Would you rather feel safe or be safe?

March 2, 6:03 AMCleveland Gun Rights ExaminerDaniel White

Previous Next

3 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

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.