One more reason people should be allowed to own guns

When the 2nd ammendment debate comes up, invariably the Left claims that the need for self defense is a sham, that people should just rely on the police and not look to their own safety.

Well, the Left's favorite friend, SCOTUS, disagrees, at least with the police protecting you part. In a 7-2 decision, they found that a municipal police department IS NOT repsonsible for providing protection, even when a known threat is active and immediate.

Edit: Oops, forgot link...
You're on your own, you filthy peasants!

In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Court found that Rebecca Gonzalez has no recourse against her municipal police department, who failed to enforce a restraining order against her estranged ex-husband. Because her husband had limited visitation rights (he was only allowed to visit the children in the presence of two approved adults); when he abducted them, the Castle Rock police department decided to take no action on the matter. Several days later, Simon Gonzalez committed suicide by cop (he fired into a police station and was killed when they returned fire). Upon inspection of his vehicle, the police found the dead bodies of his three daughters, aged 7, 9 & 10.

SCOTUS not only found that the police department was not negligent, they issued a sweeping decision that stated that police departments are under no requirement to provide protection to the general public, and indeed, such protection should not be expected.

So there you have it. Perhaps the United States is unique in this matter, but our final legal authority, more important the Congress & the President put together, SCOTUS, has declared that the police department is not there to protect you and you're being foolish if you expect them to.

In light of this decision, do you on the Left still maintain that Americans have no right to self defense?

A few groundrules: Let's not derail this into an esoteric debate about machine guns, bazookas and the like. It's a simple question... as the all powerful legal authority in our country has said, the police are under no obligation to provide protection, and no assumption or expectation by a citizen should be made, does that citizen then have a right to self defense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

In light of this decision, do you on the Left still maintain that Americans have no right to self defense?

---

No. But my experience with firearms leads me to believe that the ideal weapon for home defense (should you feel you need one) is a nice shotgun. My opposition to gun ownership is now pretty much limited to handguns and semi-auto and auto firing rifles. This case does nothing to change that view.

Well, I'd agree with you on the shotgun being the best for home defense. I would argue home defense is not the only reason for gun ownership, but I'm not going to violate my own groundrules. Fair enough. We have a vote for shotguns only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

No. But my experience with firearms leads me to believe that the ideal weapon for home defense (should you feel you need one) is a nice shotgun. My opposition to gun ownership is now pretty much limited to handguns and semi-auto and auto firing rifles. This case does nothing to change that view.

---

Now wait- are we talking about self-defense or home defense? Courts have said the police aren't responsible for your protection, period- not just in the home.
For defending yourself at home, yeah, its tough to argue with a shotgun, but there's a whole lot of muggings, rapes, and murders that don't occur in the victims living room.

Does this mean the LAPD needs to change their motto? "Now we just serve..." ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Does this mean the LAPD needs to change their motto? "Now we just serve..." ~D

---

Who do they serve if they won't even investigate a kidnapping? It might not be their fault that a crazy man kills his children, but they weren't even looking for him! :furious3:

If the police aren't supposed to help you then yes, a shotgun for home defense isn't too much. In some places a handgun for concealed carry wouldn't be too much.

Not that familiar with this particular case, but it seems to me that the SCOTUS is just saying that municipal police forces are not liable if they fail to protect you, which is a good decision, given the potential for lawsuit abuse. Their job is to attempt to protect you by enforcing the law, and failure to do so does not open them to liability. It is up to the citizens of said municipality to extract revenge by demanding a change/firing, or voting the responsible police chief/sheriff/city official out of office. Public service incompetence is not limited to the police force, but is more visible.

Pump shotgun, first 3 shells #4, last 3 shells 00 buck. Top shelf, bedroom closet. Ideal for home-defense.

I've never maintained that a municipal police force is or should be responsible for protecting me. I've maintained that that is an impossible task. In this particular case, it was such gross negligence, refusing to go investegate a kidnapping, I'd have to make an exception to my natural aversion to lawsuits. But my point is, people cannot have their cake and eat it too. They cannot in one breath claim 'you have no need to defend yourself, that's what the police are for', and in the next say 'of course the police aren't responsible for your safety, whatever gave you that idea'.

Guns eh ..... Jessica should have shot him when he came to the house without two adults in tow , failing that she should have gone to the amusement park after she had been talking to her husband on the phone and shot him there .
But then of course unless she could prove that she was acting in self-defense she would have been up on charges .

The judges made the right call , the police cannot provide armed protection 24 hours a day to every individual who has a restraining order in place unless you want to pay a hell of a lot more taxes . You cannot sue the police for crimes commited against you unless they are shown to be negligent .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

But my point is, people cannot have their cake and eat it too. They cannot in one breath claim 'you have no need to defend yourself, that's what the police are for', and in the next say 'of course the police aren't responsible for your safety, whatever gave you that idea'.

---

On this point, agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Guns eh ..... Jessica should have shot him when he came to the house without two adults in tow , failing that she should have gone to the amusement park after she had been talking to her husband on the phone and shot him there .
But then of course unless she could prove that she was acting in self-defense she would have been up on charges .

The judges made the right call , the police cannot provide armed protection 24 hours a day to every individual who has a restraining order in place unless you want to pay a hell of a lot more taxes . You cannot sue the police for crimes commited against you unless they are shown to be negligent .

---

I agree with most of what you're saying, but 2 things: 1) not investegating a kidnapping and restraining order violation for three days counts as gross negligence in my book, especially given the violent nature of the suspect 2) who the hell is Jessica? Do you mean Rebecca Gonzalez?

