The police will protect you, so concealed firearm permits should be done away with!

[GuyWithQuestions]

I am wondering how you can contruct a good argument for the anti's using "police reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" and "in reality they often can't help soon enough or may not at all"? I was in a discussion with one of my roommates and he was quite against firearms, especially concealed firearm permits, unless they're used for sport. I was wondering if someone could give me advice on how to make the position I shared with him stronger? If you don't like these reasons for allowing people to carry firearms, then let me know that also.

I told him that personally, one of the most important reasons why I believe that concealed firearms permits should be allowed is the police reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. The government doesn't have a legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. When you call 911, you're making a request for help, but the police's legal duty is to the government, not the citizens and so you can't sue them if they outright refuse to help you. I used the case of Warren vs. District of Columbia and what the Courts said. If the police reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, then it doesn't make sense to say that citizens shouldn't be allowed to have the means to protect themselves.

My roommate pointed out that I said the police are legally supposed to protect society as a whole, not individual citizens, so the police overall protect society and so we don't need citizens with guns to create more trouble. He said that I was arguing for concealed carry permits, while Warren vs. District of Columbia happened inside the home, not in public where you'd need a permit (does anyone know of some famous Supreme Court cases where it happened outside of the home?). I responded to that by saying that the Courts never said police don't have to help you only if you're inside your home, they said the police don't have a legal duty to protect individual citizens, which would apply anywhere. He said that those were very rare cases and that the vast majority of the time the police help individual citizens and do so right away. He said that if you call the police saying someone's breaking in your house or attacking you, they check it out right away and the times they don't is so very rare. I used the crime statistics from http://defensedevices.com/crimstat.html , where so many thousands of crimes of violence weren't responded to within an hour and so many thousands of 911 calls for help weren't responded to at all. He said that that was just in Florida and that it was posted by a website trying to sell me self-defense products and not to believe everything I see. He said that the vast majority of times the police help citizens out and respond right away. (Does anyone have good insight into this or have research/statistics on in reality how often the police help compared to when they don't and what their response times are?)

I then said, "We have fire extinguishers even though the fire department responds to 911 calls. Because the fire department responds to 911 calls, does that mean you shouldn't have fire extinguishers" He said that that was a logical error on my part because you don't use a fire extinguisher to put out a large problem, the fire department does that. However, someone who wants concealed firearm permits wants to use it to put out a large problem when the police will take care of it.

I know that some of you may say, "Why bother with these types of people?" However, I am wondering how I could have made my arguments in this situation stronger and more convincing, just for future reference? I want to be able to defend my position more efficiently the next time something like this comes up and am asking for help. If you don't like my reasons of "the police reserve the right to refuse service to individual citizens" and "they often can't help soon enough", then let me know too.

Thanks

 

[vis-à-vis]

Didn't the Supreme Court rule that the police are not obligated to protect anybody, but merely enforce the law?

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

How is this substantially different from this thread you started last night? http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=283596

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

Jorg,

In this thread I'm not asking for reasons why people believe we should carry firearms, but how I could have made my argument stronger and if there's some actual evidence for my points. I'm asking how you can construct a sound argument using "police reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" and "they often can't help soon enough or won't at all". The thread last night was asking what everyone's personal reasons are for allowing the carrying of firearms.

 

[Justin]

Why not have simply combined the two to begin with?

 

[.cheese.]

Jorg... come on... it's not like he's hiding that he has questions. It's in his nick for crying out loud. I have plenty of those too!

GuyWithQuestions - this is simple for me. Before I owned any firearms, I had been in more than one situation where I really needed the police to protect me. For example, one was a bunch of non-professional-types with gold teeth and a combination of dreads and shaved heads... wearing white undershirts and baggy pants that were pulled down deciding they wanted to mess me up. I called 911 multiple times. Finally the guys left..... did the police show up? Of course.... nearly an hour after the event happened. I don't necessarily even blame them for that as I realize now that they are not my babysitter, their job was only to eventually hopefully find those guys (who drove off in a car with a stolen plate it turned out). They are NOT here to protect us. They aren't security guards. They aren't the teacher on the playground whose job it is to make sure there aren't any injuries or fights. It would be nice if this wasn't the case, but I've come to realize it is.

Bottom line - you're out there on your own. You can do so defenseless... or you can take your life seriously and be prepared if the time comes to protect yourself.

I don't need to go into the other instances... as I think you get the point.

