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

Status
Not open for further replies.
911 is a communications system of variable effectiveness, not a matter transporter that instantly deposits an armed policeman between you and an assailant.

Totally ignore any issues of police willingness to protect individuals.
Totally ignore any issues of police ability to protect individuals.

Instead, look at the basic competence of 911.

In Detroit a woman called to report that her husband had just shot her. The 911 operator demanded that she put her husband, THE MAN WHO JUST SHOT HER, on the phone.

Last summer, I was on my way to a chicken wing cook-off with a friend and his wife. As he drove past a bar, he saw someone staggering (or being pushed) out of the front door of the bar. The man fell face first into the gutter and remained motionless. My friend stopped to render aid. His wife, an ex-nurse, examined the man while I called 911. I first got central 911 and calmly described the situation in detail. The central 911 operator passed me off to the Lakewood, Ohio dispatcher. I repeated the same description of a man unconscious and unresponsive in the gutter in front of "xxxxxx's" bar. The female 911 operator then said to me, "He's in the gutter? He's on the roof?" I then spent the next 5-10 minutes explaining the difference between a gutter on the roof of a structure and the gutters in the street, and the relative likelihood of finding an unconscious man in either. She then said to me, "He's in the storm drain?" I continued to try to explain what a "gutter" was. She then expressed far more interest in my identity and where I lived than the actual condition and location of the victim in question. Lakewood Fire/Rescue eventually arrived. Imagine what the result would have been if I'd reported that a man was sitting on the chest of a man lying in the gutter, stabbing him over and over.

If you think that 911 OR the police are going to protect you from the immediate threat of lethal force, explain to me why they didn't "protect" my godsister from being stabbed to death by her boyfriend. If you don't want to explain it to me, explain it to her orphaned child.
 
I don't know where your getting the "police reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" but you are very wrong.

The court decision was based on the fact that the police cannot be everywhere, not because they can pick or choose what calls they want to go on. Big, big difference.

The ruling stated the police are there to protect the community at large and not the specific individual. The police can very well, and quite often do protect the individual, however while doing so.....they cannot protect the individual across town at the same time. The second individual cannot then sue the police for not being there, because they are on another call somewhere else.

That..........is the basis of the ruling. Not "picking and choosing"! Refuse service to anyone (picking and choosing) and you'll be looking at a lawsuit and a new job.
 
Refuse service to anyone (picking and choosing) and you'll be looking at a lawsuit and a new job.
Can you cite a decision supporting your assertion?

I've seen with my own eyes, the Chicago Police Department simply get in their cars and leave when they learned that the perpetrators of an act of vandalism were White teenagers in a Black neighborhood.

And if they simply leave, how can you PROVE they're "picking and choosing"? How about if they never show up AT ALL?

In the words of Grand Moff Tarkin, "You're MUCH too trusting..."
 
Call 911?

Yer joking, rite?

You have all heard of the recent case in L.A. where a woman is LYING ON THE E.R. FLOOR, DYING; her husband calls 911 because no one will help her; and the 911 SUPERVISOR tells him it's not an emergency.

And she died. Right there in the E.R. after vomiting up blood for 45 minutes (which, as it happens, is not an emergency).

Yeah, sure. Call 911. They'll be right over. Just as soon as it's an emergency.

Who is it that has the sig line, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Your roommate is a dolt.

He is committed to being a victim.

Allow him to live with his choice.

With a little luck, he'll never have to live through the experience that will change his mind -- or alternatively, fail to live through the experience that would have changed his mind.

Of course, he should also be informed that he is not permitted to project his commitment to victimhood onto everyone else.

Go ahead, die, moron. Just don't ask the rest of us to join you. We've got more important things to do with our lives.
 
Ask your roommate, "How do the police protect society?" Is it by preventing crimes in progress, or by arresting criminals after the fact, thus hopefully preventing future crimes by that same person?

It might help to paint him a picture. Pick something he cares about and something he despises, and insert them into this scenario:

Suppose the peaceful benevolent (global warming activist, planned parenthood director, undocumented worker) is walking down the street when he is cornered by two (NRA members, Wal-Mart executives, Vice Presidents, Radio Talk show hosts) brandishing knives and threatening to exact revenge on the poor helpless right-minded individual for perceived wrongdoings. The potential victim has 5 seconds to pull something out of his pokect with which to defend himself. What do you hope he has in his hand? A gun? Or a phone?
 
