I figure it should see the light of day so I am crafting my response to Neals last post here on my Blog.
I guess what continues to exist as a fundamental obstacle preventing us from seeing eye to eye is that you view using a firearm as being equivalent to using a spare tire or a first aid kit. I do not.
Those analogies are good, and should I someday view using a firearm against someone as being on the same level as using a fire extinguisher or a spare tire, they would be effective as well.
Okay let's drop the spare tire bit, although it was only used to illustrate an undesirable task. Using a firearm in defense of ones person is also an undesirable task. It was not used to equate that having to use a firearm for protection is only as undesirable as having to jack up a car.
But for people who don't love guns, an item that is designed to launch a projectile at high speeds in order to puncture something else is not on the same level as a fire extinguisher, which is designed to put out fires. If you use a fire extinguisher as it was intended to its full extent, it puts out a fire. If you use a gun as it was intended to its full extent, it kills someone.
The point I make with my annalogy Neal is that if you are put in a position to use a fire extinguisher you are likely saving a life or several lives. If you are put in a position to where you have to use a firearm for defensive purposes you are saving a life, quite probably your own.
And Neal I do not love my guns. Firearms are inanimate objects that can't love you back anyway.
Granted, just as you can misuse a gun, you can misuse a fire extinguisher. But CCW proponents don't want guns so they can put out fires nor do they want concealed guns so they can protect themselves from people misusing fire extinguishers; they want them so they can protect themselves (and/or others) by way of intimidation or physical harm.
Not true Neal. If that were the case the decidedly anti-gun media would be rife with stories about "redneck gun owners" engaging in shoot outs over parking spaces or running gun "road rage" battles up and down the interstates.
If you were to do some checking on who it is that avails themselves of a concealed carry permit I think you would find that in addition to a "Redneck or two" that the citizens that take the time and expense to get licensed are people like;
- your wife/girlfriends Gynocologist,
- some of your own family members,
- the lady that runs the floral shop that you buy from,
- the manager of the restaurant you most frequent,
- possibly a member or three of the local college alumni association,
- the old couple across the street,
- the abused woman with three kids down the street whose ex-husband is ignoring the protection order,
- the young woman who lives in the upstairs apartment that never ever wants to be raped again,
- many members of your congregation,
- any number of the people you know from the health club you belong to.
Into short Neal average everyday ordinary people that you know and relate to daily. Do you think all of them will carry concealed so that they "can protect themselves (and/or others) by way of intimidation or physical harm"?
Anonymous up there instructs me to "get a clue," since CCW permits aren't causing rampant deaths across the country in the other states where it's legal. If I'm the one with the problem perceiving reality, where is the rampant crime spree that necessitates packing heat while dining?
Granted you probably won't be accosted during your meal, but the place was crowded when you got there and your car is parked all the way to the far side of the lot where the street light doesn't shine. And that Neal, is where the rapes, robberies, muggings and car jackings occurr. After you have been satiated by a good meal and not fully cognizant of your surroundings.
Your average burglary happens when no one is around.
Your right, but what does burglary have to do with personal protection? If I'm not there I don't need to protect myself.
Your average thief who robs a place when people are around doesn't want to use his gun.
Don't count on that Neal, it is becoming a trend in some places that the thugs come in guns blazing for the shock effect. In fact the person that comes through the door of Brewskys with a gun is not intent on robbing the place. The intent is probably to kill, maim, and injure as many people as he/she possibly can. Remember Lubys? How about countless other places where criminals have barged through the door and opened up on the unsuspecting diners?
What's going to make him use his gun?
Who knows what will make him use his gun Neal, maybe a baby starts crying, maybe a nervous wait person drops a glass, maybe someone starts screaming hysterically about how they are about to die, maybe the object of the thugs attention can't get their wedding ring off fast enough.
When someone else pulls a gun on him. When the situation escalates, that's when it gets dangerous.
News Flash Neal: It got dangerous when that thug walked in the door with a gun in his hand intent on robbing that place and it will remain dangerous to any and all who are there until he/she/they leave.
What we have are a whole bunch of people who want to escalate the situation because they don't want to be the victim and they do want to be in control.
What is wrong with not wanting to be a victim? Some people have been victims in the past and didn't like the way it felt. Many of them had months in the hospital to contemplate it not ever happening to them again.
If I'm out to dinner, and some moron decides he's going to rob Brewsky's while it's packed with patrons, I would much rather hand over my wallet and let the police take care of the rest than have some vigilante wannabe pull out his perfectly legal weapon and play hero.
Exactly as I stated in a previous comment, even if you are armed sometimes the best thing to do is hand over your wallet and be a good witness. The chances are however that the miscreant will not barge into a place like Brewsky's and rob the place during Happy Hour.
What will most likely happen is that the robber/s will wait in hiding in the darkened parking lot and jack you up for your wallet and possibly your ladies sexual favors. Additionally under the law even if you did have a permit you could not legally take it into a business that derives more that 51% of it's gross income from the sales of alcohol anyway. There would be no armed permit holders in Brewskys that could do anything to stop the robber anyway.
I would like to thank you for pointing out that the robber would have no quams taking a firearm into a forbidden place Neal, that is what we have been saying for years; Gun Laws are only obeyed by those that are law abiding anyway. A criminal could care less whether there is a sign on the door banning guns or not.
