“My armed guards aren’t killing children and don’t have semi automatic weapons.“
— Chelsea Handler (@chelseahandler) March 28, 2018
I’m not sure who she is, but she obviously thinks she has a right to physical protection. I agree with that bit. Unfortunately, I can’t afford armed guards.
My armed guard (me) sometimes carries a semi-automatic handgun and sometimes a revolver. In both cases, one squeeze of the trigger produces one discharge. The main difference is that my usual semi-auto carry holds 7 rounds and my usual revolver carry holds only 5.
If I were hired to defend someone else, I’d be less concerned about comfortable carry. I’d be much less concerned that someone could tell I had a firearm: Maybe it’s a deterrent if you realize someone has a professional armed guard you have to shoot first?
Since I’d be more concerned about multiple assailants, I’d definitely carry something that held 10 or more rounds: I.e., a larger semi-auto. If Ms. Handler’s guards aren’t doing so, then she should fire them.
I’m not shooting any children, either.
So. She thinks she should be allowed to pay someone else to defend her, and that I should not be allowed to defend myself.
No. If I can’t defend myself with a gun, Ms. Handler can’t be allowed to let someone else defend her with one.
And, you know what? If I thought I needed armed guards, I’d still carry my own. Especially then.