New research puts to death the “good guy with a gun” narrative

[Blues Man]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. People have a legal and moral responsibility to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents when it is possible to do so. People unwilling to accept that responsibility are simply a waste of good oxygen.

Wrong

I have no legal obligation to protect the general public from criminals.

SCOTUS has ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so are you trying to tell me that I as a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder have more of an obligation to protect the general public that the police do?

I'm telling you that how you interpret what SCOTUS has ruled is well and truly screwed. No, the police are not obligated to protect everyone everywhere all the time. That is simply recognition of the impossible. Because they simply cannot BE everywhere and know everything all the time. However that does not relieve law enforcement officers the duty of enforcing the law and murder happens to be against the law.
Not being a law enforcement officer does not relieve anyone from the moral obligation to intervene when another person is being subjected to injury or death whether they be armed and/or a permit holder or not. And in some circumstances you can also be held legally responsible. A person who has the chance to help and does not is simply a worthless coward in my opinion whatever the law has to say.
____________________________________________________________
Negligent Death Law and Legal Definition
Negligent death is a civil action which charges another with being liable for injury resulting in another's death by reason of negligent actions or a failure to act which could foreseeably result in death.
____________________________________________________________
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

criminal negligence is a form of - Google Search

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your opinion isn't worth much to me.

And the arbiter of the law of the land has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to render aid to anyone.

you saying SCOTUS is wrong is just another one of your opinions.

And all you need to do to get around that negligence bullshit is to say you didn't get involved because you didn't want to be hurt or killed.

There is not one law on the books that says a civilian must risk his safety to aid another.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. People have a legal and moral responsibility to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents when it is possible to do so. People unwilling to accept that responsibility are simply a waste of good oxygen.

Wrong

I have no legal obligation to protect the general public from criminals.

SCOTUS has ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so are you trying to tell me that I as a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder have more of an obligation to protect the general public that the police do?

I'm telling you that how you interpret what SCOTUS has ruled is well and truly screwed. No, the police are not obligated to protect everyone everywhere all the time. That is simply recognition of the impossible. Because they simply cannot BE everywhere and know everything all the time. However that does not relieve law enforcement officers the duty of enforcing the law and murder happens to be against the law.
Not being a law enforcement officer does not relieve anyone from the moral obligation to intervene when another person is being subjected to injury or death whether they be armed and/or a permit holder or not. And in some circumstances you can also be held legally responsible. A person who has the chance to help and does not is simply a worthless coward in my opinion whatever the law has to say.
____________________________________________________________
Negligent Death Law and Legal Definition
Negligent death is a civil action which charges another with being liable for injury resulting in another's death by reason of negligent actions or a failure to act which could foreseeably result in death.
____________________________________________________________
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

criminal negligence is a form of - Google Search

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your opinion isn't worth much to me.

And the arbiter of the law of the land has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to render aid to anyone.

you saying SCOTUS is wrong is just another one of your opinions.

And all you need to do to get around that negligence bullshit is to say you didn't get involved because you didn't want to be hurt or killed.

There is not one law on the books that says a civilian must risk his safety to aid another.

I didn't say SCOTUS was wrong I said you are. Try quoting their actual ruling instead of what you think they said. If you were present and armed and stood by and let my wife or daughter be raped and/or/brutalized and/or murdered without lifting a finger to help you would have far more to worry about than what the law had to say about the matter. You are pathetic.

 

[Blues Man]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. People have a legal and moral responsibility to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents when it is possible to do so. People unwilling to accept that responsibility are simply a waste of good oxygen.

Wrong

I have no legal obligation to protect the general public from criminals.

SCOTUS has ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so are you trying to tell me that I as a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder have more of an obligation to protect the general public that the police do?

I'm telling you that how you interpret what SCOTUS has ruled is well and truly screwed. No, the police are not obligated to protect everyone everywhere all the time. That is simply recognition of the impossible. Because they simply cannot BE everywhere and know everything all the time. However that does not relieve law enforcement officers the duty of enforcing the law and murder happens to be against the law.
Not being a law enforcement officer does not relieve anyone from the moral obligation to intervene when another person is being subjected to injury or death whether they be armed and/or a permit holder or not. And in some circumstances you can also be held legally responsible. A person who has the chance to help and does not is simply a worthless coward in my opinion whatever the law has to say.
____________________________________________________________
Negligent Death Law and Legal Definition
Negligent death is a civil action which charges another with being liable for injury resulting in another's death by reason of negligent actions or a failure to act which could foreseeably result in death.
____________________________________________________________
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

criminal negligence is a form of - Google Search

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your opinion isn't worth much to me.

And the arbiter of the law of the land has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to render aid to anyone.

you saying SCOTUS is wrong is just another one of your opinions.

