Feb. 24, 2004--It’s not surprising to me that many law enforcement officials--chiefs of police and the like--would like to make it illegal for anyone not a cop to own or carry a gun. After all, they don’t want their men shot by law-abiding citizens who own guns. Neither, for that matter, do I. Although people who shoot cops are usually non-law-abiding and some of them aren’t even citizens.

For my part, I think cops, like government itself, are a necessary evil. We can’t do without them, even though they sometimes over reach, sometimes misuse their authority, sometimes can be pretty unreasonable. And on occasion some are just a bit crooked.

Regardless, the idea that outlawing guns means criminals wouldn’t have them, wouldn’t use them is nonsensical on its face. One definition of a criminal is a person who flouts the law. If man is going to commit a crime he might as well commit a second crime by carrying a gun if he thinks it will help insure the success of the primary crime.

Then there is this other mistaken idea that because we have an armed police force we citizens don’t need guns to protect ourselves.

In a pig’s eye!

The unhappy fact is, a policeman is seldom around when you need him. He’s usually too busy issuing traffic tickets. But he’s nowhere to be found when someone breaks into your house to rob you of your possessions or rape your wife or kidnap your child. He’s not there to keep someone from robbing a convenience store and murdering the clerk. He’s not there to keep two or three thugs from beating the heck out of some poor fag in a bar or to keep a bully from kicking sand in the face of a 98-pound weakling at the beach. He’s not there when some drunken bully of a husband is using his fists to take out his frustrations on his wife.

No, he’s not. Instead he comes around afterward to try to clean up the mess and find the culprit, which, I readily admit, is better than nothing..

Now don’t misunderstand me. I know it’s not his fault.that he’s not there to prevent the crime. He can’t be everywhere. And most of the time he does the best he can do, but he does it after the fact, after the crime has been committed.

And because that’s the way it is, a lot of people think--indeed, they know--they’re better off with a gun in the house or under the counter or stuffed in their purse. There are statistics that indicate that robbers and burglars and muggers and others of that ilk don’t come around as often if there’s a chance the intended victim has access to a firearm. Nobody like to risk being shot. Not cops, not robbers.

Proposals to outlaw the possession of guns by law-abiding citizens are part of the trend toward big government and government control of the individual. They go hand in hand with the idea that government can take care of us better than we can take care of ourselves.

Unfortunately, a lot of people go along with that idea, people who think government should take care of them, people in government--and that includes the police--who think that government not only can and should take care of the people but who also think a person should not have the right to take care of himself.

Among these are those who would outlaw gun ownership.

Americans who value their freedom must not let that happen.

Contact Mr. Nofziger at franklynnof@cs.com