QUOTE(citydweller @ Apr 8 2007, 06:02 PM)
Reducing lawfully-owned guns obviously won't reduce criminally-owned ones, but it could certainly embolden armed criminals who feel secure that their prey won't be able to fire back or defend themselves and families. Increases in violent and armed crimes will lead the sheep to cry for more police, ever more, and more cameras, more checkpoints, searches, personal intrusions.... all backed by more laws lending the false air of legal righteousness to the destruction of our basic freedoms.
Very true.
Most people don't realize that the police are under
no legal obligation to protect you and your family. Legally, unless the police are grossly negligent, or intentionally malicious in their response (or lack of) to your call for assistance, they cannot be held responsible (nor should they) for your safety.
Most police first responder tactics to armed invaders inside your home DO NOT include entering your home
unless the sound of gunfire is heard, and even when gunfire is occuring, one or two officers cannot enter your home (for officer safety reasons) until three, four or five officers (depending upon individual police department policy) are on scene and make a plan that maximizes their safety prior to them entering your home to save you and your family's lives.
The cold fact is
YOU are responsible for dealing with unwanted armed guests within your own home, and NOT the police. Besides being unconstitutional, disarming citizens is illogical, unethical, and not in the best interests of public safety. Ask a cop.