Point out:

1) Why would gun bans keep criminals from getting guns any better than drug bans keep them from getting drugs--despite *massive* resources dedicated to that ban?

2) What special extrasensory powers do police posses that allow them to know exactly where and when a crime will occur so they can get there immediately to prevent it? Where were the cops when that thug in New York beat down the old woman with the walker? He didn't need a gun to victimize her, did he?

3) Were you born an idiot, or did you work at it?

K
 
I think you would be better off if you just got another room mate. This one is giving me a headache. I can't imagine what it must be like for you! :evil:
 
I would like to contribute to this thread, but I see that the fire/fire extinguisher analogy has been thoroughly explained. One thing that caught my attention was
The alarm went off and I rand down stairs with a knife in my underwear.
:what:
And I thought I was brave by occasionally clamping a knife in my teeth! :neener:
 
"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."

Hmmm.... Okay. Let's examine this. Let me pick up this kitchen knife and stab you in the chest five or six times. Now, let's sit and ponder how big a problem you have. Yeah, I guess I can see your point. Your life and safety from criminal attacks really isn't all that big a deal, is it?
Mauserguy
 
"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."
His analogy actually has potential--except that muggings, etc, are the equivalent of small fires you would put out yourself. A police-sized "large problem" is something like a school shooting spree, or a hostage situation.

--Len.
 
For that matter, look at the average 911 response time in your area. Odds are good, you won't get help for at least that much time.
 
Of all people liberals make NO sense. They scream about the POLICE all the time then turn around and lie that they will protect you all the time. They want to control others so bad their brains do not work right. I guess they think protesting, street theater and the ACLU will save you. Gawd they make my head hurt.
 
Since your room mate lives in a dream world he probably watches a lot of TV including some of the police shows that go on ad infinitum these days; CSI whatever, Cold Case Files. Law and Order, etc. These are supposed to be about the best of the best. What are they doing? Applying the law to people who have already victimized someone. How often do you see them stopping it from happening in real time? Sure they prevent certain criminals from victimizing future victims but that's not much help to the ones that are already dead. These shows are there to convince us that justice exists but they don't even make an effort to say that we are safe and in the end they are probably closer to the truth than those from the Dirty Harry days where the hero actually stopped crimes before they happened.

Please don't interpret this as a criticism of LEOs. They are not supermen. They can't be everywhere and they don't know anymore about what's going to happen next than we do. It's unrealistic to expect them to do much more than bring criminals before the justice system. If they get a chance to actually stop a crime they usually make the best of it. People who refuse to take responsibility for their own safety are accepting the odds without doing anything to improve them despite the opportunities that exist to do so.
 
Here are a couple of books I recommend. "Thank God I Had a Gun: True Accounts of Self-Defense" and "The Concealed Handgun Manual: How to Choose, Carry, and Shoot a Gun in Self Defense" by Chris Bird. Both offer very good examples of why self defense is a personal responsibility and what it takes for some people to realize, the police can't always be there to protect us.

http://www.amazon.com/Thank-God-Had-Gun-Self-Defense/dp/0965678458/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-9404917-9128968?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182306329&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Concealed-Handgun-Manual-Choose-Defense/dp/0965678415/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-9404917-9128968?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182306329&sr=8-2
 
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.
You're doing good so far GwQ. Ixnay the "Cops reserve the right...", more than likely, they're too frickin busy somewhere else right at the moment.

Questions you might need to do some research on... How many LEO in your town/county? How many shifts? (typically 3) How large an area or population do they serve? The answers/numbers you come up with should tell you just how alone you are when evil comes a-calling.

You can't carry a Cop around 24 hours a day, you don't want to live in a Police State, the founding fathers decreed that arms help citizens maintain their freedom... you're on the right track.

Generate, maintain and keep a WORD file with good quotes and statistics, references, etc you find from THR and elsewhere on the net or in your reading, updating it frequently to serve as a source for your rebuttal.

In the upper right hand corner of each page here at THR you'll find a link to the "THR Library" http://thehighroad.org/library/ (that should make it easier)

You can and should spend a few hours reading, cutting and pasting onto your reference sheet/file.

