Originally Posted by Jeff Almeyda
I'm surrounding my house with land-mines, motion detectors, flame-throwers, and laser sighted bazookas. My daughter will be safe then from all of the sickos here in New Jersey.
And the post-man/woman, too!
Sorry, Jeff - couldn't help it. I advocate a high level of personal responsibility - with that also goes a high level of personal protection. Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
." I guess that makes me a Libertarian, though I'm not one for labels.
While I don't think there's a bogeyman behind every tree, I should be prepared to defend myself against the worst typical threat to me and my home. Not to denigrate the local police force, but in most cases, they can only respond after
a crime is committed.
You buy health insurance in case of a medical catastrophe, homeowner's insurance in case of a total dwelling loss, auto insurance against a vehicle loss, etc. Why are gun owners vilified for being pro-active? I'd posit the theory that teen-agers behind the wheel of a car are many times more likely to take a life than the average US gun owner. Yet, we call it a right of passage and willingly hand over the car keys.
Remember that a firearm is a tool - no more or no less. It's only dangerous when in the wrong hands. But so are hammers, screwdrivers, ball-bats, pressure cookers, fertilizer, etc. The world really is a safe place - the folks with no respect for human life are and always will be the exception to the rule. Until we can fix them, I'd rather not rely on someone else for my own protection.