Pg-#4-
Another Bedtime Story:
Leftist liberals tend to believe that there is no need for private citizens to own guns for the purpose of self defense. They believe that all you need to do is dial 911 and everything will be ok. That's a load of fecal matter if ever I flushed one.
The government, when taken to court on the issue of protecting the public, responds thusly, "[the] fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." (Source: Warren v District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
Furthermore, some 34% of felons questioned were "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim" and 69% agreed that they had had at least one acquaintance who had had this experience. The survey also found that 34% of felons contemplating a crime "often" or "regularly" worried that they "Might get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed that" Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." (Source: Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, published by Aldine de Guyter Press as J. Wright and P. Rossi, 1986)
But, "owners of guns are more likely to be victims of violent crime!" the willfully blind cry. Wrong again. When confronted with a violent attacker, only 12-17% of gun armed resisters were actually injured. Those who were unarmed, didn't do so hot: the victims who submitted to the felons' demands were twice as likely to be injured and those who attempted to resist without guns, were three times as likely to be injured. (Source: The Relationship Between Victim Resistance and Injury in Non-Commercial Robbery, 15 J. Legal STUD. 405, 406 (1986))