Why are guns more important than healthcare?
- VinncentLv 73 years agoFavorite Answer
I can clear that up for you.
In the US the police AREN'T responsible for your personal safety and they have NEVER BEEN!
"Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone"
By LINDA GREENHOUSE JUNE 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed."
"In the only book devoted exclusively to the subject, Dial 911 and Die, attorney Richard W. Stevens writes: It was the most shocking thing I learned in law school. I was studying Torts in my first year at the University of San Diego School of Law, when I came upon the case of Hartzler v. City of San Jose. In that case I discovered the secret truth: the government owes no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. Not only did the California courts hold to that rule, the California legislature had enacted a statute to make sure the courts couldn’t change the rule.
But this doesn’t apply to just the wild, upside down world of California. Stevens cites laws and cases for every state — plus Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Canada — which reveal the same thing. If the police fail to protect you, even through sheer incompetence and negligence, don’t expect that you or your next of kin will be able to sue.
Don’t look to Constitution for help. “In its landmark decision of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services,” Stevens writes, “the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm.”"
This is the reason law abiding citizens are allowed to be armed and to use those arms for protection. There are only 900,000 cops in the US divide that between 3 eight hour shifts and you have about 300,000 cops protecting 320 MILLION people. There is NO POSSIBLE way for the police to protect you on a good day and when a hurricane Katrina or Sandy come by forget it. A good portion of the police are worried about their families first.
Here are some other cases of the state LEGALLY ignoring individuals safety.
South v Maryland, 59 U.S. (How) 396; 15 L.Ed. 433 (1855).
Parker v Sherman, 456 S.W.2d 577 (Mo. 1970).
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958). "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981). "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
- oldprofLv 73 years ago
Because the NRA is paying millions to ensure that it's so.
- StephenWeinsteinLv 73 years ago
Because lack of healthcare can only kill you if you need healthcare, but guns can kill anyone.
- BobLv 73 years ago
they are not more important just different
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Pearl LLv 73 years ago
cause people will be more healthy without guns around
- Anonymous3 years ago
I don't think so
- GogglesLv 73 years ago
Owning weapons for protection is a Right granted to us BY OUR CREATOR. Obamacaare was government"s attempt at total control of the individual.
- Spock (rhp)Lv 73 years ago
who said they were?
- Anonymous3 years ago
Because a certain unnamed group of ppl believe that if u can't personally afford healthcare, and ur job doesn't offer any affordable plans, u should just get sick and die, and stop "consuming better peoples resources".
- GreasyTonyLv 43 years ago
Because Conservatives make money off of guns. Gun sales/profits are more important to them than the safety of our children.