The police swear to serve and protect the laws of a particular jurisdiction. They have neither the time nor resources to protect individuals. And they are not meant to. That’s why the Second Amendment exists: So people can provide for their own defense and let the State focus on defending itself. Why? Because the State, like any other organization, will serve itself first. That is why I dislike ideas like gun control, a concept that forces the State to care about its citizens. The State does not care about the well-being of its citizens any more than the person cares about the well-being of his cells. Crime is fought to preserve the State. If, in the process, individuals are saved, it is a happy serendipity. Disease is fought to preserve the body. If, in the process, cells are saved, it is a happy serendipity. So individual must defend himself (much like I will have to defend myself in a few minutes :)), hence the Second Amendment.
At least in my state, the laws do refer to “law enforcement units” and “peace officers” as those whose duties include “the protection of life and property”. See, for example, O.C.G. 35-8-2, (7) (A) and (8) (A). This probably doesn’t really affect the argument you want to have much, but I see this “the police don’t protect individuals” line a lot, and it doesn’t seem entirely accurate to me. The police around these parts do at least officially claim to protect individuals.
MEBuckner:
I refer you to this case law:
Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897(1968)
In brief, Linda Riss was in imminent danger of either death or serious bodily harm (she had been threatened with as much by her former boyfriend), so she phoned the police to protect her. The police refused. A thug hired by the former boyfriend splashed her face with lye (sodium hydroxide), robbing her of the use of an eye and seriously disfiguring her. In the abovecited case, the courts held that the City of New York was not liable for Riss’ injury.
I think that case buttresses my position nicely.
(sighs to himself: why can’t I stay out of these gun control threads?)
Derleth:
A few comments on the points that you raise here…
I’d hesitate to quote self-defense as the sole reason for the Second Amendment. There are others, most notably the concept of an armed citizenry as a militia force. While you could also argue this as an extension of the self-defense concept (national defense as opposed to self defense), I’ll initially propose it as a separate reason. There are also others - the gun as a tool to put food on the table, as a sport (target shooting). The Second Amendment has roots that reach deeply into European history.
I’ll agree that the role of the police is not to protect individuals. On a practical level, anyone could see that such a task would be impossible. Therefore, there is a need for all people to take some active role in assuring their own safety and well-being. This can take many forms: locking your doors at night, joining watch groups, etc - as well as being a responsible and safety-conscious gun owner.
I’d also tend to add to your comment that the State takes no interest in the well-being of the citizens. The State is to some extent reactive to the general public. In recent years, this has led to such things as harsher prison sentences, truth-in-sentencing laws, offender release notifications, and other changes in crime fighting that have generally resulted from public pressure.
Overall though, I agree with the general position that individuals have a right and a responsibility to take an active part in their own safety, a right to self defense, and that self-defense is one (of many) valid reasons to own firearms.
“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
I realize that the Second Amendment was created for numerous reasons rooted in the history of Europe and the Amercian Colonies. But the role of self-defense in a free society cannot be downplayed, as it too often is in pro-gun-control arguments in the media.
“The State is reactive to the general public.”
Only true because we have rewarded the State for being so. The ballot makes this true, because with voting the State must pacify the populace to keep itself in power. Self-preservation in action.
Nothing very important to contribute, but I must say that the OP is a slant on the issue I never thought of before… something for me to think about before bed. Thanks!
Agreed. An excellent example of this is the “Armed Citizen” column that appears every month in the “American Rifleman” magazine. There have also been some excellent studies about self defense (Kleck, Lott)
Also agreed. My point is that while slow, often misapplied and relatively ineffective, the State does have some interst in the general welfare of the citizens.
Derleth’s point is a good one. There’s just no way the police can protect every individual. So how can we justify denying individuals the right to own guns in order to protect themselves? This alone is sufficient reason for the right to bear arms. I see little point in debating the question of the reality or lack thereof of a need for citizens to have guns to protect themselves against a tyranical government. We need the right to own guns for protection against criminals. That’s all the justification needed.
Is the military obligated to protect the individual?
No, of course not.
Wanted:
One Patriot missle. Must be cheap.
Peace,
mangeorge (Is that a Mig over there?)
"there’s a man with a gun over there… a-tellin’ me, I’ve got to beware… it’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound everhbody look what’s goin’ down… " For what it’s worth, I think that sometimes cops just either are too lazy to enforce laws, or are too hell-bent on destroying lives (power trip) to even care.
T’heck with the police not having a duty to protect individuals… they simply CAN’T. It’s not feasible. There’s too many “protectees” and not enough “protectors” if that were the case.
Basically, our cops are overworked and underpaid.
SPOOFE:
Heartily agreed with. But gun-control advocates seem to see that as a problem. It is not. It is a method to secure our freedoms as individuals. I was trying to clarify that.
Again, I agree with Derleth. I can’t see why this is even an argument. The police can’t possibly protect every citizen; it just can’t be done. They can’t prevent crimes from occurring; all they can do is investigate after a crime has been comitted. Citizens have to be able to protect themselves; they have to have the right to own guns and the right to carry guns. Criminals exist. How can we justify denying people the right to defend themselves vs. criminals?
Hazel, I question the premise of your argument… you seem to be saying that police can’t protect citizens so citizens need guns to protect themselves. Has it ever been shown that possesion of a gun is an effective way to protect oneself from crimes? Is there a statistic out there comparing the number of gun owners who have been successfully victimized by a criminal to the number of non-owners who have? My belief (based on no evidence whatsoever) is that guns only provide a sense of security as opposed to actual security. I would bet that people who own guns are just as likely to be victims as people who don’t.
Now you’ve asked for it, Eonwe.
I’m outta here.
