Yes, I see your point, I will expand on mine.
The police and military provide for our common safety, to the best of there abilities.
The military will not help the folks on the streets of Chicago.
The SCOTUS has ruled that the police are not obligated to risk there lives to protect us (though most all would) they are not body guards.
Individual safety is our own responseibility. When seconds count, police are just minutes away.
Americans like guns. Dems AND Reps. The blowhards on TV are in the minority. If the bad guys have assault weapons than most Americans want the same.
That is why the best way to go about this is regulating the types of ammunition, magazines and body armor, etc. The guns are here to stay.
We should focus on getting these loons locked up and empowering families and doctors.
That said, i agree with you, and a misread your original statement slightly, and inferred a connotation you had not intended.
Now that i say that, i can't think of anywhere in my parents' master bedroom, or the master bedroom in my own home now where there would be room for a safe large enough to hold a shotgun, which is the most effective weapon for home defense. I would also imagine it would be expensive to acquire one. You could probably make the argument that such a law disproportionately affects poorer families ability to defend themselves as they're likely to have less space for a gun safe, and less money to purchase one.
Let me try this.
Around 1898And lots more here
I. LIABILITY IN MARYLAND FOR FAILURE TO ENFORCE THE LAW
A. Origin of the Public Duty Doctrine:
South v. Maryland
Legal authority in the United States that there is no liability for the failure to protect individuals by law enforcement officers generally is accepted as originating in South v. Maryland,(20) for states implementing it under the public duty doctrine.(21) In this case, Robinson, a resident of Washington County, owed a judgment debt to Pottle, a resident of Massachusetts. When Pottle and a party consisting of his attorney and a deputy sheriff attempted to assert a levy upon Robinson's property, they were surrounded by a group of workmen armed with stones and other weapons.(22) The workmen threatened violence should any attempt be made to assert the levy. After Pottle and his party took refuge in a nearby house, the workmen (described in the case as "rioters") maintained an armed guard around it.(23) The deputy sheriff left Pottle and his attorney imprisoned in the house and went to consult with the High Sheriff, South. When South returned with the deputy , Pottle demanded that he be protected from the armed workmen, but South refused to do so.(24) Pottle and his attorney were released, after four days of imprisonment, when they paid the workmen $2,500, a sum apparently equal to the amount of back wages owed them by Robinson.(25)
June 27, 2005, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection.
the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."
"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."
(1) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981). "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..."
(7) Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958). "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
(8) Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
(9) New York Times, Washington DC, "Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone" by LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005, "The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."
And according to this article (which anti-gun) by the way, about 500 children are killed a year by accidental gun discharge. Yet 1,900,000 households with children have guns that are unlocked and loaded. So in households with both children, and guns, where the guns are unlocked and loaded .02% of children are victims of accidents.
According to http://www.homeownersinsurance.org/h...across-the-us/ nearly 3 million home invasions occur annually.
Well that's scary as hell.Originally Posted by gunnails
As I think of it the better bet would be a focus on gun safety education. No one at the store tells you about how to safely handle and store a weapon.
It's the way it has always been in the US, police act more as crime responders and crime preventers.
The ruling makes sense because police can not be every where and can not prevent every crime, and we as a society can't hold them responsible for our individual safety.
Thus the 2nd amendment, and the peoples right to keep and bare (not bear) arms.
I fear that I am going to become known as JI's resident gun nut, and it is true I own about a dozen guns and thousands of rounds of ammo (in a gun safe) I have never carried a gun for self protection, and have no guns readily accesible for home defense. I just like guns, use to hunt, now just occasional target practice. And because I am a gun owner I am on a quest to learn and fully understand the laws as they relate guns. I am a work in progress