Citizens of Saint Louis Defend Yourselves . . . With . . . Dirty Looks or Something?

The supreme Court of the United States has already declared that police have no duty to protect the individual. St. Lewis police can't protect you in St. Louis as shown by the increase in crime there, and city Alderman Charles Quincy Troupe says you all should be prepared to defend yourself.

I was all set to cheer when I read that.

Until I got to the bottom of this stub article...

"Police did not immediately return requests for comment. Chief Dan Isom told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch he understands Troupe's frustration but doesn't support citizens arming themselves.

Carrying guns, he said, is not a "recipe for a less violent community.""

Yes, that's true, except not. I suppose the citizenry should go about with boards with nails in them? Come on Chief Isom, get real. The police are effective (in other cities apparently) in large part because of the threat of lethal force implied by their arms. If a citizen is armed, the same threat is present and a less violent community is almost automatically going to be present. The people who can pass the NICS and local background checks and authorizations are the kinds of people you would want to be police, and they are likely to be better trained and more competent with their weapons than the police. Someone whom the state deigns to grant permission to bear arms in his own defense, is very likely to be someone who will not "just go off" and kill people.

The guns don't shoot themselves. As Colonel Cooper said, the weapon is the man, not the gun he carries.

Carry your guns, people of Saint Louis!