Ever since the release of a recent story from ESPN about athletes who have chosen not to be unarmed, various articles and editorials have been written about the "problem" of athletes with guns. Why it's worse for athletes to be armed than it is for the rest of us, I'm not sure, but since I'm a fat paraplegic, and thus about as far from athletic as a person who is still breathing can be, I guess they're not so upset about my firearms.
Anyway, this opinion piece expresses even more than the usual amount of disapproval of this phenomenon. In reference to the Chicago Bears' "Tank" Johnson's gun related legal problems he had this to say:
Why Tank Johnson or any athlete would ever need so much protection is beyond me. Though athletes are public figures, they don't need to be armed like Tony Montana was at the end of "Scarface" just to stay safe.The odd thing is that in the very next paragraph, he illustrates exactly why athletes would seek ways to defend themselves:
Unfortunately, recent events have shown that athletes can be targets, regardless of their fame. In the past three months, two football players have been shot and killed: Denver Broncos cornerback Darrent Williams and University of Miami defensive lineman Bryan Pata.The point I would like to bring attention to is that professional athletes are wealthy people. They can afford to hire bodyguards, and to live in gated communities, with extensive security. Yet still they find themselves in situations where they may have to defend themselves and/or their families.
Most of the rest of us don't enjoy the luxury of being able to afford such security. How much greater, then, is our need for recognition of our basic, universal, fundamental right to self-defense?
There isn't a "problem" of athletes having access to firearms--the problem is that many of the rest of us have to jump through so many hoops to exercise our right to defend ourselves.