Have gun, will defend
? 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Here’s a notice to would-be thieves contemplating breaking into my home: I
have several loaded firearms in my house and many of them are well within
easy, non-gunlocked reach. If you break into my home, your chances of
survival are slim; I’m a light sleeper, have an excellent guard dog, and
will have no problem choosing my life and the lives of my family over your
life.

Oh, and I’m not unique. In fact, tens of millions of Americans are equally
prepared.
That’s the beauty of living in America as opposed to, say, China, Russia or
most European nations; our Constitution recognizes our God-given right to
self-defense, self-protection and self-preservation. Oh, yeah — and duck
hunting, too.

It would be nice if gun-grabbing hysteriacs and the mainstream media — so
head over heels with its First Amendment rights — would recognize, once in
a while, the incredible societal benefits bestowed by the Second Amendment.

On Tuesday UPI published a story about a “wonderful” gunlock giveaway
program in Maine — a state with as many registered firearms as people, 1.3
million.
For me, the story started out typically — that is, typical of the
mainstream media’s generally sniffy, hostile and contemptuous attitude
towards gun rights and Americans who cherish them. The UPI writer, in the
first paragraph, immediately described Mainers as “gun-toting,” which is the
press’ equivalent to a four-letter-word for gun owners.
The article went on to “explain” the program, featuring details about the
Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence initiative to give away gunlocks to
gun-owning parents with children living at home.

So what, right? “It’s a nice thing to do,” isn’t it?

No, it is never a “nice thing” to recommend that gun owners to do something
that will end up getting them killed.
Huh? Don’t gunlocks “protect” people? Yes, but mostly they protect
criminals.
In fact, gunlocks kill innocent people because they prevent gun owners from
rapidly accessing the best means of defense available to them against a home
invader intent on raping, robbing and killing family members.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t keep a key ring on my skivvies when I’m
in bed at night. Also, I’m not sure I’d be able to find the right key in the
dark, in the middle of the night and in time to unlock my gun. I guess I
could just summon my personal police officer stationed 24/7 in my living
room — except that I, like everyone else, don’t have a personal police
officer stationed 24/7 in my living room.

That means, basically, I’m on my own and, hence, responsible for my own
personal safety and that of my wife and children. So this whole notion that
“gun locks save lives” is, in many respects, a farce perpetrated by the
gun-grabbing left and impractical as a means to enhance “safety” around
homes that include firearms.

When liberal gun grabbers hysterically proclaim that guns in a home increase
chances that “the children” and adults will be harmed or killed, that is
statistically true — but they fail to mention that the numbers are
pitifully low. In fact, they fail to tell you that more people die in the
home each year from accidents, falls, poisonings and drowning. And they fail
to recognize that guns in the home daily protect millions more people than
they ever kill. In fact, folks run a bigger risk of being harmed or killed
in a home without “gun-toting” adults.
Consequently, the Maine gunlock giveaway program is probably putting more
Mainers at risk of harm than it is enhancing “safety” and personal
protection.

I don’t doubt that some people in these groups really do care about
children. I don’t doubt that they feel compelled to “help” us “protect”
ourselves and our children. But — and this is tough for anti-gun hysteriacs
to accept — the millions of gun-owning parents and other adults don’t need
protection or safety “help” from the anti-gun crowd. That’s why they got
“help” from Mr. Smith, Mr. Wesson, and Mr. Colt.

The divide over guns in America is less one about constitutionalism than one
about safety. I agree with the liberal viewpoint that gun use and ownership
should be responsible and safe. In fact, I doubt few conservatives disagree
with that. But career criminals have often said that they will go out of
their way to avoid armed citizens. And, it is not a coincidence to me that
the national crime rate has fallen dramatically since most states have now
passed concealed carry legislation.

Promoting laws and measures that reduce our ability to protect ourselves is
not only irresponsible, it is anti-safety-minded and deadly.

Jon E. Dougherty is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.

Original Article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21283