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

Justin,

In the other thread, I'll just delete the part about having a discussion with my roommate so that it only asks what are people's reasons for allowing the carrying of firearms.

 

[ZeSpectre]

As someone else here once said,
Order a pizza and then call 911, see who gets there first.

 

[Jim Watson]

A lawyer of my acquaintance says (not original to him)

When seconds count, the police will be there in minutes.

 

[sacp81170a]

Not trying to be rude, but this particular subject and the subjects of most of your recent threads have been dealt with over and over on this forum. There is a search function, you know...

 

[Dravur]

or....

you can get a large foam bat. Something that would not hurt a fly if you whacked them with it.....

Then start beating him about the head and neck and ask him how long could you be doing this until the police arrived...... Ask him what the police will do once they get there, had this been a real bat.

Ask him whether he would have needed an ambulance or morgue wagon.....

Ask him whether he has a police escort with him 24/7 and what he would do if attacked...

oh, and im not really advocating hitting him with a foam bat, but it does drive the point home.

 

[Jayb]

Both the SCOTUS and several Federal courts have decided that law enforcement has no obligation to protect any individual, rather their obligation is to the general public as a whole. I'll do some searching, and see if I can find the specifics.

 

[mlandman]

Despite their logos and banners, the police are there to enforce, after the fact, the laws. Protection as used in this concept is from FUTURE offences from the same person. This protection is achieved by removing individuals from society, not be intentionally preventing crime. One of the founding principals of the constitution is both due process AND reasonable cause for search and seizure. The police can not arrest someone before they commit a crime. Therefore there is no functional protection on an individual basis.

My roommate pointed out that I said the police are legally supposed to protect society as a whole, not individual citizens, so the police overall protect society and so we don't need citizens with guns to create more trouble

Let's look at the logical assumption in his argument:
CWL holders cause trouble, this is patently false, as I pointed out in the other post. Most states have statistics on CWL on the states' web sites.

"We have fire extinguishers even though the fire department responds to 911 calls. Because the fire department responds to 911 calls, does that mean you shouldn't have fire extinguishers" He said that that was a logical error on my part because you don't use a fire extinguisher to put out a large problem, the fire department does that.

The equivalent of a big fire is a hostage situation where a family is held at gunpoint, and that is the place for the police. A fire from a cigarette causing the sofa to burn is the place for a fire extinguisher, to prevent a whole house fire.
Is he a true pacifist, or does he want to pay someone else to perform his violence for him? If he came home and someone was in his home robbing his stuff, would he let them or would he call the police to perform violence on his behalf?
Does he admit that rapes, assaults and home invasions and murders exist? Where are the police at these times?
If this were me, I would attempt to put him in a position of defending his arguments with hard facts from unbiased sources.
CWL is bad because it caused more problems.
Suicide rates ARE linked to gun prevalents.
etc.
He is trying to convince you to adopt a different position, have him provide the factual basis for his position. Do not let him get away with unsubstantiated statements and positions; "CWL cause more trouble", "Guns cause suicides" etc. Challenge him to prove his positions from unbiased sources; FBI, DOJ, State statistics, etc. If you get him to do the research and only accept unbiased sources, he will do your work for you.

 

[noops]

Didn't the Supreme Court rule that the police are not obligated to protect anybody, but merely enforce the law?

Read Castle Rock v Gonzales. The gist of it though: "the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order."

There is broad application here.

 

[BADUNAME13]

Look into the cases which caused the SC ruling that the police were not here to protect you.

IIRC 3 women were in a house ~ 10 minutes away from the police station.
a number of scumbags broke in and started 'terrorizing' (You know what I mean)
one of the women who was down stairs.
The 2 upstairs called the cops... and were told they were on their way. REPEADLY.

No one came. after a couple hours... the screams... had stopped. The women went downstairs thinking the scum had left.
They were just taking a break, and all 3 women were brutalised for (I don't remember, something like 10 hours)

The cops never came... despite the (Something like 12 phonecalls BEGGING them to come)

The scum finally left... leaving the women alive (but only just) the cops NEVER SHOWED... the women sued... the Supreme court said the cops arn't responsable for an individual....

-I might of messed up a few details... look it up.

 

[M2 Carbine]

The police will protect you, so concealed firearm permits should be done away with!

What I do is say to people that spout that kind of mindless crap,

"Pick up the phone and dial 911 because in ten seconds I am going to hurt you very badly.
If you were smart enough to carry a gun to protect yourself you could possibly live through this day.
If not, it appears that you are wrong that the Police can/will protect you."


