Toledo police layoffs leading to gun buying by citizens

[RamboLiberal]

TOLEDO, OH (WTOL) - The first round of Toledo police layoffs, in which 75 officers were let go, may already be having an affect on gun ownership.

"I just don't feel safe with the amount they're laying off," says Jonna Ewing. "I think it's going to be a longer respond time."

She is spending the day at a conceal carry class. She's been thinking of getting a gun for awhile, but feels now's the time due to the recent layoffs.

She's not alone. Case in point, someone in Jonna's class wears one those infamous police t-shirts: "I called 911 and all I got was this lousy garbage can" that showed up soon after the TPD cuts.

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=10415019

[tridim]

1. If Toledo can afford guns, gun classes and ammo..

Maybe they can afford to hire back their police force instead?

[spin]

4. Firearms and ammo are currently better investments...

than real estate or the stock market.

But like any bubble, the firearms and ammo market will eventually collapse.

Nevertheless it's true that you can better defend your property or your life with a firearm than you can with a stock certificate or a mortgage that's higher than the value of your house.

If you lose your job, you can always sell your firearms to keep you afloat in the lean times.

Right now firearms and ammo are like gold, but possibly more useful.

[Euromutt]

11. Firearms and training are a one-time investment

... police officers are a recurring expense.

[ManiacJoe]

16. If you want to maintain your proficiency

then you need to continue your training and practice.

[pipoman]

14. I read the story

and didn't see where Toledo was buying guns, gun classes, and ammo, only that some of the citizens of Toledo are buying them.

[one-eyed fat man]

21. After Heller, an interesting thing happened:

Where's the bloodbath you told us would happen?

The D.C. police department’s aggressive gun recovery efforts and the office of the attorney general’s coordinated emphasis on prosecuting gun-related crimes are showing strong results: In the past year, robberies with guns have decreased 12 percent; assaults with guns have decreased 14 percent; and overall violent crime has decreased by 5 percent in the District.

Golly, gun crime and overall violent crime went down. Police actually had to start finding criminals and putting them in jail. It looks like actually arresting criminals and putting them in jail works, and gun control doesn’t.

Who would have thought?

[MichaelHarris]

2. gun buying

stimulus package maybe?

[peace13]

3. Lucky for Ohio, we have a shortage of ammo on the shelves.

I hear what you are saying. We have way too many guns in the wrong hands. I am sure that innocents will have to die before there is a better plan. Be safe.

[jeepnstein]

5. And what are "the wrong hands"?

As long as the purchasers are lawful citizens and intend to comply with the law, I see no problem at all with them owning a firearm.

[Deadric Damodred]

8. "Dangerous People Owning Dangerous Weapongs"

The wrong hands are law-abiding people's hands. You know the Brady Campaign's favorite sound bite "we want to make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons". That's anti-gun speak for "we want to make it as hard as humanly possible for law-abiding people to excersie their right to bear arms". So the wrong hands are us.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Are Weapongs anything like beerpongs?

[Deadric Damodred]

13. An obvious typo.

[safeinOhio]

6. When seconds count

police are only minutes away.

[Statistical]

7. and have no obligation to protect individual citizens

Warren v. District of Columbia

Appellants ... sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The respective trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual appellant and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. ... After rearguments, notwithstanding our sympathy for appellants who were the tragic victims of despicable criminal acts, we affirm the judgments of dismissal.

[Euromutt]

10. Reaffirmed repeatedly

The SCOTUS reaffirmed that stance in Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales. Actually, reading about that case was one of the major reasons I turned against gun control. I don't particularly case about what the Second Amendment means, arguing over comma placements and what "well regulated" meant in 1789; for me, the bottom line is that when the state refuses to take responsibility for my personal safety, it abdicates the authority to deny me the means to protect myself and my family. The idea that authority is power coupled with responsibility is PolSci 101.

[Statistical]

12. Gonzales is a really wicked case.

In Warren the courts found "no special relationship".

