If we're going to lay blame on Durham PD for this tragedy, anyone else who knew that Huerta (a 17 year old) had the pistol is equally culpable.
Obviously cold and helpless (his hands are tucked beneath the sweatshirt) there on the street. But why should readers encourage this kind of behavior by leaving money for him? The money makes him a target for those who might rob him. This is a prime example of what shelters are for...
"Old White Guy" - Isn't this article suggesting to readers we engage in different forms of age, race and sex discrimination?
Why not elect leaders based on their beliefs and the solutions they intend to implement?
Sarah, The writer clearly is safety conscious. Why restrict his rights to carry?
I tend to understate things from time to time. You *might* feel comfortable abdicating the responsibility for your personal safety (and the safety of your loved ones) to police but you DON'T have the right to make that choice for everyone else.
If you had actually taken the CCW class or did any serious study on this subject you'd already know that those who legally carry understand that a lawyer is literally attached to every bullet that comes out of your barrel. You'd also know that you could face charges for merely drawing your weapon. Permit holders know that they will be the ones held responsible for what happens to everyone and everything that they happen to shoot (intentionally or unintentionally).
Permit holders aren't required to fire and many don't carry except to protect themselves. The police can't be everywhere. LEO's will secure the crime scene or clean it up after the fact but they are NOT under any obligation to protect individuals. ( http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-p… )
I encourage you and Ms. Sorg to get out of your pajamas and take some firearm safety classes when you get a chance. BTW, your cell phone isn't bullet proof.
The uninformed and uninitiated seem fearful of permit holders perhaps because they don't know what it takes to get a CCW permit. The expense is minimal (a couple hundred bucks depending on how you count it) but it requires 3 trips to your local sheriff's office, signatures from persons who will vouch for your character and a whole days worth of your time in a classroom and range before you can get a certificate to apply. If you do something wrong with your gun (or even if you do something right) you risk losing your personal reputation, your right to own or carry firearms for the rest of your life and whatever you've earned in life that you might consider worth protecting. Even after the new law was passed, it is still illegal to drink and carry concealed (even one drink).
Persons enter bars and *not* drink alcohol all the time. These persons are often the designated drivers who are ordering soft drinks. My point here is that after going through all the trouble and actually getting a CCW permit, you're a whole lot less likely to risk your life or the lives of others by drinking in a bar while (legally) carrying concealed or engaging in other dangerous behaviors. Criminals on the other hand don't care about laws.
So what kinds of persons does this article (and gun control in general) appeal to?
Let me take a guess. Social elitists, bureaucrats and academics that have never been properly exposed to firearms. Is that the only segment of society that Indy wants to appeal to?
The statistics referenced in this article are mere window dressing. They don't have anything to do with conceal carry permit holders. The polling didn't require any knowledge of the subject by the respondents and the owners of the venues still have the right to run their businesses as they please. The competitors of the businesses which choose to be "Gun Free Zones" are arguably safer because law abiding armed citizens aren't being turned away.
This article offers no suggestions on what readers should do to prevent violent crime or protect society. The author botched an opportunity to ask law enforcement officers about what could be done towards that end. In terms of accurately informing the public this article also she fails miserably. Indy readers and sponsors probably expect more and better than this kind of article. My suggestion is that the author should stick to subjects like food, music and "feel good subject" but not public policy. Judging from some of the commentary, I am not alone in this way of thinking.
All Comments »
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation