Under American law, an individual does not have a right to police protection. Police are to protect the public in general. Suing a municipality for failing to provide police protection will lose in court for this very reason.
However, a person under arrest or custodial detention does have right to police protection and can sue for injuries arising from lack of police protection.
This means that the victim of a crime has less rights than the criminal who just shot them.
Further, an individual does not have a right to police protection because they have the right to own a gun, and the law presumes that they are able and willing to defend themselves in the event of criminal attack.
Additionally, by simply listening to the news, one can determine that unarmed victims of violent crime are more likely to suffer injury or death than someone who *was* armed.
Gun control that keeps a person from carrying a gun is a large source of unarmed victims. It is arguably the largest cause of crime.
So, because 1) you don’t have a right to police protection; 2) the law presumes you will defend yourself; 3) you have the right to own a gun and; 4) that unarmed victims are more likely to be severely injured or killed by a violent criminal than an armed victim, are four reasons that it is necessary to own a gun.