This is a response to "Have gun, will travel," a March 29 column by Lewis Diuguid.

As a retired law enforcement officer, I am fully aware that law enforcement has no legal obligation to protect any member or group of the general public unless through specific agreement (i.e., victim/witness protection, etc.). Activities are predominantly reactive to situations that have already occurred.

Back in the 1960s, when I was a member of the Kansas City Police Department, I was aware of what areas of the city I, or my family, could travel with little concern of encountering potentially threatening situations.

In the past 40 years, crime patterns have shifted dramatically, and I no longer feel able to know for certain the "safe" areas to visit.

Hence, I still travel armed.

Since I was required to be armed on and off duty, I taught my children safe handling and use of firearms and prefaced all education with the concept that a firearm is a tool. And, as with a hammer, baseball bat or knife, improper use can and usually does cause people to be injured or killed.

While I was a member of the Columbia Police Department, we conducted educational programs with elementary-level students, and the "tool" concept was instilled there as well.

I would say that the guest in Lewis Diuguid's home, the subject of his column, was more of a realist than Diuguid is when it comes to traveling on the public streets in today's society. It only takes one sociopath to destroy your family and quality of life, and it can happen very quickly.

Years ago Missouri passed a law making it a mandatory three-year prison sentence for using a firearm in the commission of a crime. This law was quickly subverted into a plea-bargaining chip to get offenders to plead guilty (the three years mandatory would be dropped if the suspect pled guilty to the base crime).

We need to enforce the basic laws on the books relative to criminal activity with firearms and hold violators responsible for their actions. We need to allow the law-abiding citizens the right to protect themselves.

I found it interesting that when the conceal-carry measure, Proposition B, was put to a vote in Missouri, the negative voting blocks were primarily in the most populated areas of the state. The results of the voting were extraordinarily late coming out of Kansas City and St. Louis. We have since learned that St. Louis had voting irregularities in the November 2000 election. I have to wonder if this was the case on the Prop B issue.

I spent many years protecting the rights of victims and suspects and can say with pride that no single person was hurt other than in defensive actions or in defense of others. However, if any individual violates my personal rights, in my mind, they have automatically lost theirs.

Bill Tinsley lives in Boonville.