Zen21Tao
Member
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.
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.