lets dispell the nra hypocracy myth
A recent shooting in a movie theatre was cut short when an off duty Bexar County Sheriff, thwarted the gunman's plans. This event has been twisted by the NRA as an example of how gun violence can be reduced by having good guys with guns. However, the major fact that is overlooked was that the good guy who had a gun was a law enforcement officer. Gun control laws are not taking aim at professionals having possession of guns. It is expected that officers carry guns, and wherever they can, to use them to protect the public. Such an event is not a case for more gun possession, nor for possession of assult rifles and high capacity magazines. I sheriff carrying a pistol has always been, and will remain, a safe practice in America.
Next the NRA has stooped to a new low recently, by advertising that the President gets to have his children protected by armed guards, but anti-gun lobbyists are insisting that the rest of America should not. The argument really can be summarily dismissed by the fact that we are talking about the children of one of the most powerful leaders in the world. That alone justifies substantial protection. However, once again the NRA has skirted the fact that the protection of the Presidents kids is not being done by random right-demanding citizens, but by secret service professionals.
Until we are rid of civilian gun ownership, law enforcement will need to carry guns And while there is no absolutely guarantee that a professional will misuse a gun at some point, the prevalence of such events is exceedingly rare. The issue at hand is the ownership of guns by the general public, the type of guns and the type of ammunition that is sold.