While reading blogs this evening, I came across two diametrically opposed viewpoints on home defense, specifically, whether to advertise to the public that the homeowner is also a gun owner.
Brigid comes down on the "give fair warning" side of the argument, posting bullet-riddled targets in her garage for burglars and home invaders to look at.
Michael Bane represents the other argument:
It’s worth noting that those of us have owned and used guns for years have quite literally changed our lifestyles to accommodate that decision. My house is secure. My locks are good. I live in a safe neighborhood in a safe small city. I own an excellent gunsafe. I don't broadcast the fact that I own and carry guns.
We might call these the difference between the rattlesnake and the copperhead. The rattlesnake tries to give fair warning, relying on recognition of his potential lethality as a deterrent; the copperhead is silent, trusting that he won't be noticed, knowing that he is still capable of lethal action.
The danger in the first approach is that it deters ony those weaker than the rattlesnake/home owner. A sufficiently powerful predator will not be deterred, and the element of surprise has been lost.
The danger in the second approach is that it increases the potential pool of predators, but the homeowner/copperhead still has the advantage of surprise.
Two approaches, each with advantages and disadvantages. I can't say that one is wrong and the other right; it's a totally subjective judgement decision.
Wish I had enough of a blog audience to discuss it. :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment