a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation
It boggles my mind.
It seems to me, that every single person who has come forward to speak on behalf of the anti-gun agenda, whether it be that politician fellow who
could not for the life of him work out the terminological difference between a clip and a mag, or this horses ass, who clearly has no idea how to
communicate an idea effectively, have been absolutely incapable of public speaking.
He says on the one hand, that a gun is not a defensive weapon, but claims that his officers carry them in order to do their jobs safely. Well, either
the gun increases their safety margin, or it lessens it. If it improves their chance of surviving contact with heavy criminal presences, then surely
carriage of the gun is defensive? Does a seventy year old own a gun because he wants to do a drive by every month, or because he fears home invasion?
Does a mother or father own a gun because they want to drop the drug dealer down the street, steal his stash and sell it himself, or does he own a gun
because he wants to protect his family from random meth heads?
The thing which classifies a weapon as either defensive, or offensive, is the intent and circumstance in which it is used, as this Chief ought to
damned well know!
There is no such thing as a defensive weapon anyway! If something can be considered a weapon, it can be used for both offense and defense, as indeed,
can the human body itself! A staff can deflect a blow, or strike one, a sword can prevent a laceration being inflicted on its wielder, and allows the
wielder to deal a cutting wound to his foes in turn, and a gun can be used to prevent escalation of an event, or used to bring such an event to a
A tazer, pepper spray, even a riot shield can be used in the commission of an offensive act against a person. Again, the real defining line between
offense and defense, is intent on the part of the user.