And all you need to do to get around that negligence bullshit is to say you didn't get involved because you didn't want to be hurt or killed.

There is not one law on the books that says a civilian must risk his safety to aid another.

I didn't say SCOTUS was wrong I said you are. Try quoting their actual ruling instead of what you think they said. If you were present and armed and stood by and let my wife or daughter be raped and/or/brutalized and/or murdered without lifting a finger to help you would have far more to worry about than what the law had to say about the matter. You are pathetic.

You should be the one to protect your family and not depend on the kindness of strangers.

Why isn't your wife trained in the use of a weapon?

And I did read the ruling and what I said is absolutely true.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.

www.yahoo.com

A new study found that states with looser concealed-carry gun laws have higher rates of gun homicide.

The results also showed that higher levels of gun ownership are associated with more mass shootings.

The study suggests the US could reduce gun violence by lowering levels of gun ownership and passing stricter concealed-carry laws.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The "good guy with a gun" theory goes like this: If more well-intentioned people carry guns, there's a higher chance of stopping a violent shooter.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is.

Bullshit. The crime rate went down in every state that adopted concealed carry. It's almost certain the study is based on flawed assumptions.

Should I even bother asking for a source?

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth

Yeah dude. No one ever said people haven’t defended themselves with guns. That is completely besides the point of what this article is saying is that “a good guy with a gun” does nothing to prevent mass shootings. More gun ownership is correlated with more gun violence. These are the facts that matter.

Mass shootings aren't a problem anywhere near as bad as all the blacks killing each other in democrat cities.

THAT actually deserves your attention but we all know you're too cowardly to create a topic on the subject.

Uh no it’s only your dumbass who is making this about race.

Hiding from the facts doesn't change them.

 

[Billy000]

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.

www.yahoo.com

A new study found that states with looser concealed-carry gun laws have higher rates of gun homicide.

The results also showed that higher levels of gun ownership are associated with more mass shootings.

The study suggests the US could reduce gun violence by lowering levels of gun ownership and passing stricter concealed-carry laws.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The "good guy with a gun" theory goes like this: If more well-intentioned people carry guns, there's a higher chance of stopping a violent shooter.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is.

Bullshit. The crime rate went down in every state that adopted concealed carry. It's almost certain the study is based on flawed assumptions.

Should I even bother asking for a source?

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth

Yeah dude. No one ever said people haven’t defended themselves with guns. That is completely besides the point of what this article is saying is that “a good guy with a gun” does nothing to prevent mass shootings. More gun ownership is correlated with more gun violence. These are the facts that matter.

Mass shootings aren't a problem anywhere near as bad as all the blacks killing each other in democrat cities.

THAT actually deserves your attention but we all know you're too cowardly to create a topic on the subject.

Uh no it’s only your dumbass who is making this about race.

View attachment 376249
Hiding from the facts doesn't change them.

God you’re such a moron lol. I’m not disputing what you’re saying. It’s just irrelevant to what the topic is. Your dumbass is just looking for reasons to be racist.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.

www.yahoo.com

A new study found that states with looser concealed-carry gun laws have higher rates of gun homicide.

The results also showed that higher levels of gun ownership are associated with more mass shootings.

The study suggests the US could reduce gun violence by lowering levels of gun ownership and passing stricter concealed-carry laws.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The "good guy with a gun" theory goes like this: If more well-intentioned people carry guns, there's a higher chance of stopping a violent shooter.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is.

Bullshit. The crime rate went down in every state that adopted concealed carry. It's almost certain the study is based on flawed assumptions.

Should I even bother asking for a source?

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth

Yeah dude. No one ever said people haven’t defended themselves with guns. That is completely besides the point of what this article is saying is that “a good guy with a gun” does nothing to prevent mass shootings. More gun ownership is correlated with more gun violence. These are the facts that matter.

Mass shootings aren't a problem anywhere near as bad as all the blacks killing each other in democrat cities.

THAT actually deserves your attention but we all know you're too cowardly to create a topic on the subject.

Uh no it’s only your dumbass who is making this about race.

View attachment 376249
Hiding from the facts doesn't change them.

God you’re such a moron lol. I’m not disputing what you’re saying. It’s just irrelevant to what the topic is. Your dumbass is just looking for reasons to be racist.

I'm pointing directly at the source of the problem. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Having located the source of the VAST MAJORITY of our violent crime problems it is now on us to try to find out why and create a solution.

But people like you don't even make it to the first phase of this issue. You routinely ignore the elephant in the room. As such you will NEVER be a part of the solution.

As I stated in my first post, you are too much of a coward to actually tackle the problem.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. People have a legal and moral responsibility to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents when it is possible to do so. People unwilling to accept that responsibility are simply a waste of good oxygen.

