|
I would like to think that this ruling was simply a way to protect police departments from lawsuits if they somehow failed to protect the person (despite having put forth a resonable effort). Unfortunately, I have a feeling that its more so that they can get away with not doing anything other than filling out the paperwork.
However, I agree with martinguerre that this doesn't mean that people should go get guns. Take the example that was given: mother with two kids, abusive ex-husband with restraining order. Mother buys a gun. Where does she put this gun? She has kids, so she can't put it anywhere where they might find it, which means she has to lock it somewhere, then hide the key in a seperate location. The ammunition for this gun has to be somewhere else. What are the chances that, if the ex-husband breaks into the house, that the mother would be able to get the gun, load it, and get both children together, before the ex-husband got to her? I'm guessing slim to none. So now you've got a messy situation, that now has a gun thrown in to the mix.
If you're really that worried, get bars on your windows and a 4 or 6-point door lock, and you're going to be just as safe as if you had a gun. Probably safer.
__________________
I'd rather be climbing...
I approach college much like a recovering alcoholic--one day at a time...
|