Corbin Dallas, my current client has me working in Indianapolis. My father was an FBI agent for 21 years, about 3 years spent as a firearms instructor (9 years Air Force OSI before the Bureau) and his gun would come off the belt loaded and sit openly on top of the dresser. I could touch it, but there were rules to be followed. I used the same approach of removing the mystique of firearms with my son as he grew up, now 23 and hopes to be a police officer soon. This was necessary as I own just under 100 firearms and some are kept loaded.
matthewg,
I am sorry, but if you use your sheep/wolf picture you have got a school of sheep and one little wolf that has a gun going after the sheep. Right, and as happened in San Diego recently an armed individual stopped him. The guy happened to be an off duty cop as well, but that was not the case in Pearl, Ms where the shooter was apprehended by the school Vice Principal who had a mod 1911 in .45 ACP in his car which he retrieved and held the wimpering coward at gun point until the police arrived. Out of curiosity, why do you suppose that police officers don't get mugged? Do you think it is because of the shiney badge or the nice uniform? I will tell you it is the gun they carry.
"The point in gun restriction laws is that it might restrict the rights of some people - I agree on that one - but it promotes safety for the unprotected majority!!!!"
Obviously some restrictions are permitted. The problem lies in what is 'reasonable'. I would bet that my definition of reasonable is different from yours. The unprotected majority are unprotected by choice. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect you the individual, but serve to protect the community as a whole. As a result you cannot sue the police for not protecting you if they don't show up or show up late when you call them. I have made a choice to provide for my own protection and not to rely on others. If you chose to put your safety into the hands of others that is you decision to make, but do not attempt to restrict my rights to conform to your beliefs.
"And now you decide what is worth more: a single life saved or reasonably applied restrictions." I think that having saved my life once and my girlfriends on another occaision, both while actually violating some well meaning restrictions, makes my decision easy. Who is to say what life is worth more? Why is someone who chose not to carry a means with which to defend themselves more important than me?
I don't understand the comment about the cities from the dark ages, sorry. I don't think people in general have less common sense, I think some people have less common sense, but as your statement suggests, the attitude and personality of the people are the problem not the gun itself. I do agree that things have changed, but firearms are still a superb choice for self defense as they have been since 1776. They are THE most effective method, probably why police carry them. A firearm is the only thing that one of the young ladies here would be able to effectively employ against someone of my size. I am 6', tall 220 pounds, have a 46" chest, 34" waist, and 17" biceps. A 5'3", 110 pound, female even with a bat would not stand much of a chance against me. With a gun it would be another story.
|