The Undiscussed Opinion
While many blogs will be no doubt covering the 10 Commandments case (which I might discuss later once I can figure out what the hell the Court did), or the internet file sharing case (which I can assure you I have no interest in discussing), I would suggest you not overlook the case of Castle Rock, Colo., v. Gonzales, 04-278, also issued today.
In Castle Rock, the Court held that a woman who had obtained a restraining order against her ex could not sue the local police who may have done a poor job enforcing it. Her three children were abducted by the ex in her front yard and later killed by him. It is a heart breaking story.
Now, I don't take issue with the Court' s opinion. I think it merely upheld years of precedence, and made the right "rule" [and I like simple, predictable rules, unlike what the 10 Commandment cases gave us] despite its possible injustice in the case before it. No, it isn't the merit of the decision I think is important. It is the implication.
The opinion, which seems to be similar in fact and outcome to prior Supreme Court opinions, holds that no one has the right to expect the local police to protect you. The Left in this country tells you to rely on the police. The Left tells you to not buy guns or other instruments of self protection because they will just end up killing a loved one. Ignore the fact that a swimming pool is 100 times more likely to cause the death of a child than a gun.
An alarm company has TV ads that tells you that all you have to do is buy its service and lock the door to the utility room, where the woman's two older children happended to be playing while she was doing laundry, and the bad guys will run away.
Hogwash!
Buy a gun. Get trained. Make it accessible to you on short notice.If you have an identifiable enemy, do it immediately. The police don't have to protect you. They have no legal duty to consider your call more important than a fender-bender down the street.
If you want reliable protection, you only have two choices. You can buy a personal body gaurd who is carrying a concealed weapon. This is what gun-control limo-liberals do. Or you can buy a gun, get trained to make yourself reliable, and carry it.
posted by KJ @ 1:36 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
It's incredibly fun Brad. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to go plinking since Christmas. A .22 rifle is cheap to purchase and shoot. If you live in a more urban environment, you'll have better luck in finding a suitable range. Your high powered rifles will be wasted at a 75-100 yard range. A.22 on the other hand, has about that as a maximum effective range.
For home defense, my weapon of choice would be a 12 gauge pump shotgun. Couple of reasons for this: 1) It's a close proximity weapon, you're not trying to bulleye a target at 150 yards, you're working within 45 feet or so.
2) No need to be presice about your aim. Close is good enough. In a high stress situation, aiming is likely to be a little less accurate. No Problem, Just Point and Shoot™.
3) (And this one may prevent you ever having to fire it for protection.) Yelling "I have a gun" is decently effective, but there's no mistaking the sound of chambering a round in a pump shotgun. It solidifies that, yes, you really do have a gun, and yes, it really is about to blow a big hole in you. That may be enough there to convince him to run off/surrender.
Good point MM, I have made the same argument before. I don't think you would even have to have a shell in the gun. Just pump it, and the conversation turns serious.
Any idea how well non-lethal shotgun rounds work? Just because I would be a little concerned about a bluff in a home defense situation.
So, why do we have police, anyway?
Oh, it doesn't work worth a shit. If you don't have a good poker face you may not want to try this at home.
Post a Comment
<< Home