Mrs. Gonzales had a restraining order against her husband keeping him from her & her children. He had a history of violence. To me that would create a "special relationship". She trusted the state and that worthless piece of paper (the order) to provide protection which requires enforcement by the police.

When her husband took the children to an amusement park in violation of that order she contacted the police and they did nothing.
At the time she contacted police her children were alive. If they had simply enforced the restraining order and arrested him they might still be alive.
The police knew where he was, where the children were, and that he was in violation of the order. They did nothing.

She repeatedly begged the police to arrest him and get him children to safety. They did nothing.
Over the course of 18 hours she contacted the police 7 times including 2 times in person. They did nothing.

Later her murdered the children and got into a fatal shootout with police (suicide by cop).

She sues because unless Warren she believed she had a special relationship which required the state to protect her (and her children).
The state issued a restraining order and then didn't enforce it leading directly to the death of her children.

The courts found otherwise. Conclusion: even a restraining order doesn't obligate the police to do ANYTHING to protect you.

The police simply "protect the common good" by apprehending criminals, and collecting evidence.
The are under no duty to do ANYTHING for an individual citizen.

Yet many here on DU mock gun owners and say "call 911".

Ironically one of the only classes of persons in the United States who have a "special relationship" obligating protection by the police are those in prison.

[Euromutt]

15. It gets worse

The instructions to law enforcement on the order issued to Jessica Gonzales explicitly stated:

You shall use every reasonable means to enforce this restraining order. You shall arrest or if an arrest would be impractical under the circumstances, seek a warrant for the arrest of the restrained person when you have information amounting to probable cause that the restrained person has violated any provision of this order and the restrained person has been properly been served with a copy of this order or has received actual notice of the existence of this order.

The above, incidentally, is pre-printed on the form, and Simon Gonzales had been properly served. Colorado also had a statute (since repealed) that read:

If the responding law enforcement official has probable cause to believe a violation of this order has occurred it is statutory duty to arrest the violator(s) and take him/her immediately before the Federal Court or County Court or, if that Court is not in session, to the nearest jail until the convening of the next session of the Court. <...>

(Colorado Revised Statutes 14-4-104, bolding mine.)

Incredibly, the Supreme Court ruled that "it is statutory duty" and "you shall" were guidelines rather than a mandate. Scalia penned the opinion, and you have to wonder about his claims to be a "strict constructionist" when he seem to be quite capable of deciding that a law doesn't actually mean what it says in plain English.

[TheWraith]

17. Why don't they have a volunteer police contingent?

Plenty of small towns find volunteers qualified enough to be EMTs and firemen. Get a few hundred people to volunteer from the city, give them a crash training course, and have them volunteer one or two times a week helping out at the precincts or riding with a veteran cop.

[jeepnstein]

18. The "crash" course...

is well over 600 hours in Ohio. It would take about a year to get those volunteers into service and maybe three years to get them fully up to speed. It costs about $3,000 or so plus uniforms and gear to train a new officer. Most departments have eliminated or gutted their "special" or "reserve" contingents to appease the FOP.

I fully believe the policing should be done by citizens who take the time and trouble to do the job. The reality is that we need full-time officers but they should be supplemented by what is referred to in Ohio as "specials".

[TheWraith]

19. I can't help but think a shortened version could be devised for simple duties...

Maybe I just don't get it, but I can't see how you'd need the full 600 hours of training to, say, help file paperwork at HQ or watch the security monitors in the jail. Use the volunteers to cover basic, simple duties to free up the better trained officers for other things.

[jeepnstein]

20. Doing non LE work would be simple enough.

No training necessary other than how to make a copy or send a fax. Problem is this isn't what most municipalities need. A special riding shotgun in a cruiser eliminates the need to dispatch two cars to most calls, doubling manpower. A good special can work the road, do transports, turn keys in jail, do surveillance, even though in reality they generally develop a niche in a department and only do one or two things. It's a huge money saver if the department has good supervisors. There are tons of things that most departments neglect to do because they are "short" on manpower.