Tulsa Police Chief: Might be Time to Trade Some Freedom for Gun Control 35 TULSA, OK - June 02: Tulsa Police Chief Wendell Franklin discusses the shooting at Saint Francis Hospital that left five dead, during a press conference on June 2, 2022 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The shooter had purchased the AR15 rifle only hours before the shooting (Photo by Pat Carter/Getty ImagesPat Carter/Getty AWR HAWKINS22 Jun 2023130 3:16 Tulsa Police Chief Wendell Franklin is calling for a 9/11 style response to gun violence and suggesting people may have to give up some of their freedom in exchange for gun control.
NPR posted an interview with Franklin on Sunday, noting he is critical of constitutional carry, wants more regulations on firearms that Democrats describe as “ghost guns,” and is open to a waiting period for the purchase of AR-15s and similar firearms.
Franklin said, “Law enforcement – we are the experts. We’re the subject matter experts at protecting America – right? – protecting our cities. And, you know, we should be utilizing that in that manner. So I am charged with protecting this community. And if there are better ways of protecting it, I think we should be looking at those better ways to protect it.”
Public Radio Tulsa quoted Franklin saying:
Ultimately, I’m a Second Amendment guy…But I’m okay giving up some of that freedom, right? We had to give up some of that freedom after 9/11. I’m okay with waiting three days, five days, or whatever to get my firearm if I go out and purchase another firearm. So I’m okay with a pause to allow for weapons to be purchased and allow the government and the gun companies to look at the background and do a thorough check before that gun goes to someone.
Franklin compared giving up some freedom in exchange for gun control to the process people went through in adapting to seatbelt laws when they were first enacted.
He said, “You know, we put seatbelt laws in place, I’m not exactly sure when, probably the 1980s, I think. And we mandated that everyone starts wearing a seatbelt, and it took some time for people to grab hold of that. But if you look today it is an automatic thing that people put on their seatbelt when they get into a vehicle. You feel uncomfortable not wearing that seatbelt. I think again, we give something up to get safety for, for something safe. I think that’s where we are today. We are going to have to give up some things. And I think there are some things that we can give up for a safer community.”
Franklin became Tulsa’s 40th police chief on February 1, 2020.
U.S. News & World Report lists Tulsa as No. 8 in a list of the “Top 25 Most Dangerous Places in the U.S.”
Seatbelts are a great example.
Those of us who were around back then remember that first seatbelts were optional.
Then gov mandated their installation, but not their use.
Then they passed laws mandating their use, but they said they would never cite you for that alone, only if you committed another offense.
Now it's click it or ticket and they're actively hunting for those who don't comply.
Wasn't there a study in, I want to say 90-ish finding that there were more deadly accidents after seatbelts were implemented?
You're far more likely to die in a crash without a seat belt. If you don't die, maybe you'll get lucky and only be paralyzed.
But hey, feel free to not wear one, and then if you end up a quadriplegic in a coma, don't worry. The taxpayers will take care of you for the rest of what passes for "your life".
Congrats on the asshattery! But that's not what I said
Anyway, the inference of the study was that more people drove like assholes with the invention of the seatbelt, leaving to more deadly accidents. Initially.
Much like a d-bag driving a 950hp hellcat, he's going to fly around more than the Camry driver because... 950 horses. Use it or lose it
Or more neck and head injuries in the NFL because their head is "protected" with the addition of the helmet.
When you're more protected you're more inclined to take more chances.
Makes sense - the safer a person feels, the more reckless they'll be. They'll drive faster and take more chances.
Yes, and Ralph Nader was instrumental in the lawmaking for seatbelts. Ralph Nader didn’t drive, either.
He sounds vaxed.
Sounds like a faggot plant.
Franklin said, “Law enforcement – we are the experts. We’re the subject matter experts at protecting America – right? –
Then why are you failing so badly? If you are the expert, so smug with that claim, you are doing a piss poor job at it.
You first, chief. Disarm yourself and your force. Lead the way.
But, but we need to protect ourselves.
I had to look up Chief Franklin, and he is just exactly what I expected.
It is this fucker's people that need to be barred from owning guns, but that law would be racisssssss n sheeet. A law barring his people from owning guns would eliminate the majority of gun crimes.
This is the ultimate problem / solution trap. Import millions of lawless thugs, and then try to disarm the people to protect them from said thugs, and also give said thugs a slap on the wrist for their crimes so that they can hit the streets again soon.
Keep in mind police chiefs are politically appointed.
Kek, a non-starter. In words of my forefathers. A person willing to give up freedom for safety deserves neither!!!!!
sure we will. right after you ban trannies for murdering Christian school children, fuckers.
OK chief, if you're OK giving up some of your freedom then give up your guns, all of them. You don't get to decide which freedoms I give up voluntarily, if I did.
If he's the expert, get rid of him. He's an idiot. That would have been prevented with concealed carry for everyone.
Oh, Mr. bad guy, can you please wait till the Police arrive?
but as law enforcement, is he subject to these same rules? when law enforcement is held to account for their rule breaking, then talk about restricting freedoms.
So much for his oath to the protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Another rules for thee, but not for me type.
Look to your county sheriff to be deputized to protect your 2nd amendment right.
No
Wouldn't be a problem IF You did your job.
I'm giving up something: listening to pigs who want to disarm our nation so they can own us.
Question Police Chief: "Since the 2nd amendment is deemed to be essential for the security of a free state, what is the current status of freedom and security in the state?
SO, you want to curb the rights of the People to do what? Give free reign to those who care not about rights?
Since you care not about rights, it is clear in what group you belong, but not in blue.
Might be time to trade some Police Chiefs for freedoms.
Ultimately, the constitution and the 2nd amendment being a thing, we should be willing to give up some of those not willing to protect and serve the constitution, but are something else, right?
Sounds like he needs to loose his job for not following the constitution.