Quote:
|
Originally Posted by phoenix1002
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.
|
Responsible gun ownership doesn't lie solely upon the mother keeping the children away from it. Rather, responsible gun ownership has its foundation in the education of those who own or live with those who own firearms. Hell, she should teach her children to shoot, proper gun safety techniques, and a proper respect for the dangers of firearms. The necessity lies with the mother to educate her children about firearms, have a reliable yet accessible area in which to stow it, and the will to use it in case it is needed.
Gun safes are for rifles, shotguns, etc. Handguns are by definition quick-reaction weapons, therefore they are useless if not easily accessible by the wielder in a time of need (could keep it in a locked nightstand drawer in her bedroom to which she and she alone has the key). Aids to this, as stated by previous posters are dogs (for early warning of prowlers), bars on windows (to prevent their usage as entry points), multi-deadbolt door locks (to hinder the ability to pry open or break the doorjamb in), and preferably a home alarm system that is set properly. Essentially, the gun shouldn't have to come into play, but if it does, there should be first lines of home defense to delay any prowlers/aggressors to allow her to get to the locked handgun in a reasonably short amount of time, thereby increasing the chances of the handgun even being worthwhile. An unloaded, locked up handgun is useless. A loaded, chambered, safed handgun, locked in an accessible location that can be reached in a hurry is a formidable obstacle in the hands of a trained user.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Lastly, any purely passive set of defenses can be negated, and if you have no dynamic form of defense once those are circumvented, you're a trapped, sitting duck. France's Maginot Line was a fabulous "negation" of the German Army. That's why the Blitzkrieg went through Benelux. Bars and better locks are only the
first line of home defense, and therefore, should not be relied upon as the
last line of home defense. One thing that I believe a lot of people misunderstand about gun advocates and owners is that there is a deep-seated wish to
never have to fire at another human being in anger. We don't want to have to shoot someone, we're just prepared to do so should the occassion arise, much as paid policeman. While I'm not an advocate of vigilantism, the ability to safeguard my possessions and my family are the pre-eminent reasons to own and safely use a firearm.