Hell it tells him/them that the only gun in the place will be theirs.
Businesses that post no guns signs should post this instead;
Criminal Protection Zone
Criminals, the Management of these premises, has for your convenience, disarmed all of the law abiding citizens, you are free to safely ply your illicet trade here.
I would much rather be a victim of a mugging than a bullet.
A mugging usually entails taking a bullet Neal, of a knife between the ribs or a pipe to the head. Some guy with his hand in his pocket indicating he has a gun is not a mugging it is robbery.
The vigilante bravado that comes from the most vocal of CCW proponents has me fearing the bullet of some NRA member living out a hero fantasy much more than I fear getting mugged in my neighborhood, which is near the capitol - a nightmarish hotbed of criminal activity if you ask Jeanne Combs.
Neal I can assure you that if we were in the same building and someone had a gun to your head demanding all your money I promise I will not interfere in anyway, even if/when the thug forces your girlfriend/wife to go with him for a hostage. I will be a good witness for you though and try to render first aid to you after the thug is gone. I don't carry a firearm to protect you or the people you love Neal, that is your job not mine. I might even call 911 for you if I happen to have my electronic leash with me.
The term vigilante infers citizens conciously banding together taking the law into their own hands, and hunting down the bad guys. Nothing could be farther from the truth. People that favor concealed carry want no such thing, in fact more than any they want to be left alone. They do not want to be a victim of a crime, they do not want to have to use their firearm for self defense. Most of the time a CCW person will go out of their way to not use it. Only when there is no doubt what so ever that they will suffer death or serious bodily harm will your average CCW holder discharge their firearm.
The dismissal of LPD during this period is what frightens me most, because that exposes the vigilante spirit behind so many CCW proponents.
No one is dismissing LPD. That undermanned organization does more with less than any department that I know of.
People that favor CCW recognize a truth that every member of LPD has to agree with. 99.9% of the time they are not going to be there when a crime is perpetrated upon your person Neal.
The fact is that even if you could get a cell phone call through to 911 it may at least 10 minutes before a police unit arrives at your location. If you can't make the call until after the event you might not be able to make the call at all.
A lot can happen in that short time; you can be robbed, car jacked, beaten and killed. Your girlfriend/wife can be raped repeatedly, while your forced to watch, and left for dead.
There is respect for our current system of law enforcement...as long as it fits in with their pre-existing political beliefs, which allow them to play cop with no repercussions. But instead, LPD doesn't want more guns on the street in the hands of trigger-happy heroes, so LPD must be corrupt, stupid or puppets of Seng's administration.
No one respects the current system of Law Enforcement more than I, but it does not take a pre-existing political belief to understand that they can not be everywhere all of the time.
Even if they were the courts have held for decades that it is not the role of police agencies to protect any one of us as a individual, their job is only to protect society as a whole.
Don't believe that Neal try this; Make a 911 cal and when the cops don't show up or take the better part of an hour to show up initiate a law suit against the deparment for failure to protect you.
News Flash Neal; They don't have to show up if they don't want to. There is no law that requires them to. If they get held up and you get hurt bad the courts have consistantly held that the police are not liable for failing to rescue you from harm.
Important News Flash; Having stated the above, I do not know one single cop that would not put their life on the line trying to come to your rescue if they knew you were in trouble. But Neal, they have to know your in trouble and they have to be close enough to do something about it. Even 911 calls fall through the cracks.
Even though I have great respect for LPD I also understand this; The last time I checked they still worked for me and are duty bound by oath to respect and obey any and all legal laws that I get enacted.
News Flash; I am a law abiding citizen that has undergone multiple State and Federal background checks over the years, there is not one single police officer that need fear anything from me. How does disarming me make a Peace officers job safer? Better yet how does my owning and carrying a firearm make any Peace Officers job more dangerous?
I don't care what they want or don't want when it comes to my rights and civil liberties. They are servants of the people and they must abide by what the People decide not the other way around. On concealed carry the People have spoken through the legislature. If any one of them doesn't like that then they can quit and get a job in the gun free zones of Illinios, New York, New Jersey or Washington D.C..
Now there is a hoot Neal, Washington D.C. Our Nations Capital has been a gun free mecca for how many years now? They are under a state of emergency right now because of all of the crime.
Why?
The law abiding citizens are unarmed and can not fight back Neal. Criminals in the hallowed city of the D.C. run rampant over decent people because cops can't be everywhere.
That shows me a distint and direct disregard for our concept of law.
There is no disregard for the law Neal, quite the opposite to be sure.
The law provides for an individual to defend him/her self and family. The law recognizes that cops can't be everywhere all of the time and that it is the personal responsibility of each one of us to provide for our own safety and security.
News Flash; It is in the Nebraska Statutes Neal, look it up.
That shows me people who think because they took a weekend class on gun safety they understand law and justice better than the folks who have committed their lives to that concept.
No Neal, the people that take those "weekend classes" do not understand the law better than those that have dedicated their lives to it. What they understand is the law on personal protection and how it applies to them in their everyday lives. A CCW person does not need a law degree or a gazillion hours of training to recognize that the thug holding a knife on them in that dark parking lot is not about to invite them to a church social.
That is when a CCW person will reluctantly use their firearm Neal, when it is apparent that they are about to be hurt or killed and there is absolutely no one from the government around to bail them out.
No comments:
Post a Comment