“More likely, the next time I think about ordering pizza, part of me will be reminded that the delivery guy may be armed, and I’ll hear a whisper of Dirty Harry’s own voice asking, ‘Do I feel lucky?’”
It’s kinda sick for you to draw no moral distinction between the pizza delivery guy and the mugger. You have every reason to expect a pizza delivery guy to have no intent other than to deliver the pizza, and every reason to expect him to employ a firearm he’s carrying exclusively for self-defense. It’s the guy knocking on your door unexpected that you should be worrying about.
If you live in—and he delivers pizza in—a jurisdiction that allows concealed carry, you should probably consider every adult who rings your doorbell to be armed. None of them have shot you.
The pizza delivery guy is probably running similar math in his head, regarding the risks he’s taking on each delivery. He has to, he’s at far greater risk than you are, because he’s 1) alone, 2) carrying cash, 3) moving about in all hours and all weather, 4) constantly getting into and out of a vehicle.
If you live in a jurisdiction that does not allow such carry, then you should definitely consider every law-abiding adult who rings your doorbell to NOT be armed, and every law-NON-abiding adult, and a percentage of all teenagers, ARMED.
Which way is less troublesome to your sensitive appetite? Which way would the law-NON-abiding rather have it?
Why should public law and policy reflect what makes you uncomfortable, versus what makes law-breakers uncomfortable?
