How to respond to an anti that says we should “rely on the police” for protection.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zen21Tao

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
1,960
Location
Gainesville, Fl
Let me begin by saying that this is in no way meant to come off as LEO bashing I have many friends in law enforcement and deeply respect the job they do. Instead, I came across an interesting line of thought when countering an anti-gunner that I just want to share and perhaps get others opinions of this thinking.

For those of you out there that aren’t failure with my work to me, I spent about a year defending gun rights and debunking weak the anti-gun claims of Paul Helmke on the Brady blog. Now that the BC has closed the comments I have to go to The Huffington Post to correct Paul’s nonsense. While there our favorite gun grabber Kelli made a point that got me thinking. She basically said that we say police are unreliable at protecting us in order to frighten Americans into believing we need guns for self-defense, but, she claims, this is not the case and police should be relied upon rather than relying on a gun.

Well this got me thinking, if the police are so reliable and we are just trying to frighten people into wanting guns, they why would the anti-gun folks need to ban guns, or create any new anti-gun laws for that matter, in the first place? For the police to be 100% reliable than there would have to be absolutely zero violent crime victims as the police would always be able show up and to save the would-be victims in time. In fact, if the police are so reliable, then the anti-gun folks wouldn’t need to fear the guns of law abiding citizens because the police they rely on would have no problem protecting them from any crimes, including the ones committed using a gun.

However, anti-gun folks also argue that “gun-crimes” are so rampant that firearms must be banned in order of make the public safer. If this is the case, then there are a great number of people that are not being saved from victimization by the same police these anti-gun folks want us to rely on. In fact, every time they call for more “sensible gun laws” to be passed "for public safety", what they are actually saying is that these new laws are needed because the police are not enough to protect everyone from the availability of guns.

I’m sorry, but the anti-rights folks can’t have it both ways. Either the police are so reliable that they don’t need gun-control in the first place or the police are not completely reliable, in which case they can’t fault us on the pro-rights side for recognizing that there does in fact exist a need for us to defend ourselves when the police they want us to rely on can’t.
 
I'd say you're right on the money there. Antis aren't reasonable, they do use "doublethink." (If you don't know what this word means, read 1984 by George Orwell. Disturbing book, but should be required reading.)

And, debunking anti-gun claims is so easy, it's like shooting pop cans at 15 feet with your scoped deer rifle. So easy, it's not really sporting. :neener:
 
Davera hits the crux of the matter.

I would also like to add that there are court cases that exempt police from the responsibility to protect, the court has recognized that the LEO can't be everywhere or can in any way protect all people at all times.

Not that a court decision necessarily means anything to an anti- particularly if they don't like the answer:D
 
I like to hand the person my cell phone and show them my pocket knife. I tell them to call 911, I'll wait until they get connected, so they can tell the police anything they feel is important, before I kill them.

Police make reports after the fact. They are rarely there during the fact, unless by chance. If they feel safe thinking the police will protect them, oh well, doom on them.
 
For evidence, point out something like the L.A. Riots or New Orleans; police stood by while people looted stores. How come the police didn't protect property and life? Also, use the court rulings showing that the police have no obligation to protect you or your property.
 
What happens in Katrina type situations? The cops were alot of help there from what I understand!

Cops can't be everywhere and are a pretty small percentage of situation.
 
Since many of these antis are of the sort that are always going on about "the freedom to X" and the freedom to Y" etc ask why is it they support so many other freedoms but when it comes to protecting and possibly saving the ONE life you or your loved ones have you get no choice in the matter.

Also this argument would mean that if there were no police the antis would be perfectly fine with you owning guns. If they agree to that use the examples above. Most people are 3-4 minutes away from a cop at any given time. Longer in some areas and it takes mere seconds to kill someone so that effectively means there are NO police around for the rest of the victim's life.

Ask "What if we deputized every adult, would that mean we could be issued or buy the kinds of weapons many police agencies have?" Imagine a whole town of cops.

Point out the number of major crimes in a given area and ask What should these folks have done? Obviously the police did not protect them (not bashing). What would have been a better option for them to try?

If the anti mentions any kind of less than lethal device point out that they are not opposed to folks being armed per se and that they agree it is right to fight back and not wait for the cops. So then why must a person be forced to use a less effective means of defense, when their ONE life is at stake.
 
