Some say that perception is reality. While this isn't factually true (a person who is color blind sees certain colors differently, but that doesn't change their inherent characteristics), it does influence our own views of the world.
When it comes to self defense, you have three options. Jump at every noise because you never feel safe, bury your head in the sand and pretend nothing bad is going on so that you feel safe, or prepare to defend yourself so that you are better prepared to be safe.
I find it interesting that a lot of the same people who claim that those who choose to carry a firearm for personal protection are paranoid are the same ones who oppose concealed carry because they claim gun owners are primed and ready to blow someone away for any perceived slight. Which segment is the paranoid ones? I know a substantial number of armed citizens, and not one sees every dark shadow as a reason to draw their gun. They're no more paranoid about crime than is a person who has a fire extinguisher under the kitchen cabinet in case of fire.
Millions of people carry guns in their daily lives in this country, and the only time anyone ever knows is when one of them has the misfortune of losing the crime selection lottery. Every day we prove that law abiding gun owners stay that way, and yet every time a new piece of pro-gun legislation is introduced, the gun grabbers raise the alarm of impending gloom and doom. Again I ask, which ones are paranoid?
Yesterday, the Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an article entitled "Residents, workers believe Downtown Cleveland is safe." In it, they talk about how residents are taking back the city, are less afraid to walk the streets, and that while crime does exist, the overall crime rate is down.
For those paying attention, this is after concealed carry passed in Ohio, after Castle Doctrine returned the presumption of innocence to those who use deadly force to protect themselves from violent criminal attacks in their homes and vehicles, and after the Ohioans For Concealed Carry v City of Clyde Ohio Supreme Court case upheld statewide preemption of local gun laws. Cleveland is suing the State of Ohio over preemption, claiming they need to be able to ban guns in parts, have gun registration, and pass an "assault weapons" ban in order to protect their residents. Who is really being paranoid?
The frequent argument I hear from gun control advocates are that these laws are needed to combat crime and so that people feel safe. Without the laws, crime rates have gone down. It seems to me that it is better for people to actually be safe than for a few delusional individuals to feel safe.
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources has released the harvest numbers for white tail deer in Ohio for the 2008-09 season, revealing that a record 252,017 deer were taken. This is up from the 2007-08 total of 232,854 (poor weather impacted the harvest, and the previous record of 237,316 in 2006-07. Biologists agree that herd levels are still too high in most areas of the state, and hunters will again be looked to as the primary resource to reducing herds to safer levels.
READERSHIP INTERACTION
straightarrow: Daniel if I may make a clarification of something you quoted in your column. The us v. them as regards police and citizen is not due to a change in the attitude of the American citizen. It is due to the change in the attitude of law enforcement personnel. We didn't change, they did. They became publicly funded private security for the "connected", the politician, each other, and the wealthy. In that metamorphosis, they also decided they were our masters...
While there is a lot of truth to what you said, I'd argue that the change is on both sides, and those changes are intertwined. Each side has been growing further and further apart, and used deeds by the other side as justification for doing so. I think by laying blame on one side and not the other, we ignore part of the problem, and both parts need to be addressed if we ever hope to solve the problem.
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Austin: Armed citizen saves 2 lives
- Charlotte: Save a Mexican drug lord: Surrender your guns
- DC: Senate to DC’s rulers: If you wanna vote in America’s house, no more gun registration!
- Denver: Who says it has to be a fair fight?
- Los Angeles: Why they take guns from the people at all. With thanks to Paul Harvey, Patriot
- Minneapolis: Open carry is the 2nd Amendment
- National: When lighters are outlawed...
- Seattle: Why Greg Nickels’ proposed gun ban would never work
- St. Louis: The import ban cometh
Comments
I'm sure you've covered this in other articles, but it bears repeating. It is my understanding that the second amendment exists so that citizens can protect themselves from a GOVERNMENT gone sour. Though I don't own a gun at this time, I grew up around them and it always raises my hackles when the government finds reasons to take them away from law-abiding citizens. In light of this, protection from crime, as important as it is, seems to be a secondary concern.
well Daniel I am not going to argue that our perception of law enforcement didn't change. Not everyone has had that changed perception, but of those who have, I would be comfortable surmising that the citizen change in attitude was intitiated by and a reaction to the change in attitude of law enforcement personnel. It has taken decades for the body public to reach its low opinion of law enforcement, even though law enforcement went there pretty quickly as regards their attitude to their 'lesser' American brethren.
I would also posit that should law enforcement personnel once again become peace officers and start to reconsider themselves American citizens instead of ubermenschen, the public attitude would return to the old respect and admiration we all used to have for them. Me, more than most. So, you have no idea how betrayed I feel when I used to be such a supporter,and they, as a majority abandoned the law to enforce order, even if "order' required illegal means to attain.
I used to be a law and order guy, no more. Now I am a law guy, but people aren't orderly and when they are somebody is applying illegitimate force.
Look around, who is that? 'nuff said?
Why are the Dems so afraid of Americans? Oh that's right, they are a bunch of hippy, tree huggers that would probably protest America's involvment in the Boston Tea Party. I can almost be sure that not a single one of them has ever had a criminal point a gun at them. Or even had to worry about it because their "security guards" have a firearm. Which is probably concealed on their person at all times. I don't have a security guard, do you? Actually I do, and his name is Sam Colt.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!