• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

In the rekindled debate over gun control since the Virginia Tech massacre, almost never discussed is, I submit, the single most important consideration.
There have been a number of court cases on a number of levels, including the U.S. Supreme Court, that have established the precedent that the police have neither legal responsibility nor moral obligation to provide individual citizens with protection from crime.
Their obligation is only in the general sense to the community as a whole.
This was reiterated some months ago by a Supreme Court case originating right here in Castle Rock. Of course, that is the way it must be. Otherwise, any time someone had a rock thrown through his window, he could sue the police for failing to protect him.
What this means to you and me is, if the worst case occurs and you dial 911 only to find yourself No. 3 in line ... what is Plan B? Simply running for your life may not be enough.

Tom Young, Castle Rock

READER COMMENTS

run to the nearest dunkin donut shop

Tom is right.Thanks for educating the liberals.Someone has to do it.

Plan "B" is your first line of defense, you. Stay cool, don't hesitate, squeeze the trigger.

If the police have no legal and moral responbility to protect individual citizens...what is the real point of having a police force? OK, the community in general...but that community is made up of individuals. This reasoning gives the police way too much latitude in determining what calls to respond to and who to serve. I remember this argument came up during the various cases in Federal Court after Columbine. One of the police departments lawyers use this line of reasoning when questions arose about why the police, etc took so long to do anything. This is contributing to the decline of American civilization and gives license to criminals and the like to prey on people.

Cops aren't bodyguards. They don't prevent harm from coming to you, they only react after the fact - take reports, investigate, and look for the perpetrator. Unless a cop just happens to be driving by and witnesses the whole thing, it's very unlikely one will arrive on the scene in time to stop a crime in progress.

Just something for the "Nobody needs a gun for protection, that's what 911 is for" crowd to think about.

Tom, police response is plan-B.

Plan-A is people taking more cognizance of danger and pushing harder against organizational inertia in order to get action.
Plenty of people knew or strongly believed that the shooter was a menace, but there was insufficient attention and action. The students should have supported the teachers who complained, and teachers and admin staff should have supported students who complained.
Prevention and avoiding a need for violence is Plan-A

Plan-B is having police and security respond promptly when called and with the right reaction. With Columbine they thought they a hostage situation, so they sat by and organized instead of piling in. In this last case they thought it was a single incident and already over when in fact it was about to go into a second phase.

Plan-C is responding to threat with whatever you can.
A fire-extinguisher to the head would have been plenty effective, but people did what they are told they are supposed to. Run and hide, lock yourself in, wait for the cops.
This tells you what the culture is, and simply making CCW available is unlikely to change that.
They didn’t storm him even though they had had overwhelming numbers and ready access to a range of lethal improvised weapons.

So Plans A-C all failed.
Plan-D is we sit down like the NTSB and figure what components in the chain of events could be seen earlier in future, and what procedures can be put in place to mitigate or prevent reoccurrence.

Simply arming students and teachers isn’t a plan, it’s a reaction based on ideological commitment.

If we just got used to the idea that guns kill people, than we could move towards getting rid of them. Why is the second amendment so important? It has helped (in very many cases) angry or crazy people kill hundreds of innocent people. No guns, then that number is much lower.

Todd, the choice of weapon is a matter of convenience and sometimes also affects the severity of the outcome, but getting rid of guns (if we could) is an expensive experiment that may not make much difference in the outcomes in the long run.

You cannot reasonably start out with the preferred solution in mind, just the same as the folks shouting about having CCW on campus can’t.

Todd Wankle,

I guess I don't understand your logic. You say guns kill, does that mean you hold the inanimate object responsible for the actions of the person using it? That's what it sounds like.

If you put the blame on the inanimate object, then you must also hold cars responsible for the millions of traffic injuries and fatalities each year. Cars kill too, do you advocate getting rid of cars?

Andy, it's not my fault you cannot understand logic. Maybe you should spend more time at school and less time at the firing range. Yeah, I know--the school doesn't compensate for your really small penis like the firing range does.

Even cars cannot kill people as quickly and effeciently as rapid fire guns. We get rid of those, then a lot less people die. You can pound your chest and make all of your "what if" points, but the simple truth is, if the gunmen didn't have automatic guns--VT, Columbine, anywhere--then the fatality number is lower. It's not that hard to understand. Unless you are Andy.

If Todd Wankle does not scare you into signing your whole family up as members in the NRA nothing will.1-877-NRA-2000.

"If the police have no legal and moral responbility to protect individual citizens...what is the real point of having a police force? OK, the community in general...but that community is made up of individuals. This reasoning gives the police way too much latitude in determining what calls to respond to and who to serve. I remember this argument came up during the various cases in Federal Court after Columbine. One of the police departments lawyers use this line of reasoning when questions arose about why the police, etc took so long to do anything. This is contributing to the decline of American civilization and gives license to criminals and the like to prey on people.
Posted by Yaakov on May 29, 2007 09:03 AM"

Reality versus the pap for the sheeple is a bitch, isn't it?

You're right. The Police have no legal obligation to protect you. Surprised? Whoops. This libs forgot to tell you that part. "Give up your guns and we will protect you." Yeah, right. How do you like slavery???

Todd, with all due respects, you are trying to approach this with a chosen solution in hand and trying to fit the problem to your chosen and emotionally satisfying solution.

Insulting anyone disagreeing with you might be satisfying on the same emotional level, but is unlikely to strengthen your argument much.

You are dealing as much in “what if” as the people you are arguing against.

Todd the gun used in the VT killing was not an automatic firearm.It was a semi-auto firearm.We have own these types of guns in the US for 100 years.You need to get your facts right.Oh I forgot.Liberals do not need facts.They go by how they FEEL!!!!

Ron, I am about as liberal as you are ever likely to come across.

Want to try pinning that "Liberals do not need facts.They go by how they FEEL!!!!" rubbish on me?

Todd Wankle,

All I'm saying is, if you’re going to blame and vilify an inanimate object for actions of its users, you should blame all inanimate objects for the damage their users cause. To selectively pick and choose which objects are vilified and which objects get a free pass seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Todd,

Just for the sake of argument, let's say you get your wish. The Second Amendment is repealed and all guns are banned. Then what happens?

Will the gun ban be more effective than the drug ban? A ban hasn't solved the drug problem. Heroin, cocaine, meth, crack, and others are all banned, but they're still readily available and criminals don't seem to have much trouble obtaining them. Do you think a gun ban would be more successful?

We can’t un-invent guns. There are hundreds of millions of them in circulation, and there’s no way to make them disappear. Even if a law were passed tomorrow saying ALL guns are now banned and illegal, it would be physically impossible to confiscate every one - or even come close. Criminals wouldn’t give theirs up, and a black market pipeline to bring them in from out of the country would be created just like the drug pipeline.

No matter what laws are passed, criminals will always find ways to obtain, carry, and use firearms. And they'll use them on the law-abiding folks who turned theirs in.

I don't think your solution to get rid of guns would solve many problems.

Wait a minute! I think Todd is on to something here... Instead of Guns, Why don't we ban all criminals and criminal activity? No criminals = no crime. How about that Todd? Is that ok with you? Then the sportsmen and target shooters could still have use of firearms for legal activities. Whaddayasay Todd?

Looks like Todd has checked out of this one. He was reduced to making personal insults in only his second post. I think that means he's out of rational arguments already... if he ever had any to begin with.

Bango.You must have not read your own letter.You have already pinned the "LIBERAL" label on yourself.Enough said!!

ftnehlmqv bldzpcisy clsbdpxug dtjp igsbkx jyspie qudsnl

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly