As you can see from my TTAG bio, I’m no “gun nut.” In fact, I’ve never really been much of a gun person at all. I know a good bit about guns, and guns have always been part of my family’s life, but in the full spectrum of my passions . . . let’s just say guns were always on the radar, but the “blip” wasn’t too prominent. Of course, that’s changing now that I’m writing for the TTAG. My eyes are opening wider every day to the very real, very legitimate needs many people have for firearms of various types. That being said, I still haven’t made any plans to increase my current ownership of guns: one .40 S&W semi-automatic pistol, one antique revolver. Until now. Now I’m having second thoughts on having a third weapon. And a fourth.
You may have noticed that over the past few days, the White House has been drawing more attention to the very-real threat posed by terrorists who may soon be armed with nuclear weapons. Browsing the news today, I ran across a USA Today piece entitled,“Nuclear blast victims would have to wait.” Steve Sternberg reports:
The White House has warned state and local governments not to expect a ‘significant federal response’ at the scene of a terrorist nuclear attack for 24 to 72 hours after the blast.
Of course, a federal response and the lack of a federal response can be very nearly the same thing, as we witnessed post-Hurricane Katrina. Anyway, Sternberg goes on to quote the head of an international affairs think-tank who ostensibly knows something about a modern-day, post-blast scenario:
One challenge . . . will be to persuade survivors to stay indoors, shielded from dangerous radiation until they’re given the all-clear or told to evacuate.
What about survivors in the radiation zone unlucky enough to be outside when the horrific event occurs? If no help is available – and no help was on the way for up to 72 hours – is it all that inconceivable that these individuals could pose a threat to people who were in their homes?
Maybe not. But this White House admission that our government’s power to protect and assist its citizens during such a crisis is – though certainly understandable – quite sobering. In my mind, it once again underscores the fact that the responsibility for self defense is primarily incumbent upon the individual.
Yes, I know that if I were the victim of a nuclear attack, I would have much bigger problems than zombie-like looters trying to break into my home for food. But given the realities displayed by Katrina and the ever-increasing dangers of the world in which we live, I have to ask myself: is one .40 caliber pistol and a practically-useless 90-year-old revolver enough to defend my family and I in the absolute worst of circumstances?