Civitas Media: Before publishing concealed weapons dB, please help regulate the Government

Regarding: Newspaper chain plans ‘state-by-state’ concealed weapon databases
foxnews.com/us/2014/01/24/newspaper-chain-seeks-to-build-state-by-state-concealed-weapon-databases/

Letter to the Publisher:

I have no guns; please first contribute to regulating the government.

My son just turned 33. When he was six months old, I had to have a gun to work as a security guard.

(Tip: If you have to carry a gun for a living, you want two, one on each side, otherwise, your hips will get messed up.)I never had to discharge the weapon, but once, at the back of a Holiday Inn abutting a freeway, I was confronted by a pack of 4 wild dogs, led by a St. Bernard, the smallest of which was a German Shepherd. They growled at me. I drew down on them. Dogs instinctively understand guns. They backed off. It was only afterwards that I saw they were on the other side of a chain link fence. If they had wanted to cross, however, who knows what would have happened?

My six month old son was getting his diaper changed. I was “dry firing” an “unloaded weapon” in a direction 45 degrees away from where he was being changed. BAM! went my “unloaded” weapon.

I got rid of the gun, 32 years ago, and I haven’t had one since.

Before you publish your concealed weapon permit database, would you please start an online search database of government vehicle licenses?

This is so that, when a government employee misbehaves, a “citizen” (remember that old civics word?), can note the license number, record the date, time, location and specifics of the misbehavior, and report the matter to the agency-in-question’s Risk Management Department, the only thing that our civil “regulators” fear.

The old shibboleth: “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

How about a new one: “If the government weren’t arbitrarily armed, citizens wouldn’t need guns.”

Think about it: It’s now technologically possible, for guns to be remotely detected using a kind of “radar”.

At the same time, it’s technologically possible to electronically lock a gun to only operate for an assigned “owner”.

Now, if the Police can scan remotely, and disarm those in possession of guns, the Police…

*** 35% of whose shootings are either partner- (20%) or self-inflicted (15%)***
 

…could be required to get instant authorization to activate/arm an electronically locked weapon.

Okay, there are all kinds of implementation issues, as there are with any law.

The point is, why vilify people who nearly always get guns because the Police can’t protect them, if you’re not going to advocate for the fullest extent of measures to protect them?

Guns are such a hassle. I’m lucky to have moved to an area with half the murder rate of my former domicile. (There, the Police didn’t even bother responding to reports of small arms discharge, so we stopped calling.)

You have a tremendous privilege influencing public opinion.

Please take up the corresponding responsibility to act for all people’s welfare, regardless of their “political opinion”—whatever that means in this age of the greatest commercial propaganda in history.