There are some gun rights advocates I hear from whenever they read about a citizen using a gun to thwart a criminal.
They love those stories. Some especially love it when the good guy has a concealed firearm permit. Such accounts prove that just about everyone who isn't a criminal should carry a gun, they tell me.
But none have contacted me about the arrest of concealed weapons permit holder Albert H. Rudolph III, who police say pulled a .45-caliber semi-automatic out of his shirt at Patrick's, a downtown Sarasota restaurant.
So for you, one anecdote about alleged misuse is enough to render everyone else who didn't behave irresponsibly defenseless? Because as we've seen time and again, only the authorities and their enforcers possess sufficient powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men to be trusted with a gun?
I've just provided you a link to thousands of examples of abuses by government authorities you so obviously hold in such esteem, Tom. And here's the thing--I don't even make an effort to look for these stories--and in fact, I don't comment on but a fraction of them since I could literally be doing nothing else. Just do a news search on the term "gun" every day and you'll be virtually tripping all over them.
You, in turn, give us one example, and suggest policy change affecting everyone to be the desired outcome. Fess up, Tom--don't you "especially love it when the good guy has a concealed firearm permit" and then abuses it? So why is it this is the first time you've had occasion to rant on the subject and you couldn't resist jumping on it? Could it be because it's so rare you've never had the opportunity to exploit it before--or is it just that you objective "authorized journalists" (another category I literally have to wade through every day) aren't doing your job and finding these stories for your readers?
If a fair-minded person were to look at the preponderance of problems reported by your own profession, Tom, which group do you think it would say poses the greatest danger to the public: the authorities you think are so much more trustworthy with guns than "ordinary" citizens, or concealed permit holders?
And as for guns and booze under the same roof? You might as well just cut to the chase and ban either firearms or alcohol, then (why not both?), because the home--you know, the place where most domestic violence situations and suicides occur--often has both present. And did you know that the suicide rate for law enforcement is about twice that of the general population, and that "Domestic violence is almost four times more likely to occur in police families"?
Don't believe me? Ask your colleagues---they're the ones filing stories on these numbers, and you guys always take pains to make sure what you're reporting is fair, balanced and accurate, right?
And incidentally: unless it had been discharged, it was a "cartridge" or a "round" that "fell to the floor," not a "bullet." Here's a resource you can consult if you're ever unsure about the difference in the future.
Liberal editorial writers. Is there anything they don't know?