There are many different stories around the blogosphere today highlighting this phenomena:
Law Abiding Gun Owner four and five
Just a few days ago, a friend of mine who lives in Philly, and is licensed to carry, got threatened by three youths with a Taser. Believing there was no way this was going to end well, he drew his pistol, muzzle pointed toward the sidewalk. The miscreants decided that Glock beat Taser and beat a hasty retreat. No one was hurt. My friend called 911, but the police never showed up to take a report. Keep in mind this city has had a rash of people getting beaten up in random acts of violence. Yet the Brady’s want to continually deny that there are real law abiding gun owners who have a legitimate concern about personal protection, and who aren’t dangerous or irresponsible with firearms.
Another question just occurred to me: I have a number of guns in my house. Is it reasonable for me to assume that anyone who’d break into a house would also break into my safe (it’s not a big, expensive one, just a big lockbox really), and try to steal my guns? Am I justified in trying to keep these arms out of the hands of a known criminal (guilty of B&E, at least), and off the streets using deadly force, if necessary? Or is that really just a police matter?
I’d be really interested to hear from a patrol officer concerning whether he’d rather have me shoot a goblin in my home, or respond to a rash of area robbery/shootings with my many stolen firearms. ‘Inquiring minds want to know…’
That’s a new one for rochambeau, Glock beats Taser – I too am as concerned with the condition of retaining my firearms as B Smith.