2) who the hell is Jessica? Do you mean Rebecca Gonzalez? ~D ~D ~D
Read your own link Don , or type in Jessica Gonzales to your search to read lots of articles about this sad case ~;)

1) not investegating a kidnapping and restraining order violation for three days counts as gross negligence in my book, especially given the violent nature of the suspect
In your book yes , but not in the book of law . They did call to his residence , they did call his cell phone , they did issue bulletins to watch for his vehicle . They were negligent in not going to the amusement park , but this case rests on them second guessing the intent of the father . If you were told that an estranged father had taken his kids to an amusement park would you send in the SWAT team because you guessed that meant he was going to murder them ?
It highlights problems with restraining orders , parental access and domestic disputes .
Some States do have mandatory arrest for any violations of orders , which in the main is a good thing , but even that law does have its problems .

Talk about brain farts. I completely transposed Jessica & Rebecca's names. You're right, Jessica was the wife & mother petitioner, Rebecca was the 10 year old girl. I must be losing it (assuming I ever had it to begin with).

And, while the police said they did all that, very little of their efforts were able to be substantiated during the trial (in terms of logbook entries & dispatcher recordings).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Perhaps the United States is unique in this matter, but our final legal authority, more important the Congress & the President put together, SCOTUS, has declared that the police department is not there to protect you and you're being foolish if you expect them to.

---

I think that the US is unique in the matter. Certainly the Met is still there to protect us:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metropolitan Police

Statement of Our Common Purpose And Values
"The purpose of the Metropolitan Police Service is to uphold the law fairly and firmly;

to prevent crime;

to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law;

to keep The Queen's Peace to protect, help and reassure people in London;

and to be seen to do all this with integrity, common sense and sound judgement.

We must be compassionate, courteous and patient, acting without fear or favour or prejudice to the rights of others.

We need to be professional, calm and restrained in the face of violence and apply only that force which is necessary to accomplish our lawful duty.

We must strive to reduce the fears of the public and, so far as we can, to reflect their priorities in the action we take. We must respond to well-founded criticism with a willingness to change."

---

personal responsibility, not reliance on the guv

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

In light of this decision, do you on the Left still maintain that Americans have no right to self defense?

---

I'm all for Americans possessing weapons. There's too many firearms (and pro-firearm attitudes) floating around for things to be wound back to a more polite environment. More firepower to you, I say, because you guys are apparently competing against hordes of criminals and vicious wild animals for survival... ~;)

Everyone should have their own army, just in case..... ~;)

In NZ, there is a joke going round "Dial 111 for a taxi"

When a young woman said she was getting sexually attacked, the police sent a taxi to get her home. She was later seen semi-naked walking on the streets before going missing and has never been found.

NOTE: In NZ "111" is the emergency number.

BTW: I had to look up SCOTUS: "Supreme Court of the United States"

Sorry for the confusion, but SCOTUS sounds sufficiently imperial and menacing, which it would appear is what they're going for these days.

No guns? No police protection?


At least we still have swords...although they might be next :wreck:
I just hope they don't go after doors :uneasy:

"Do you door owners? know how many kids hurt their fingers playing door games?"

Quote:

---

"It is not our province to prevent crime, but to punish it. We cannot punish it until it is committed

---

Stolen White Elephant Mark Twain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

"Do you door owners? know how many kids hurt their fingers playing door games?"

---

that quote is awesome

Quote:

---

At least we still have swords...although they might be next

---

Actually, I never thought about using my sword for home defence. It would be a pretty useful device, although fairly unweidly in a narrow hallway.

At least with a sword, you're less likely to accidently decapitate a family member and a kid couldn't use a sword.

Swords for home defence I say.

and bows and arrows too. The old law where every boy from the age of 12 s practice archery every Sunday should be re-enacted. That would bring down the obesity levels!

But increase levels of bizarre physical deformity.

Brittish Longbowmen are supposed to have been deformed due to the unnatural shaping of their bodies and intensive muscle use in certain body areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Now wait- are we talking about self-defense or home defense? Courts have said the police aren't responsible for your protection, period- not just in the home.
For defending yourself at home, yeah, its tough to argue with a shotgun, but there's a whole lot of muggings, rapes, and murders that don't occur in the victims living room.

---

A shotgun would be best for any kind of personal or home defense. Even an untrained shooter should be able to hit a mugger or rapist at close range with a shotgun, not so with a handgun. And if concealability or convenience is a problem with a shotgun, then I would recommend pepper spray when outside of the home.

What the hell is the point of police if they don't protect you!?!
This is nuts. Damn it, I start to agree more and more with you Conservatives about the Supreme court... gah! :dizzy2:

I know this is against Org Policy but this deserves a


WHAT THE FUCK????
Thats it, first thing im doing when I can get a gun lisence is buying a Smith and Wesson.
Oh...and can we please bring up charges of treason against the 'Supreme Court' ie Suprime Proletariet of the Communist States of America?

Don't buy a Smith & Wesson. Buy a Ruger or a Taurus. Smith & Wesson didn't even wait for a lawsuit, all it took was Janet Reno suggesting she might sue them, and they struck a deal and gave her the personal data for each and every firearm serial number they ever sold. They should go belly up.

Sorry Don but Drone read this one right. The Supreme Court have not said the police don't have to protect you, they have said that it is contrary to public policy for a failure to protect you to be actionable in private law as a tort. Different thing.

This is also the case in the UK. IIRC a recent case, Osman, ruled that this blanket ban was contrary to the ECHR (See? Human Rights can help conservatives too), and the position now is if they undertake some specific duty to you they can be liable, but not generally. So for instance if you were in a witrness protection scheme or something and the cop didn't show up for his shift when he should, and you were attacked, you would have an action.

I agree with this position. Its bad that bad people abduct and kill children. I don't see that diverting money from the police force to compensate the mother necessarily leads to better policing in the future.