[dd74]

I honestly don't have a clear opinion. As a father, like Nostatic, I certainly agree with his points. And as a father, whether or not Dr. Island is one (I don't know), I agree with some of his points as well. I can only speak from many experiences where I've seen firearms (sidearms) as a positive and negative.

One experience where firearms became a paradox was in 1992. While working for the Los Angeles Times, our building was the second "hit" after the rioters moved from Parker Center (LAPD headquarters) west. The building went into a complete lockdown and remained that way for four hours. What the steel reinforced fire doors opened to around 11PM was a city on fire -- everywhere. What we saw in each others faces was utter fear. A day later, how that fear was responded to by roughly a third to half of a mostly democratic/near-liberal editing/writing staff was they carried handguns to and from their desks. In short, Glocks, Berettas and magnums could be found in a lot of briefcases and handbags.

Sure. Drive through Koreatown at that time, and you were "trained" by AR-16s, AK-47s and anything else that could fit on a tripod. Go to your parents house back then, and they're pushing the idea of you going to B&B in the Valley (if you had the nerve to drive), to buy a pump-action "home protection device" as my parents did with me. L.A.'s a fairly liberal city, but I kid you not, from Pasadena to Santa Monica, fear armed the city with stuff that could overturn governments.

How does the LA Times fit in? Easy. The paper became its own victim. It reported violence and in '92 succumbed to it. The writer was writing stories about shootings while also carrying a gun. To me, it was the ultimate paradox.

These days, like I said, I haven't an opinion. I'm completely confused about the issue, and living in a big city doesn't help. When to use a gun and when not becomes hazed over daily. Sometimes, I think the easiest solution is to just move away.

But to where?