, for nothing but spite, had been publishing lists of CCW holders! This was putting us in danger, needlessly exposing people who have been vetted by the FBI and the state and authorized to carry concealed handguns to the possibility of burglaries or other vindictive attack.)

2. So now I presume a civilian cannot go finding out if someone has a CCW license.

3. I find myself wondering, since his show is on t.v. right now, whether John Walsh walks his talk, or whether he pulls a Dian Feinstein and carries a gun while admonishing us lowly ordinary people not to.

3. Does anyone know if he, wherever he lives, has a CCW license and carries a gun of his own?

-Jeffrey



I was'nt going to chime in on this one because I knew it was going to be a rehashing of the very old gun ownership debate sprinkeld with the firecracker issue of the previleged.

This thread did interest me because of John Walsh.

I dont' know that much about John and the personal tragedy he and his familly suffered as a result of the loss of his son. My heart goes to John. A parent should not have to bury a child.

I will answer the questions, whether apparent or not, present in the original post.

1. John has made an admirable reputation for himself. He turned a devastating tragedy into a productive platform from which he has done much good. If he had a practice or even an opinion on the carrying of firearms for personal protection, it has, likely, largely been overruled by the very same circumstance many, many of us find ourselves. He has an employer.

John also now has an audience. Whether it be just the television viewing public, the anti-gun public, or the general public. It is an audience that not only listens to his programs, but agree with his opinion and his avid position on gun control. For someone that has suffered his tremendous loss, it is a postion that seems to be agreeable with the public as evidenced by the demand for his presence on the Fox program for which he hosts. Is is a position that he will not likely retreat from publicly. Were he to do so by suddenly advocating the use of firearms for self-defense, there would be such a backlash and a groundswell of discord that the media would have a field day. His current network television employers will likely and suddently review his contract options as well.

Would John Walsh be willing to give the repution he built from his life's work. I don't think so.

John has had first-hand experience with the violence that befall many in our society. It is not John Walsh the person that you see on the televised program or in the written text in numerous publications any more. Very few will ever get to see anguish that still likely looms in his mind. Only the person that wakes up next to him will see the pain, the anger, and the frustration of not being able to personally inflict the level of pain onto the individual responsible for his son's death. What we now see is the sanitized, politically correct, network-image-consciense side of John. Unless you are in his tight, very innermost circle, you will likely not see that personal side of him ever again.


2. When I lived in a CCW-friendly state, I did not like the fact that the general public could have accessed my personal info about my previlege to legally carry a firearm. I did not have any recourse. It was public record. Now I live in a state where a CCW permit is very difficult to get. If the laws loosens up and allows CCW permits to the average, law abiding citizen, I will immediately apply for it AND contact my congressman to support the right to protect that private information.


3. I firmly believe that John Walsh does not personally carry a firearm as a private citizen for protection. Since his very visible profile, I am certain that he employs licensed private security professionals whom have permits to legally conceal firearms as well as other implements in order to do their jobs to protect John and his family. If I had the wherewithal to hire professionals, I would do so immediately

John Walsh's employer have long ago established the need to provide John the security that he needs.


4. With his wherewithal, John will lilkely have several residences not only for security reasons, but because his financial strength can allow him to do so. If he has a CCW permit, I am certain that the media would have found out about it by now and have already made a big circus of it. Moreover, If he were to apply, for one anywhere in the US, it would likely be granted. But since I have written of the pitfalls of undermining his reputation in another paragraph, it would not be in his best interest to have one.

I would not be at all suprised if he did have a few handguns around his office and residence. Private security is nice to have but the ultimate responsibility in personal security is in oneself.


OT

What Rosie did to Tom was rude. If she has not done so, she owes him a very public apology.


Regards,
0dBm

Lifetime NRA Member
Military Veteran
Trained 1911 Pistolsmith
EDC Junkie and goofball
Goofball in general :) ;D :P :laugh: :idiot2: :D

[greenLED]

webley445 and Goldtanker, thank you for your comments. I see that I chose an extreme example and that there are lots of grey areas to be explored. Now that I think about it, it may also depend on where you're living and what their laws are. Very interesting, thank you.