« Are Anti-War Dems Going Wobbly? | Main | But, We're Winning, Right? »

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c1db69e200e3981f50a68833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cohen On Thompson: Guns Don't Kill People, Hormones Do:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Cohen suffers from what those of us in the IT world refer to as the "ID10T Error Code", & "The Carl Rowan Syndrome" (http://www.tincher.to/rowan.htm)

Once Fred Thompson gets into the race, I think we should show gun owner’s support for him by coming to all his rallies heavily armed. Just think how intimidated those Dems would be with hundreds of assault rifles being waved in the air everytime Fred speaks!

I'd actually support a wild west approach: only condition is everyone who wants to wear a firearm or transport it on their person has to open carry.

Ummm...the blood drenched state of Vermont must be the "wild west" murder capital of the USA then. You can carry open or concealed in VT without any sort of state permit or license.

How about tax breaks for open carry? Would drive every liberal out of the state that enacts this. I can't take credit for this, which goes to Boston T. Party's "Molon Labe"

http://www.amazon.com/Molon-Labe-Come-Take-Them/dp/1888766077

"Just think how intimidated those Dems would be with hundreds of assault rifles being waved in the air everytime Fred speaks!"

Easy there Moby. The point is that an armed citizen has and will continue to be the person on scene when something bad happens, not the cops. The point is not to intimidate by force others who's politics are different that ours. Methinks someone is projecting.

It's worse than that. Not only aren't we there when trouble starts but the first few Officers on the scene will be jacking around forming a perimeter, gathering intelligence, establishing a chain of command and otherwise jerking off.
When I pinned on a badge some thirty-five+ years ago if somebody started shooting up a school we'd go in as we arrived and shoot the bad guy.
When I retired I would have been fired for going in without permission from the brass. I'm glad I'm retired.

Here's another example of why restricting guns won't work:

http://www.break.com/index/store-thief-gets-his-ass-kicked.html

It takes 6 minutes of an 8+ minute video of a would-be convenience store robber getting the crap kicked out of him before the cops finally showed up. Had the robber been armed with a gun, the outcome probably would've been quite different, with either dead employees, the robber getting away, or both.

So let me get this straight...we're supposed to just hope that we won't have to deal with a bad guy with a gun, and if we do, call the cops and just hope that they show up in time? I dunno, but that seems like a bad bet to me, particularly if you work in a convenience store.

No offense to the cops, BTW...they can't be everywhere at once, and we shoudn't expect them to be.

> No offense to the cops, BTW...they can't be everywhere at once, and we shoudn't expect
> them to be.

Well, yes and no, Andrew. You're right that we should be our own first line of defense; it's irresponsible to do otherwise. (Assuming that the police have the responsibility to protect you, more than you have responsibility to protect yourself, is irresponsible by definition.)

My problem is when the police themselves buy into the myth. In many American communities, the local police department has an arbitrary veto on who gets a gun permit and who doesn't -- and they are not answerable to anyone for that decision. That's why more and more states have started to pass "shall-issue" laws, requiring police departments to show good reason for denying a gun license.

If I recall correctly, not long ago a police department was sued, after a 911 call didn't get a response in time -- and it was determined that the police were not liable. So if they're not responsible for failing to save lives, and we're not supposed to be responsible for protecting ourselves, then where are we?

Responsibility must lie somewhere. For a long list of reasons, I believe we must take responsibility for ourselves, first and foremost -- and we have a right to insist that our laws and government institutions support us in this.

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline

The comments to this entry are closed.

Donations Appreciated

Infolinks

Blog Ads


Syndigo

AdSense

Search

Wikio Top Fifty

  • Wikio - Top Blogs - Politics

Memeorandum

Find the best blogs at Blogs.com.

Blog Roll

November 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

Technorati


Blog powered by TypePad

2006 Weblog Awards