Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, that's why I told you to move to a better neighborhood. That is something else I already said which you apparently failed to read or understand.
Some people can't move to a different neighborhood. Some don't want to move. I moved to my neighborhood for specific reasons, and the lack of police response isnt going to make me move. I am not worried about my neighborhood, so why should I move?
BC Johnny, there's nothing wrong with living in a remote area, far from government influence.
I agree. I don't know what gave you the impression that I said there is something wrong with it. I myself may move to the desert one day, nothing wrong with it. And if I live way out there I will own a gun or two. But when someone lives where there is good police protection in a populated area then a gun isn't needed.
Some people can't move to a different neighborhood. Some don't want to move. I moved to my neighborhood for specific reasons, and the lack of police response isnt going to make me move. I am not worried about my neighborhood, so why should I move?
Well if you live in a ghetto and want to live in a ghetto then you also will deal with poor police protection.
Well if you live in a ghetto and want to live in a ghetto then you also will deal with poor police protection.
this is true, which I have no problems with. Well, I do have a problem with the fact that the police dont protect here like they should, but I accept that it is this way. But on the same hand, I should be able to protect myself since they wont. I of course can't because handguns are illegal in the city of Chicago
I agree. I don't know what gave you the impression that I said there is something wrong with it. I myself may move to the desert one day, nothing wrong with it. And if I live way out there I will own a gun or two. But when someone lives where there is good police protection in a populated area then a gun isn't needed.
The police around here respond whenever they get around to it. But if one lived in a remote area, it might take some time for them to respond. Personally, I'd never bother to contact them--I simply don't see the need to have a gun, I can settle any problems without one.
You know, try reading all of what I say instead of taking one phrase of mine out of context. I'm inclined to believe you are a gun-nut just because of how you are spinning my words out of context.
If you read my posts you'd see that I said I'd probably buy a gun myself if I lived way out in the desert in Arizona or anywhere isolated. Just owning a gun doesn't make one a gun nut. What makes someone a gun-nut is believing that the police are mostly worthless even when they live in a populated, policed place.
No, my points are not mistaken, you are the one who is wrong.
The police have no duty to "protect & serve". They are there to take the report after a crime has occurred and then track down the suspected offender(s). This is but one reason why orders of protection are only worth the paper they are printed upon.
It is highly unlikely that police will be able to respond in the crucial seconds while an assault takes place. Rarely is their even time to dial 911 until the criminal has already begun his actions. Those who choose to carry a firearm because they are able to recognize this fact are not "gun nuts"; they are realists who are taking responsibility for their own safety and that of their loved ones.
Just because you choose to assign a label to a group of people whose behavior is well within the law but with whom you don't agree doesn't make the label or your statements true. They are, in fact, way off base.
The police have no duty to "protect & serve". They are there to take the report after a crime has occurred and then track down the suspected offender(s). This is but one reason why orders of protection are only worth the paper they are printed upon.
This is some of the most completely stupid crap the radical right has yet to propogate. They play word games to spin it their way for the gun-nuts. If you can't see how stupid it is to bring this up even then it is going to be tough for you to have it explained to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
It is highly unlikely that police will be able to respond in the crucial seconds while an assault takes place. Rarely is their even time to dial 911 until the criminal has already begun his actions. Those who choose to carry a firearm because they are able to recognize this fact are not "gun nuts"; they are realists who are taking responsibility for their own safety and that of their loved ones.
Police presence deters crime. We have a good police presence in my town and we therefore have virtually no violent crime. Once a year, maybe, someone hurts someone else, and it's usually a fight between people who know each other. If there is anyone who poses a threat to the general population in my neighborhood the police will watch that person.
So tell me when was the last time you were assaulted and needed a gun?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
Just because you choose to assign a label to a group of people whose behavior is well within the law but with whom you don't agree doesn't make the label or your statements true. They are, in fact, way off base.
Sure it makes my label true. I never said being a gun-nut was against the law. It's legal but it doesn't make the person any less of a nut. Just like the nuts who walk down the street talking to themselves - it's not illegal, but it sure is crazy.
My statements are so right on that it bothers you and other gun-nuts.
The police around here respond whenever they get around to it. But if one lived in a remote area, it might take some time for them to respond. Personally, I'd never bother to contact them--I simply don't see the need to have a gun, I can settle any problems without one.
Well, you probably have low taxes there. You get what you pay for.
7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
I agree. I don't know what gave you the impression that I said there is something wrong with it. I myself may move to the desert one day, nothing wrong with it. And if I live way out there I will own a gun or two. But when someone lives where there is good police protection in a populated area then a gun isn't needed.
Here's the problem I have with your post -
Here in a populated area of Arizona (Mesa, Az), there was a home invasion - 3 men breaking in a front door and beating up an elderly couple. The couple did not have time to call 911 so the Police did not even know they had a situation needing to be responded too - Mesa PD is a great police department - it is a populated area.
Two weeks earlier - a very similar situation (home invasions are all too common here) - only this time, the occupants were armed. Those who did the invasion? One dead, one in the hospital (last I heard) and the other one has now been caught.
The Police could not protect these people -
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Police have no responsibility to protect
