The problem with gun advocates is, they only tell half the truth. In the following case, you read down through so much mumbo-jumbo and finally get to the heart of the issue (Section 41 and 42); the author (and Cato) fails to call this legal principle by name (The Public Duty Doctrine). This makes it next to impossible for average folks to research it. Therefore, the advocates of gun ownership are just as bad as the opponents of gun ownership. Here is just one example of the Needle in the haystack:
Quoting from this article, "Cato Policy Analysis, No. 284, October 22, 1997," entitled "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun," by Jeffrey R. Snyder, Attorney at Law:
"To make matters worse, while laws deprive citizens of the ability to effectively defend themselves outside the home, thereby placing citizens in the position of having to rely on the police for their protection in extremis, it is a settled law throughout the United States that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime. That may come as a surprise to many people, but the principle holds even in cases where the police have been grossly negligent in failing to protect a crime victim (41)."
Read the next paragraph (42) in the attached link.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1143&full=1
No comments:
Post a Comment