When seconds count, the police are only minutes away
By Greg ‘The Gadfly’ Doyle
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
January 17, 2013
I have watched with great interest as President Obama and Vice-president Biden continue to beat the loud drum for stricter gun control in the wake of the tragic school shooting in Connecticut last December. Their intentions seem good on the surface and perhaps may have darker, left-leaning political motives; but the response from the right as of late is more alarmist than rooted in common sense. It is a misguided argument.
Yes, I understand that our rights under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms ultimately is to insure our government won’t suppress our right to revolution, but I believe that is not the clearest argument against gun control in the context of a school shooting. Under present circumstances, to continue to accuse this Administration, or our government in general, of trying to seize our guns in some alleged coup sounds hysterical and paranoid. And it is not winning the argument with the general public, especially with an unsympathetic and gun-hating press.
What does matter to most Americans is personal safety. And having served as a peace officer for almost three decades, it is clear that law enforcement cannot protect a single citizen from an attack by an intruder in their home. In the most unlikely scenario that a police officer was right around the corner from your home (as an intruder gained access into your home and began assaulting you), those precious seconds (while you were waiting for a cop to arrive) could mean the difference between life and death. And that is the real lesson in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and every other shooting where a crazed gunman opened fire into a crowd: You only have seconds to protect yourself, and the police cannot get there in time. That is the truth of the matter.
And that is why the National Rifle Association (NRA) has been training law-abiding citizens in the proper handling and use of firearms for decades. I attended an NRA safety course when I was a teenager and learned to respect guns as a useful tool for defense. My training in the Army taught me similar lessons about firearm respect and handling safety. And as a police officer, I saw the benefit of being armed, especially when I had to aim my firearm at another human being who posed a threat to my life. Though I never had to shoot anyone during my career, my handling of a firearm in a moment of eminent threat caused the person or persons I confronted to reconsider their options; whether that targeted person’s life was worth testing my resolve to shoot him or her, if necessary. And I assure you, I did not have to shoot anyone because my firearm, and resolve, convinced them I meant business.
I have had children and firearms in my home for decades and have NEVER had an issue with any of my kids attempting to handle a firearm. That is because I have gone to reasonable lengths to teach my children to respect firearms and treat them as if they were always loaded. I have demonstrated for them what guns are capable of doing when the trigger is pulled. It is not time intensive to train a child properly about gun safety. It is irresponsible and unconscionable, in my opinion, to treat firearms as a social evil, and to publicly vilify gun ownership for law-abiding citizens.
Why do I keep a firearm in my home? It is for my personal safety. I have had to confront two prowlers in my front yard since moving to Moreno Valley in 1985. The presence of my firearm convinced both males to lie down on the ground until the police responded. Police response took over five minutes in both situations. Five minutes seemed like an eternity. One prowler was on probation for car theft and had a warrant for his arrest. The other was a drunk juvenile who had just stolen a road sign. Whatever their motives for sneaking around my property at night was negated by the presence of a firearm. And I am alive to tell you about it.
Criminals do not abide by the law, which is the nature of their criminality. Do not expect that criminals will be affected by gun control laws, for obeying the law is not a high priority for those who find crime profitable. Crooks always manage to find guns through theft and manipulation. So what will you do to protect yourself when an attacker approaches you in your driveway, or breaks through a window in your home while you are watching T.V.? That is why I keep a firearm in my home. I intend to defend myself, my family, and my home against any criminal. That is the argument that those who cherish their Second Amendment rights need to scream from the rooftops, echo in opinion pages in the newspaper, and school their elected representatives about.
It is the truth and it is reality. The government cannot protect you from criminals. They can only arrest and detain them after the fact. A dead criminal in your home cannot rape your wife or daughters, set fire to your home, tie you and your family up and torture you, or stab you or shoot you. A dead criminal in your home is worth the effort to own a firearm and properly train yourself in firearm safety. That is the truth.
1 comment:
I have carried a firearm regularly for over 30 years. I have had one available in my home as long as I can remember. I have drawn the weapon four times on the streets, and fired it twice. Both shots fired were for dog attacks. One incident, in which I did NOT have to fire, was for a people situation. People are usually smart enough to not want to be shot. Dogs, not so much. One time, in my home, I was awakened in the middle of the day (I was on first watch) by sounds in the living room of my apartment. I rolled over and grabbed my S&W. My bedroom door opened. I aimed. A fireman in turnout gear stepped throug the door. I chastised him and my apartment manager SEVERELY for not knocking or using the doorbell. There was a small, smoky mattress fire the in the apartment next to me. That is I grant you good reason to enter my apartment. It is not good reason to enter without notice. Reasonable people use force, and contemplate the use of force, judiciously. Injudicious people are the problem, not the presence of weapons.
Post a Comment