3 ms·

This doesn't prove guns solve problems. It just makes it clear that police can be incompetent. This is the most bizarre argument. You're argument is that police

by tomkin 14y ago

This doesn't prove guns solve problems. It just makes it clear that police can be incompetent. This is the most bizarre argument. You're argument is that police do a poor job, so average people should do the job? Here's an idea: spend some more money on creating a more competent police force. So silly! Let's see, my employee isn't doing his job well, so I'll just call in another developer to bring competency. Talk about spinning the tires. Please, America. Spend some time wondering how other modern countries get by. You'll have no choice but to conclude it is possible to get by without guns.

bmelton 14y ago
That ignores the geographic disparity of our nation. It would be relatively easy to create a rapidly mobile police force in somewhere like New York City, but nearly impossible to create an efficient police force in Glendo, Wyoming. Houses are, at the closest, acres apart from each other. Going grocery shopping can be a half hour trip each way from a nearby farm. Police cannot be readily available in places like this (or in New York really, but for entirely different reasons).
- tomkin 14y ago
  Yes, the US is so special. Again, other countries have sub-urbs, country residents. Come on, really? This is your defence? That America has vast countryside? Jesus fucking Christ. Can't think of any other country that has this geography? REALLY?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - bmelton 14y ago
    If you know of a way to increase the police force in a way that is efficient, affordable and repeatable such that people living 45 minutes away from the nearest police station would still be able to have relatively good assurance that said police would be there to stop crime from being done to them, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. In the absence of such knowledge, I think it's fair to point out that police are generally reactive. In the case of murder, they obviously weren't able to prevent the crime. As it stands, the sheer amount of crime we have speaks to the ineffectiveness of our existing police departments, and while they could almost certainly be made better, they can't likely be made perfect. In the case of an assault against me, my home or my family, my call to the police is not going to be made until I have at least assured the relative safety of myself and mine enough that making a call would be prudent. This means that, if someone is pointing a gun at me, if you give me the choice of whether I should have a cell phone in my hand or a firearm, I'll take the latter. Police are the first responders, but I believe that self defense is a personal responsibility, especially as Warren v DC[1] concluded that the police aren't under any obligation to protect me, despite whatever slogans may be painted on their vehicles. Of course, this ignores that nobody should have to defend their purchase of firearms in the US to anyone. It's a Constitutionally enumerated right, and according to our founders, a "natural, God-given right". Ignoring the theistic rhetoric, that means that I am able to possess a firearm, and most definitely for the purpose of self defense. If you could figure out such a way that would prevent me ever needing to use a firearm for self defense, as well as ensuring a means to prevent government tyranny, then perhaps I would consider relinquishing that right. Until such time, I will exercise that right lawfully and responsible and hope that I never need to use a firearm in defense. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

by tomkin 14y ago

bmelton 14y ago

That ignores the geographic disparity of our nation. It would be relatively easy to create a rapidly mobile police force in somewhere like New York City, but nearly impossible to create an efficient police force in Glendo, Wyoming. Houses are, at the closest, acres apart from each other. Going grocery shopping can be a half hour trip each way from a nearby farm. Police cannot be readily available in places like this (or in New York really, but for entirely different reasons).

tomkin 14y ago
Yes, the US is so special. Again, other countries have sub-urbs, country residents. Come on, really? This is your defence? That America has vast countryside? Jesus fucking Christ. Can't think of any other country that has this geography? REALLY?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- bmelton 14y ago
  If you know of a way to increase the police force in a way that is efficient, affordable and repeatable such that people living 45 minutes away from the nearest police station would still be able to have relatively good assurance that said police would be there to stop crime from being done to them, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. In the absence of such knowledge, I think it's fair to point out that police are generally reactive. In the case of murder, they obviously weren't able to prevent the crime. As it stands, the sheer amount of crime we have speaks to the ineffectiveness of our existing police departments, and while they could almost certainly be made better, they can't likely be made perfect. In the case of an assault against me, my home or my family, my call to the police is not going to be made until I have at least assured the relative safety of myself and mine enough that making a call would be prudent. This means that, if someone is pointing a gun at me, if you give me the choice of whether I should have a cell phone in my hand or a firearm, I'll take the latter. Police are the first responders, but I believe that self defense is a personal responsibility, especially as Warren v DC[1] concluded that the police aren't under any obligation to protect me, despite whatever slogans may be painted on their vehicles. Of course, this ignores that nobody should have to defend their purchase of firearms in the US to anyone. It's a Constitutionally enumerated right, and according to our founders, a "natural, God-given right". Ignoring the theistic rhetoric, that means that I am able to possess a firearm, and most definitely for the purpose of self defense. If you could figure out such a way that would prevent me ever needing to use a firearm for self defense, as well as ensuring a means to prevent government tyranny, then perhaps I would consider relinquishing that right. Until such time, I will exercise that right lawfully and responsible and hope that I never need to use a firearm in defense. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia