Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Active Self Protection"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@rommel5241 It's a pretty good deterrent when it's operating properly. And the USA has a tradition of local gun ordinances, mostly so that women would join the men building towns out West.
Sidearms were an essential part of a drover's (cowboy's) kit, but a cowboy with a month's pay in his pocket, getting drunk and disorderly with guns on their hips was understandably considered a threat to law and order in those towns.
But you are absolutely right about the inability of the police to protect you against thugs. And we're in times when those ordinances do more to empower thugs than protect the innocent.
I think the thing for big cities to do, in the current era, is make it easier for citizens to obtain and carry firearms for self-protection. The same leniency they now show thugs should be extended to the law-abiding with respect to firearms.
But things can easily get out of hand in a big city where everybody's strapped. People live on top of each other, and in an otherwise peaceful society, the danger of people acting stupid or using guns to settle petty disputes or just accidentally shooting themselves or others is likely greater than the danger from thugs. To me, locally, it's more of a pendulum-swing sort of thing, and it's pretty obvious that restrictive gun ordinances are not working.
But I've stayed away from big metro. It brings out the crazy in people and puts you in proximity to people who started out crazy. I prefer rural and small towns in red states, where most of us are armed and nobody gets shot.
1