You have no right to police protection. While there have been numerous other such cases there is another recent ruling found here:

http://www.readmetro.com/show/en/Philadelphia/20070914/1/2/#

"Court clears cops in wife abuse case

PHILADELPHIA. Despite “grave concerns” about the alleged failure of police to arrest an abusive officer who later shot his wife, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday that she cannot seek damages from the officers. Jill Burella did not have a constitutional right to police protection from her husband’s abuse, according to a decision by a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that overturned a lower court’s decision. State employees, the panel said, have qualified immunity from alleged failures to act, even if they can be sued for overt actions that cause harm. George Burella, a 10-year veteran of the Philadelphia Police Department, fatally shot himself in January 1999 after shooting his wife in the chest; his wife survived. AP"
 
If they know you well enough to understand you are joking. Ask them if the police would save you if you happened to strangle them right then and there. If not, ask them about the last time they read about the police preventing a crime as it was happening (other than some illegal war on drugs drug bust). No offense to LEOs, but their job is to catch the bad guys after they commit the crime, they are not thought police. People are expecting some minority report like force that can save them a second before they become victims.
 
Furthermore, at Columbine, the police just kinda stood around while kids inside were being slaughtered. Disgraceful.
 
I like to hand the person my cell phone and show them my pocket knife. I tell them to call 911, I'll wait until they get connected, so they can tell the police anything they feel is important, before I kill them.
Click to expand...

That's good stuff right there!

What to tell this poor deluded lady:

http://www.non-violent.com/guntrol.htm

She seems to think that non-violent "weapons" are the way to go. Gee, I really like to piss off my attacker before I disable him/her, and not be prepared to follow with more force if necessary.
 
I always say: "Why bother calling the police over to shoot a violent threat if you are justified in doing it yourself? I'm sure they have plenty to do otherwise."

Or
"Bullets travel faster than even the most determined cop."
 
Furthermore, at Columbine, the police just kinda stood around while kids inside were being slaughtered. Disgraceful.
Click to expand...

Thats unfair to the cops at Columbine. Standard police tactics at the time was to seal off the area, and wait for swat to show up. The cops there DID exactly as they were trained to do. The failure was not the cops, but the training. Since Columbine, active shooter responses are now being taught to patrolmen everywhere. Thats why at SLC and VT, the cops didn't wait for swat when the shooting starting, they formed up, and went in.

Sadly, even that quick of a response isn't usually fast enough. Most police departments if they are honest with themselves and the public will admit it. Thats why my local Sheriff is a big fan of the public being armed. And thats what I tell sheep when they say "just wait for the police".

I don't dial 911, I dial 556.
 
I would ask the anti to imagine asking anyone whose ever been beaten, robbed or murdered if they felt that they had been adequately protected by the police ...
 
nonsense.... the police can't be at all places at once.these people don't make any sense at all
 
Actually when they start that nonsense I show them three newspaper articles I carry in my purse.

One describes the White County (Indiana) Sheriffs' Office surrounding a house with the entire cadre of deputies, plus most of the officers of the five townships in White County for six hours in an attempt to capture a felon alledged to have firearms and explosives. The house was empty.

The second article (letter to the editor actually) describes a stolen car three miles north of the house while every LEO in the county was guarding an empty house.

The third is an article written by Sheriff John Roberts telling the county that police service was disrupted (my word not his) for the safety of the citizens.

In short, while the police in White County were guarding an empty house a man that had already been convicted of murder was running free, possiblely with a firearm.

Even the most brain dead lib changes the subject pala loa.

Selena
 
Let me add, that most of the suggestions here (pointing out response times, fact that police do not have a duty to retreat, etc.) are great but when dealing with a die-hard anti-rights advocate that already has her mind made up and won't change it (like our precious Kelli), these suggestion either fall on deaf ear or are easily brushed aside.

I have found the best tactic, especially in an online forum where you are speak more for the sake of fence sitters reading your exchange with the anti, is to demonstrate the inconsistencies, fallacies, and false logic of the antis. In this case, they want to convince us that the police are completely reliable when it comes to keeping us safe but they are also saying that crime is so uncontrollable that banning guns is the only way to make society safer guns.

Then once I've demonstrated the inconsistencies, falsehoods, and lies of the anti-gunners, I present real facts and valid logic for the fence sitters to take in. In fact, I find fence sitters to be much more responsive to our facts after we have demonstrated the problems with the arguments of the anti-rights side.
 
Zen21Tao said:
How to respond to an anti that says we should “rely on the police” for protection.
Click to expand...
I rather like the phrase I picked up somewhere, probably here:

"Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

When they ask what you're blathering about, remind them that Mr. Cho was able to kill 28 students before the police responded to the building he had chosen as his killing ground at VT. Each and every one of those deceased students were forced to rely on the police for protection because university rules did not allow them to rely on themselves for protection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Things the Antis should consider
Replies
15
Views
886
Barbara
B
C
  • Locked
What we should ask our Anti-2A friends:
Replies
14
Views
841
eyeson
E
klover
  • Locked
How to convert an anti.
Replies
22
Views
802
Mr White
M
U
  • Locked
Anti-gun folks promote 'swatting' legal gun owners who are out in the public
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
6K
cdk8
C
G
  • Locked
The police will protect you, so concealed firearm permits should be done away with!
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
jakemccoy
J
Back
Top