4 ms·
Perhaps a more direct way of saying this is: If individuals are not able to use tools to defend themselves, then the police should take the role of specifically
by DickingAround 6y ago
Perhaps a more direct way of saying this is: If individuals are not able to use tools to defend themselves, then the police should take the role of specifically defending all people (like they do with government officials) and be culpable if they fail to protect those people. And if they're not willing to sign up for that (i.e. you can sue the police if they fail to protect you) then the police should not disarm you.
- myth2018 6y agoI would agree with you if and only if firearms were a good defense mechanism when it comes to citizens dealing with day-to-day crime. Experience shows that, on such situations, firearms are good for attacking but terrible for defending. It all boils down to the element of surprise: the thief knows he's going to attack you, but you are not aware of it, giving you no adequate time to respond. There are some cases of success, usually extensively mentioned by supporters, but the reaction is often conducted by a third party who arrived at the situation after the first approach, or when the criminal is distracted, which makes all the difference, since it transfers the element of surprise to the victim. I would be more inclined to agree with lesser firearm restrictions if the government were talking more about training, prevention and awareness, with guns being used only as a last resort in a broader defense strategy. But, we know that's not what's happening. They just try to make us believe we should react if we will.
- wl 6y agoGuns aren't supposed to be a response to day-to-day crime, legally speaking. They're only supposed to be used as a last resort when death or serious injury is likely to be imminent.