Mike Fanella tells us that, " ... What these gun advocates simply do not understand is that when a loaded handgun is carried onto a public street or into a public park or establishment, it simply is no longer a private matter, but rather a very public one. This is true no matter how confident one might be in his ability to handle the gun. Alcohol, uncontrolled rage or human error can quickly turn an otherwise responsible gun owner into a very real public threat."
Your argument suggests that the police ought to be disarmed, Mike. They are people, too, and just as susceptible to "alcohol, uncontrolled rage or human error" as you and I, even though I deem them to be very "confident in their ability to handle the gun."
Don't you find it odd that they are not chasing around our streets as if this was still the Wild West? Or do you think that they aren't doing this because their weapons are exposed at their sides? So maybe we should be able to pack heat as long as everyone can see it? Is that what you're hoping for?
You also seem not to understand the "cold war" mentality, which was not a "if he's going to have a gun, then I want one, too" mindset. Go pick up an American history book, Mike, and see what our Founders had to say about such matters.
George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." That mode of thought makes a lot more sense regarding the "cold war" mentality than what you say. And you know what? It works.