Peace,
mangeorge
Yes. Compare the several tens of thousands of gun-related deaths each year with the estimated couple-million (that’s 2,000,000) passive defensive uses of a gun (i.e.- instances in which the presence of a gun is merely made known, not fired). If I remember correctly, this stat came from John Lott, though he’s been mentioned so often in past debates I may be criss-crossing my memory.
I’m sure that someone else will be along to clarify, but if not, I’ll go dig up the information for you. The reason I don’t bother now is because this has been brought up maybe half a dozen times in previous threads, and I’m too lazy to go searching through old gun threads AGAIN.
No. The studies that pro-gun advocates will trot out here (Keck, lott) Make no distinction between the self delusion that showing a gun was decisive in deterring a threat and the objective reality that there was no real threat in the first place.
The studies treat ALL incidents of gun use as reported by gun owners as if each one was necessary. Which is, of course, ridiculous on it’s face. Sometimes, the gun user will have mistaken the situation, and sometimes not.
The studies will tell you a lot about how often gun owners feel about their gun. But little about it’s actual objective value.
The figures cited in these studies also treat weapon use by police officers the same as by citizens. To answer your question it would be necessary to separate those numbers.
Finally, the figures on gun use are quite inflated by allowing any given incident to be treated as multiple (sometimes many multiple) ‘events’ for purposes of the study. (If a gun is emptied, each bullet is counted individually). This is a quick, but not very honest, way to inflate the figures.
AFAIK, it is still an open question as to wether the ownership of a gun by a citizen for self defense does more good than harm. It is intuitively obvious that there is at least some placebo effect going on here, but no study has managed to remove that and get at the real truth.
I urge you to go into past gun threads and look around. If you are inclined to belive that guns make you safe, you will find support for that opinion. If you believe that guns put you and your loved ones at risk, you will find equal support for that posistion. 
tj
Somebody breaks into your home. That’s not a threat? When does it become a threat? When they tie you up? When they rape your wife? When you’re dead?
An unwanted intrusion into your home is a threat. Period.
No, they treat ALL the incidents of gun use as reported by gun owners as if each one was warranted. Again, if someone breaks into your home, defensive retaliatory action is completely warranted.
Which studies will these be? Lott’s study, for example, took information from newspapers and such, and they got it from homeowners that have related the incidents. Could some of them be lying? Of course. And Lott’s study compensates for this. His conclusions have a lower-end value of about 700,000, and a higher-end estimate of several million (I forget the exact number… IIRC, it was well in excess of 4,000,000, although I will ask someone to correct me if my memory is being faulty). The number “2,000,000” is attained by being roughly in-between the two conclusions, and provided with the modifier that it is an “estimate”.
I do not recall this as a statistic ever to be used by John Lott. Perhaps you can provide a cite for that?
Again, I’ve never seen this in John Lott’s study, and some evidence would be handy. In addition, I don’t see why the “multiple instances” thing would nullify the conclusions, keeping in mind that Lott’s conclusions ALREADY TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT with it’s upper- and lower-end estimates, AND the fact that a gun can be used defensively more than once in the space of five minutes.
It’s not an open-ended question to me. Gun ownership just needs to be regulated in the RIGHT way, not in EVERY way. Hint: Take a look at Project Exile.
I have never owned a gun, and am far from enthusiastic about thousands of untrained, nervous amateurs keeping guns in their houses. The fact remains, police forces across America have done their level best to convince a lot of people that they can’t trust the police to protect them, and that they’re better off buying a gun, and taking responsibility for their own safety.
Everyone who watched footage of the police & SWAT forces cowering behind firetrucks at Columbine, taking virtually no action until the Klebold/Harris murder spree was long over, was appalled. I won’t say the police were cowards, but they did everything they could to give that impression. And what makes it worse is this: in the aftermath of the Columbine fiasco, numerous journalists and columnists questioned the inaction of the police, asking why these heavily armed, supposedly well-trained police had not dared to enter the school, to protect and rescue potential victims. And, in short order I saw dozens of replies and letters-to-the-editor from police chiefs, SWAT commanders and police department spokesmen insisting that the Columbine police did everything exactly right! And most of those police spokesmen SAID explicitly that it is not the duty of policemen to put their lives in jeopardy or to protect people- it was simply their duty to enforce laws.
Look, I am NOT an N.R.A. member. I’m not categorically opposed to all gun control laws. But folks, even if you HATE handguns, you’d have squirmed uneasily as you read those justifications for police inaction. A large percentage of America’s police have, apparently, adopted the line that it’s NOT their job to protect you. And if they say it’s not their job to protect you from harm, can it really surprise you that many people (some of them potentially dangerous idiots ) are going to conclude that they’re on their own, and buy guns?
Because it’s debates like these that have made Americans the laughingstock of the world.
<runs out of range of the gun-toting maniacs>
Sorry, hard to resist the digs.
Derleth and SPOOFE are using the ‘best defense is a good offense’ argument to justify their access to guns, which is the same train of logic that involved the U.S. in a massive nuclear arms race with the former Soviet Union.
I prefer to rely on a better defensive system. Worried about people breaking into your home? Install bars or polylaminate on your windows. Get steel door frames. That way your home is protected even when you’re not around to defend your possessions and your family, and you dont’ have to worry about the neighbourhood children accidentally offing themselves because they managed to pick the trigger lock on your gun.
Your family also doesn’t have to worry about you suffering from clinical depression and deciding to shoot them before you shoot yourself in the head.
Worried about being robbed by a gun-toting crook on the street? Buy kevlar inserts for your clothes… or just keep cash separate from your wallet so you can hand it over (because, really, what are the odds of you out-drawing a man who already has a gun pointed at you?)
Should an individual rely on police to protect himself in every instance? No, that’s naive.
But relying on a firearm to protect yourself in all situations is just as naive.
How long until I get the force field belt buckle in my Cracker Jacks?