Buy a gun. Get a bat. Own some weapon and have enough skill to use it to save your own life and the lives of your family members. DO NOT RELY ON THE POLICE TO SAVE YOUR LIFE FOR YOU.Go read the whole post, as it is an eye opener. The bottom line is that the police won't be there to defend you if you find yourself under attack. They also won't be there to defend your children or grand children should someone try to take them. It will be you, and probably you alone.
Wait. What's this? What heresy are you speaking of? Officer Smith, are you really telling me not to rely on the police to protect me? What about that "Protect and Serve" horse shit plastered all over the sides of their patrol cars? Aren't they SUPPOSED to protect me?
There is also the moral question one has to ask: how moral is it to demand that someone you pay, say $48,000 per year, defend your life even though you yourself are not willing to defend it? Officer Smith:
The bottom line is this. If you're depending on us, the police, to save your ass in any foreseeable situation, you're deluding yourself. You need to be able to protect and defend YOURSELF. Then, after you have taken care of business, you can call us to come clean up the mess. That way it'll be the person who attacked you who is bleeding in your driveway, instead of you.
Folks used to understand this, once upon a time. There has never been a time when the police would magically appear at the snap of your fingers. In fact, modern technology has made police response MUCH faster than it was at any time in the past. But people have somehow forgotten over the years that it is first YOUR responsibility to protect yourself. People have gotten soft, and come to the conclusion that any violence on their part is a bad thing. They don't want to be responsible for an injury to another person, no matter what that other person is doing unto them.
So, why don't people still understand this? Could it be that anti-gun Mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs, and news papers have convinced a wide swath of the American public that the government should have a monopoly of force? Could it be that at the same time they are decrying crime in the streets, they are sending a message that the average citizen is safe, and should rely on the police for self defense? Some people I talk to seem unaware of what could happen. "Well," they will say, "I don't need a gun here." But crime happens when you least expect it, where you least expect it. Perhaps as you are going into the office, a fleeing felon will come up the driveway in a bid to out run the police, see you there and decide to take you hostage. The police will ultimately get their man. But whether you live or die that day will depend on you. Got Gun?
I really only have one bone to pick here with Officer Smith, who seems like a hard working, stand up guy. But he seems to be located in Kalifornia, a State where, depending on the County, it can be almost impossible to obtain a permit to carry concealed. In the scenario outlined by Officer Smith, the victim was attacked in his driveway. It does little good if his gun is in his house, stored in a safe and unloaded. Few criminals are willing to wait while you go in the house, open the safe and acquire the gun, then find the ammunition and load it into the magazine, to return to say "Alright, I'm ready now!" Of course, Officer Smith points to bats and other things that are also useful weapons, but if you are small, or disabled, any contact weapon may be problematic.
Thanks to Sean Sorrentino for the link.