ballistic gelatin
June 9, 2003, 09:02 AM
Why is it that everytime I meet someone who is a public policy maker or is getting into that field, they don't share any of my views on firearms...or bicycle helmets?
For example, the lady I met last week who has a Masters of Public Administration degree from some college, doesn't think guns should be banned altogether, she just doesn't see the need for handguns. I said, "yes except for defensive purposes."
She brings up the "statistics" that show more homeowners are injured/killed with their handguns than are saved by them. I said that's crap, she said not it's not.
She also said you were more likely to be struck by lightning than to require the use of deadly force to protect you.
She mentioned the fact that people with concealed weapons permits may overreact when threatened and use deadly force without justification. I said, that's why there is something called Formal Firearms Training to teach people how, when and why to use a firearm for personal defense.
She said there should be sticter gun laws to combat the lax regulations at gunshows. I said have you eve tried to buy a handgun at a gunshow? It's not that easy. There is still the background check and 3 day wait. This is the good part. She claims that the background check is not good enough! She says 3 days is not enough to determine if there's anything in your background to deny ownership.
Then we got on bicycle helmets, motorcycle helmets and it was downhill from there. As you can see, this was not an easy person to deal with. So, the fact that I have to see this person on occasion, brings me to the place where I have to agree to disagree without being disagreable.
The worst part, this lady grew up around firearms. Her family hunted, she had a "tail collection". Who knew? BUT her Father committed suicide a few years ago with a handgun. I figure that plays a large role in her skewed views.
Have you ever met anyone in the Political Science/Public Policy Arena who shares your views? If not, is there really a chance for us at all without the NRA?
For example, the lady I met last week who has a Masters of Public Administration degree from some college, doesn't think guns should be banned altogether, she just doesn't see the need for handguns. I said, "yes except for defensive purposes."
She brings up the "statistics" that show more homeowners are injured/killed with their handguns than are saved by them. I said that's crap, she said not it's not.
She also said you were more likely to be struck by lightning than to require the use of deadly force to protect you.
She mentioned the fact that people with concealed weapons permits may overreact when threatened and use deadly force without justification. I said, that's why there is something called Formal Firearms Training to teach people how, when and why to use a firearm for personal defense.
She said there should be sticter gun laws to combat the lax regulations at gunshows. I said have you eve tried to buy a handgun at a gunshow? It's not that easy. There is still the background check and 3 day wait. This is the good part. She claims that the background check is not good enough! She says 3 days is not enough to determine if there's anything in your background to deny ownership.
Then we got on bicycle helmets, motorcycle helmets and it was downhill from there. As you can see, this was not an easy person to deal with. So, the fact that I have to see this person on occasion, brings me to the place where I have to agree to disagree without being disagreable.
The worst part, this lady grew up around firearms. Her family hunted, she had a "tail collection". Who knew? BUT her Father committed suicide a few years ago with a handgun. I figure that plays a large role in her skewed views.
Have you ever met anyone in the Political Science/Public Policy Arena who shares your views? If not, is there really a chance for us at all without the NRA?