Gun In The House
In 2014, as America looks toward the mid-term elections, a major shift in official servants is likely to take place. This will probably be attributed to how constituents view political successes and failures. One of the worst failures is gun control. The U.S. now sees all fifty states affirming some sort of second amendment rights like never before, some declining to register guns, others declining to compel citizen to obtain permits, other affirming Stand Your Ground laws and other programs which recognize the citizen as the first line of defense against violent crime.
This is almost entirely due to the failure of gun control for its stated purpose. For decades – since the Gun Control Act of 1968, for instance – gun Zastava arms control has promised to protect people; it has worsened conditions so obviously that all states have now adopted gun rights over gun controls. What went wrong?
It was because gun control was wrong in that it attempted to take the place of America’s original first responders, the people who were already on scene.
Every head of household wants the best for loved ones, and sometimes the best information can help come to the smartest decisions. Where gun bans might come under question for a head of a household where the decision has been taken out of his/her hands, perhaps it’s time to re-examine the question to take the situation in hand where it belongs. Here is what the head of every household must know and assess.
1. Police have no duty to protect individuals. Since the inception of an organized police force in the middle 1800’s, protection of individuals has not been a duty of American Police. Constantly thrown out, dismissed or found against the plaintiff, courts have ruled as the Supreme Court did in 2005 in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales: no constitutional right to police protection. There are also dozens more. [See keyword: no constitutional right to police protection.] Most legislators do not know this, but attorneys, judges, police and gun owners know it.
2. Police understand that in fighting crime, the target is the first line of defense. For meeting personal aggression and crime to widespread disaster, you’re on your own. Most violent crime is over in moments, and when seconds count, police are moments away. Or hours away. Individual citizens already have the legal authority to use up to lethal force when in the reasonable apprehension of grave danger, but are politically discouraged from acting. Gun bans obfuscate this authority to act, and boost the statistics of injured, murdered or abducted persons for political gain in gun ban states.
3. Citizens have the right – and the legal authority – to stop a crime in progress. This is throughout substantive and codified law, the affirmative defenses in tort and criminal law, the average reasonable person doctrine, the doctrine of standing in the shoes of another, and other places within our system, such as public policy and public interest.
Furthermore, many law enforcement agencies affirm the armed citizen as purposeful as an ally of law enforcement in that one does not fight crime after the fact nearly as well as one fights crime at the scene of the crime. It’s like saving lives by training citizens in First-aid and CPR because the Paramedics are not always there as immediately as a bystander is. The authority and latitude of the two are quite similar.
Here are some figures of significance before refusing to own a gun in the house. FBI sources [www.FBI.gov] show that in the United States consecutive years about 14,177 persons were shot to death or death by gun. But the same FBI source shows that armed citizens de-escalate violent crime more than 2.5 million times every year, each respective figure according to reports turned in to the FBI from law enforcement around the country. Compared to the thousands of criminal shootings average every year, there are 2.5 million non-criminal defenses against crimes which were never completed, thanks to an armed citizen, often without firing their personal weapon.