Why should/shouldn't Americans have the right to own guns (under legal permission)?

The police seldom arrive in time to even arrest a suspect, much less USE their guns.
And if a police officer actually NEEDED a gun for a call, doesn't logic suggest that the victim the call was made for, needed a gun as well?

Because the police have no duty to protect individuals:
“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989

This means that if you want protection from violent crime, for you and your loved ones; it’s up to YOU and YOU ALONE to provide it.

But ask yourself this question, in your heart of hearts: Why should a cop risk his life to save something so insignificant (your life or the lives of your loved ones), that even the owner is unwilling to protect it?

But it doesn't stop there, here is just a few examples of what the courts have ruled:
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

You state: "I happen to know a lot of gun owners who shouldn't be allowed to own a pellet gun let alone an actual firearm"

Are they an *ACTUAL MENACE TO SOCIETY*, or not?
What have they done that was a violation of the law?
If they can't be trusted to be both Free *AND* armed: They should be physically confined.

You state: "I know because I'm a collector and I buy guns from lots of different people"

Yeah, that makes you an expert . . . just like being a bartender qualifies one to be a proctologist.
But despite your self-proclaimed knowledge, statistics shows your paranoia to be unfounded. There are very few gun accidents or non-criminal misuses of guns.
What other Civil Rights do you feel qualified to deny people based on your opinion?
Want to give literacy test before allowing people to vote?
Want a test, before people are allowed to join a church to prevent another "Jim Jones"?
Want to take Internet access away from people that post run-on sentences, too?

You state: "just go ask a gun store owner and they'll tell you at least half the people who come in there barely know anything about guns other then looks"
Do you even realize, that you just described a *VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE* of law enforcement officers entering the academy?
Do a little research, and see how many long time LEO's have shot their partners or *THEMSELVES*.
You ever train LEOs on firearms? I didn't think so.
I have.

You state: "and idk about you but I don't feel saf giving a firearm to someone who doesn't even know the difference between a revolver and semi auto pistol."

Again, you just described a *VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE* of LEOs.
It was my job, to take those LEOS, like you describe, and make them at least adequate.
That's what I do now with those who aren't too cowardly to accept personal responsibility for their own safety.