"For some, no explanation is required. For others, no explanation will do." Life is a series of tests. Your roomie is testing you as will others you meet in life. For certain things in life, this old adage rings true: "It's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it". Knowledge, training, weapons...
 
LA rodney king riots. Police would not come. Individual armed citizens (korean store owners on the roof with sks) contributed greatly to stabilizing their existing community, hence you have a 'group benifit' from individuals right to bear arms.

Same thing with concealed carry in general, criminal risk factor increases, hence criminals become more carful, wich means passing up crimes they would have otherwise attempted, this equates to fewer total crimes.
 
Of all people liberals make NO sense. They scream about the POLICE all the time then turn around and lie that they will protect you all the time. They want to control others so bad their brains do not work right. I guess they think protesting, street theater and the ACLU will save you. Gawd they make my head hurt.
I'm especially tickled by people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who out of one side of their mouths will [truthfully] describe how violent and corrupt their respective police departments are, and out of the other claim that those SAME police should be the ONLY ones with guns.
 
LA rodney king riots. Police would not come.
Police were ORDERED not to come, and by the man at the top, Darryl Gates. And that wasn't the first time that he'd intentionally denied police services. He'd done the same thing during the Watts(?) riots while in a lower ranking position.
 
Here are a couple of books I recommend.
Another VERY useful reference is "Dial 911 and Die". It's a state by state treatment of police duty to protect [actually the LACK thereof] individuals.

It's pretty much the last word on the police having no meaningful legal duty to protect individuals, and your having no recourse if they in fact fail to "protect" you.
 
I think you would have better luck arguing with your cat. No offense to cats, I doubt any of them would volunteer to be declawed. ;)

Pick something that your roommate likes or likes to do. Say like riding a bike, or playing golf, or smoking weed. The hammer him with incessant emotional and illogical arguments about why he shouldn't be allowed to do X.
 
The police will protect you, so concealed firearm permits should be done away with!

We already have police. I guess that means all those people who said they were raped, robbed, or murdered are guilty of perjury.
 
One thing that often impresses Sheeple is the realization that if THEY need help, they may not get it. Call up your (and his) local law enforcement agency, and ask them what their SOP's are for say a man with a gun, or armed robbery, or home invasion. Most will "stage" until several units are present, and then cautiously move in, this often takes 15 minutes or more, even in cities. Thats assuming of course you were able to see trouble coming and get to a phone, which is really a gamble.
Find a cop on the street and ask him how often he rolls up on a crime in progress...most will admit they take reports AFTER crimes occur more then anything else. Next time you see someone speed down the road, or jaywalk look around, ill bet there is no cop there...thats cause they cant be. Odds are thats how it will be if you are in trouble too.
Sometimes growing up and realizing you are on your own and responsible for yourself is something some people dont want to do.
 
Last edited:
This is really quite simple.

If the statement "The Police will protect you" was true, we wouldn't have any victims of violent crime in this country.
 
The police will protect you, so concealed firearm permits should be done away with!

It is not, and never has been, the job of the police to protect individuals.
Individuals who have sued police for failing to timely respond to calls of
a crime in progress have had their suits denied on the grounds that
individual protection is not the job of the police.

Police patrol the public streets, on the look out for crimes in progress
or known suspected offenders; police respond to calls of crime in
progress; police interview witnesses, take and preserve evidence;
police arrest suspects, take them to jail and hold them for hearings.
These are their jobs and they are difficult jobs.

It has never been their job to protect individuals. It is an impossible
job for the police to protect individuals.

Most criminals do not commit crimes in public in view of the police.
That is why I never carry during my hometown's Fun Fest festival:
it is a public event with more than adequate police protection.
I do carry or have a gun available at home or when traveling the
roads: that is when most criminals choose to strike--in private
without police presence.

When my mother-in-law asked a city detective what she should
do about her personal protection, he suggested a dog and a gun.
At least one, preferably both. Most working police officers support
armed self-defense. Only a few big city police chief politicians parrot
the line that citizens should be disarmed and rely on police protection.

The police cannot protect you as an individual in private;
therefore, concealed firearm permits should be encouraged!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top