Most people are hip to the notion of defending your home. It’s your sacred and personal place in the world, one we don’t want to have violated. Pro or anti gun, aggressive or pacifist, you’ll find most people are fine with defending your home.

Could you not say that your own person, your own body… could you not say that place is even more sacred, even more personal?

Why then do some people have a problem with a desire to keep your own person, your own body from being violated?

The retort typically is “Of course I don’t have a problem with this”, especially if you paint that violation in a context of something like rape.  But if that’s the case, why are we taught to just “lie back and take it“? Why is the constant refrain to not fight back, to “just give them what they want”? Don’t forget how the words “Let’s roll” and the actions that followed changed the course of events on 9/11/2001.

Realize most violent crime occurs away from the home. If it’s acceptable to defend yourself at home, I would reason it’d be more important to defend yourself when you’re away from home! However, some people don’t think that.

“To force the general public to be exposed to the risk of loaded guns when they are out with their family in public areas is outrageous and has absolutely nothing to do with the right to defend the home,” [Jonathan E. Lowy, a lawyer with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence] says.

Source here.

You know…. the general public is exposed to the risk of loaded guns all the time. Last time I checked, the police carried loaded guns. When you’re out and about with your family in public areas, hopefully there are police around somewhere, right? Are their guns any different?

Jay is working his way through the police academy. Consequently, he has a fair perspective on the process. He recently wrote a 2 part article on the requirements to get into the academy. Part 1, Part 2. It’s a little long, but it has to be to provide the proper perspective.

Where is the difference between a cop and a CHL? You can argue training, but as I’ve already said previously, little time actually deals with firearms. You can argue psychological examination. However, as proven in the past, psych exams aren’t foolproof. They can be beaten and fool even some of the best in the psych field. You could argue firearms qualification, but the last time I checked, a CHL’s qualification is harder than that of a LEO.

That is why I push for less carry restrictions for CHL holders. Because in the end, there isn’t any real difference at all.