It's hard to believe that there are so many people who think the police can protect them.
In my area, I could call for pizza delivery while my wife calls for police assistance on the other line. I would bet that we'd be eating pizza when the cops got there!
__________________
I love Christmas lights. They remind me of the people who voted for Obama. They all hang together; half of them don't work, and the ones that do, aren't that bright.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do
not understand, no explanation is possible.
A golf course is a willful and deliberate misuse of a perfectly good rifle range.
Perhaps the most effective kind of gun control would be to require all healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 60 to (1) own and carry a gun and (2) receive a day of government sponsored quality training and range practice every six months. Thus, in every mall, in every bar parking lot, in every subway train a criminal could count on the presence of scores of armed and skilled adults. The bet would be that responsible, law abiding adults would dramatically outnumber the criminals, and the criminals would be daunted into abiding by the law.
Is this going to happen? Probably not.
Your point is well taken. Counting on the police to come to your rescue timely when attacked by a criminal is irrational. The best you can hope for is that police maintain order in certain zones and criminals avoid those zones. My suburb is assessed as having a very low crime rate. I assume that is because the police are out patrolling, and criminals have learned to keep away. There certainly is plenty of wealth here, judging by the number of Escalades and Hummers and BMWs and Mercedes and Jaguars and Lexuses and Infinities on the streets. Other places, however, are not so fortunate. In fact, it is probably the minority neighborhoods and the low income neighborhoods that see the least police protection and have the highest crime rates. These places are most in need of self-protection with private firearm ownership, but these people are the ones voting for Democrats who push gun control. Go figure.
The biggest farce is the garbage pushed by the left to the effect that police will respond so just call them if there's an issue. Police are responsible for order 'at large' and are NOT responsible for the security or well-being of any individual. BY LAW, the police are not required to respond to individual calls for assistance from citizens, although they do so as a matter of course. IF they do not respond, they are not responsible (legally, morally maybe but not legally) for your inability to deal with the situation. For instance, the L.A. riots (a-la Rodney King) were a failure of the LAPD to fill it's mandate. The Crown Heights riots in NYC were another failure of the police to fill their mandate.
(these "failures" may be due to other factors besides the ability/willingness/capability of the individual PD's named in my example...political or logistical factors can be causative, but the fact that they failed in keeping order at large is not diminished).
So leftist scum deny citizens the right to self-defense, and the law does not mandate a police response to a call for assistance. Nice, eh ? I know in my neck-o-the-woods, the cops are about 15 to 20 minutes away. Lots can happen in 20 minutes to those who are unprepared for 'self-sufficiency'.
bergall: Would such episodes of civil unrest -- to which could be added the after math of Hurricane Katrina and others -- possibly be situations in which one would have a need for a "black rifle"? A semi-automatic rifle chambered in .223, for example, with a large capacity magazine -- to protect one's private property from looting by scoundrels? But oh no, no one would EVER have a bonafide, legitimate use for a "black rifle." I don't own one, don't want one, and don't like the way they look (part of my response to firearms is aesthetic -- they can be beautiful physical objects), but at least I'm not so friggin' stupid that I can't imagine a very real and solid utility for them.
There was actually a court case that addressed this issue of the obligations of the police, I think in Washington DC. The more astute reading this thread can provide the details. My recollection is some woman was burglarized and raped overa period of hours -- called the police repeatedly, but police NEVER responded -- and ultimately the woman was killed. Someone sued the police for negligence to respond at anytime over a period of 10s of hours and under the stimulus of several calls. Court ruled the police owe no implied level of response or protection -- none. It is a matter of settled case law.
bergall: Would such episodes of civil unrest -- to which could be added the after math of Hurricane Katrina and others -- possibly be situations in which one would have a need for a "black rifle"? A semi-automatic rifle chambered in .223, for example, with a large capacity magazine -- to protect one's private property from looting by scoundrels? But oh no, no one would EVER have a bonafide, legitimate use for a "black rifle." I don't own one, don't want one, and don't like the way they look (part of my response to firearms is aesthetic -- they can be beautiful physical objects), but at least I'm not so friggin' stupid that I can't imagine a very real and solid utility for them.
Racism!!!! Come on man, black is beautiful. At least in the case of the AR-15...
Quote:
There was actually a court case that addressed this issue of the obligations of the police, I think in Washington DC. The more astute reading this thread can provide the details. My recollection is some woman was burglarized and raped overa period of hours -- called the police repeatedly, but police NEVER responded -- and ultimately the woman was killed. Someone sued the police for negligence to respond at anytime over a period of 10s of hours and under the stimulus of several calls. Court ruled the police owe no implied level of response or protection -- none. It is a matter of settled case law.
Gun control