Ever have someone threaten to kill you and mean it?
It will dawn on you immediately that the only one that's going to save you is you.
(BTW the guy got caught killing someone else first).

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

Are there some statistics?

Are there any statistics nationally of how many incidents the police actually respond to, how soon they respond, and how many respond a long time after?

 

[Henry Bowman]

He said that that was a logical error on my part because you don't use a fire extinguisher to put out a large problem, the fire department does that.

Logical error on his part. Small problems often become big problems quick.

However, someone who wants concealed firearm permits wants to use it to put out a large problem when the police will take care of it.

The Police/FD may not be able to get there in time for the big problem. Using a fire extinguisher could keep the fire controlled long enough for many people to escape, even if the structure ends up a total loss. Or may keep it contain so that the fire is still controllable by the time the heavy equipment arrives.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? Are we to remove all fire extinguishers from schools because teachers are not trained in firefighting and may try to take the situation into their own hands?

 

[Notch]

Police can protect you if they are there at the time of your need and they feel like it. I carry a firearm the SAME REASON I lock my front door. Ship happens, be ready for it.

 

[Macpherson]

First of all, it sounds like your roommate has his mind made up and nothing you can say will change it. You are backing up your arguments with facts and data, he can't argue with your data, so he has to categorically dismiss it as "biased" because of the source (although I doubt he'd dismiss the "facts" that the Brady Campaign uses to promote gun control in the same way). He's countering your arguments with nothing but his own opinions (because he has no real facts), unfortunately that means that he can go on debating you until the cows come home. You defended your position well, but I've talked to people like that before and usually there's no way to change their mind, so don't take it too hard.

 

[miko]

I don't think the police has a right "to refuse service" to anyone.
What the courts said is that police cannot be held legally responcible for failure to protect anyone, even if it apparently could have done so - for example, becaus of concerns for the police officers' safety.

Whether it makes any difference to a victim, I don't know.

miko

 

[runfrumu]

the police cant protect you unless they are with you 24/7. then their are several variables still to deal with. such as can the cop percieve the threat before it's too late.

 

[igor]

Fire extinguishers and logical errors: sounds you're dealing with quite a superior-feeling individual. The logical error is on his part.

In a worst kind of a situation, all the fire extinguisher is good for is to clear a temporary passage so one can escape from an inferno, i.e. to save lives in an immediate situation. The FD comes in right away but afterwards nevertheless. No extinguisher, you're toast.

In a worst kind of a situation, all a weapon is good for is to clear a temporary passage so one can escape a violent situation, i.e. to save lives in an immediate situation. The PD comes in right away but afterwards nevertheless. No weapon, you're toast.

 

[glockman19]

I told him that personally, one of the most important reasons why I believe that concealed firearms permits should be allowed is the police reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. The government doesn't have a legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. When you call 911, you're making a request for help, but the police's legal duty is to the government, not the citizens and so you can't sue them if they outright refuse to help you. I used the case of Warren vs. District of Columbia and what the Courts said. If the police reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, then it doesn't make sense to say that citizens shouldn't be allowed to have the means to protect themselves.

Absoultely, positively CORRECT.

He said that if you call the police saying someone's breaking in your house or attacking you, they check it out right away and the times they don't is so very rare.

A Telephone or cell phone is a COMMUNICATION device not a SELF DEFENSE TOOL. You can only call AFTER something has happened. So they can 1) take a report. 2) chalk outline the body.

Sometimes you just can't convince people they're wrong. . It will probably take a tragic event in your roomies life for him to understand. The reason I got into firearms is because someone broke ino my house. The police got there quickly 5-7 min. but the damage could have already been done. The alarm went off and I rand down stairs with a knife in my underwear. My afterthought was...boy was I stupid. :banghead:

 

[jetman]

If you read the logo's on most Police Cruisers doors they read "to Protect and to Serve".... but in all actuality they can't be everywhere, every time a crime is commited to actually "Protect" you. They are there to catch the bad guy afters he's already done the deed, and take them into "Justice" in all true actuality. If they just HAPPEN to be there when some crook is dumb enough to commit a violent crime in their presence, I'm sure most would gladly do what they can do to help stop the "perpetrator" but it very unreasonable to expect them to be by your side 24/7 to actually "Protect" anyone..... and why I carry my own gun to protect myself, and family (legally).