Common Sense vs Gun Control Part 1
Police aren't always around, nor should we expect them to be
After years of trying to decide my own stance on gun control, sifting through all the lies and conspiracy theories of the media and overall annoyance at the system in general, I have opted to write this first of several articles explaining my position. In them, I will present a different reason, explained in detail with research, sources, etc., for my thinking gun control in the U.S. is not only unnecessary, but damaging to society.
I'm not saying people should have access to high-explosives, grenades, automatic or high-caliber weapons, but given a few common-sense factors most lawmakers try to ignore in their misguided attempt to "protect" us, I think I'd rather have the guns. Here is the the first and foremost reason for my wanting the right to carry a firearm, visible or not, wherever I go and to have one available in my home:
Police Aren't Always Around When We Need Them
It has never been, nor will it ever be, the duty of the police to protect people 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Their duty is to catch criminals and stop people in the act of committing a crime, not be everyone's personal bodyguards, nor should they be expected to be. Also, there is no set response time for police or other emergency services to arrive. Even if you call them on a cellphone with GPS and they triangulate your exact location in real-time, it takes anywhere between thirty seconds or half an hour to reach you depending on roads and traffic, availability of vehicles and personnel, and how far the responding service is. When you're in the middle of a robbery, you have less than three seconds to decide whether to fight, surrender, hide, or run; sometimes you have even less.
Worse still, there have been multiple incidents where police were needed to reestablish order or stop a crime and didn't. In one incident which happened in Connecticut in early 2011, the police were contacted about a group of school bullies which had been threatening a woman's daughter. They came around to their family home several times, tried to break in, and on the day of the shooting one of them produced a weapon. She called the police for the second time, the first to report they had been harassing them, and said there was a "possible weapon". The call got lost in the system and it wasn't until a neighbor called 911 and said someone had been shot that they actually responded to the call and sent cars in. The person who got hit, a visiting cousin, ended up in critical condition. Luckily, he recovered.
This is just one example of how the police are unreliable, and I again stress through no fault of their own, at responding to a call before anything can be done other than crossing one's fingers and hoping for the best. Even when potential victims believe they are about to rescued and believe the police are in their house, things can invariably go wrong:
"Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. Kent and Morse then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse." - Warren_v._District of Columbia 1981
What you have just read is an excerpt from a court case involving three women residing in a rooming house. Two intruders entered the home, raped the first woman, Douglas, while her roommates called the police. They hid out, saw lights, saw the officers, but no one came inside and the officers left. They called a second time and the dispatcher neglected to send out to another vehicle, all the while assuring the women help was on the way. The rest you've already read.
read the full case...
I read about this case when I was very young and I remember thinking "if the two women had guns, those men would never have stood a chance, not with only a knife to protect them." Because of this case, I know better than to depend on the police, who the courts say are not responsible for public safety and protection, but to investigate and prosecute criminal activity. Despite the severity of the case of negligence on the part of the police department, being raised to trust that the police would protect me, I still agree with the courts: It is not the responsibility of the police to protect everyone all the time; they cannot and therefore should not be expected to. They are not full-time bodyguards or security officers, but peacekeepers trained to track down and detain criminals for proper prosecution. Your personal protection is not in their mandate.
Contrast this to the case in Blanchard , Oklahoma on January 2, 2012, when an 18-year-old woman shot and killed an intruder who forced his way into her home carrying a weapon. The other man who was with the intruder ran off and later surrendered to the police, who immediately cleared the woman of any wrong-doing and arrested the deceased's partner with first-degree burglary.
Based on this evidence, logic dictates that outlawing firearms and/or limiting their use to point where they would be rendered ineffective is a complete waste of time, not to mention a waste of taxpayer money. The bottom line is people need firearms, and the right to choose the appropriate type of weapon for the situation, not because they should fear everyone but for the eventuality that someone may assault them. This is America, where our Constitution and our traditions defend our right to protect ourselves.