[flv]http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/video/Canton_Neighborhood_Uneasy_After_Similar_Attacks.mp4[/flv]
In Wednesday’s post, we heard from Canton, OH City Council President Alan Schulman who’s morally outraged by the proliferation of citizens legally carrying guns in his city. Not to mention the country as a whole. Councilman Schulman’s been terribly inconvenienced, having to “sit every week and listen to our citizens say, ‘we want to be protected.’”
Schulman reassured Cantonites (Cantonese?) that in fact, they “are being protected.” Good to know. Now maybe he’ll call the woman who was abducted as she drove to work at 5:20 am Monday and tell her that she really was being protected. Or does the Councilman think that was really too early for her to have been out and about?
Perhaps the City Council President will also call ‘Mary’ in the video at the link and explain to her how she, too, was being protected as she was being raped in the back seat of her car.
Certainly there were things both of these women could have done to reduce the chances of their being victimized. Simple things like locking their cars. But if it were up to Councilman Schulman, one option for protecting themselves they definitely wouldn’t have is carrying a gun. As Schulman said, that would be “completely insane.”
Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Asking the government to keep you safe is akin to chickens asking the fox to keep them safe. IMNSHO.
Actually, Franklin said ““they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve Alan Schulman.”
Same difference, really. 😉
+1000
That’s one of my favorite quotes and it’s 100 percent true. Those poor people in Norway learned this lesson the hard way. I’ve always wondered why the states with the strictest gun laws have the most problems with guns. I guess the criminals in these states don’t understand the strict gun laws or maybe they just don’t give two sh@@s about any laws.
This irrationality does no credit to your cause. The massacre in Norway has NOTHING to do with their strict gun laws. If you allow this illogical conclusion to pass without criticism you are just as bad as those critics of gun ownership who do the same.
Tar, feathers, some assembly required.
It’s been legally established that the police are under no obligation to protect any individual citizen, so the councilman’s assertion is being made in bad faith. Police aren’t bodyguards, their function is to act after a crime has been committed to apprehend the perpetrator. That’s after the crime has been committed.
If you want to stop a crime before it happens to you there are really only two choices. Either make sure you’re in some LEO’s line of sight at all times or make the best preparations you can to defend yourself.
People see the blue uniform and think that LEOs are something other than human, like they’re superheroes who live to protect. The simple fact is, they’re human, no more and no less. Who knows why they joined the police? Who knows if they’re psychotic jerks or upstanding defenders? Who knows if they’re fully capable if something goes wrong and their training is put to the test? Truth is, I trust a LEO about as much as I trust any other person on the street, that is to say, nowhere near as much as I trust myself.
I still believe most police officers are good people and fine at their jobs, but it’s not a ratio I’d stake my life on.
And even if the ratio is 99.999%, the odds are they won’t be there when you need them. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Comments are closed.