Wrong

I have no legal obligation to protect the general public from criminals.

SCOTUS has ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so are you trying to tell me that I as a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder have more of an obligation to protect the general public that the police do?

I'm telling you that how you interpret what SCOTUS has ruled is well and truly screwed. No, the police are not obligated to protect everyone everywhere all the time. That is simply recognition of the impossible. Because they simply cannot BE everywhere and know everything all the time. However that does not relieve law enforcement officers the duty of enforcing the law and murder happens to be against the law.
Not being a law enforcement officer does not relieve anyone from the moral obligation to intervene when another person is being subjected to injury or death whether they be armed and/or a permit holder or not. And in some circumstances you can also be held legally responsible. A person who has the chance to help and does not is simply a worthless coward in my opinion whatever the law has to say.
____________________________________________________________
Negligent Death Law and Legal Definition
Negligent death is a civil action which charges another with being liable for injury resulting in another's death by reason of negligent actions or a failure to act which could foreseeably result in death.
____________________________________________________________
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

criminal negligence is a form of - Google Search

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your opinion isn't worth much to me.

And the arbiter of the law of the land has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to render aid to anyone.

you saying SCOTUS is wrong is just another one of your opinions.

And all you need to do to get around that negligence bullshit is to say you didn't get involved because you didn't want to be hurt or killed.

There is not one law on the books that says a civilian must risk his safety to aid another.

I didn't say SCOTUS was wrong I said you are. Try quoting their actual ruling instead of what you think they said. If you were present and armed and stood by and let my wife or daughter be raped and/or/brutalized and/or murdered without lifting a finger to help you would have far more to worry about than what the law had to say about the matter. You are pathetic.

You should be the one to protect your family and not depend on the kindness of strangers.

Why isn't your wife trained in the use of a weapon?

And I did read the ruling and what I said is absolutely true.

I've read the ruling also and it did NOT say what you claim. I and my family are far more trained and experienced than you can probably imagine. If you were actually knowledgeable on the subject you would understand that no one is 100% prepared for any possibility 100% of the time and only a fool thinks otherwise. The unexpected can catch up with anyone. I do not rely on the kindness of strangers because I am well aware of entirely self-centered individuals such as yourself. You need to be aware that there are those who would hold you accountable for your lack of action as well as your actions.

 

[Blues Man]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. People have a legal and moral responsibility to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents when it is possible to do so. People unwilling to accept that responsibility are simply a waste of good oxygen.

Wrong

I have no legal obligation to protect the general public from criminals.

SCOTUS has ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so are you trying to tell me that I as a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder have more of an obligation to protect the general public that the police do?

I'm telling you that how you interpret what SCOTUS has ruled is well and truly screwed. No, the police are not obligated to protect everyone everywhere all the time. That is simply recognition of the impossible. Because they simply cannot BE everywhere and know everything all the time. However that does not relieve law enforcement officers the duty of enforcing the law and murder happens to be against the law.
Not being a law enforcement officer does not relieve anyone from the moral obligation to intervene when another person is being subjected to injury or death whether they be armed and/or a permit holder or not. And in some circumstances you can also be held legally responsible. A person who has the chance to help and does not is simply a worthless coward in my opinion whatever the law has to say.
____________________________________________________________
Negligent Death Law and Legal Definition
Negligent death is a civil action which charges another with being liable for injury resulting in another's death by reason of negligent actions or a failure to act which could foreseeably result in death.
____________________________________________________________
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

criminal negligence is a form of - Google Search

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your opinion isn't worth much to me.

And the arbiter of the law of the land has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to render aid to anyone.

you saying SCOTUS is wrong is just another one of your opinions.

And all you need to do to get around that negligence bullshit is to say you didn't get involved because you didn't want to be hurt or killed.

There is not one law on the books that says a civilian must risk his safety to aid another.

I didn't say SCOTUS was wrong I said you are. Try quoting their actual ruling instead of what you think they said. If you were present and armed and stood by and let my wife or daughter be raped and/or/brutalized and/or murdered without lifting a finger to help you would have far more to worry about than what the law had to say about the matter. You are pathetic.

You should be the one to protect your family and not depend on the kindness of strangers.

Why isn't your wife trained in the use of a weapon?

And I did read the ruling and what I said is absolutely true.

I've read the ruling also and it did NOT say what you claim. I and my family are far more trained and experienced than you can probably imagine. If you were actually knowledgeable on the subject you would understand that no one is 100% prepared for any possibility 100% of the time and only a fool thinks otherwise. The unexpected can catch up with anyone. I do not rely on the kindness of strangers because I am well aware of entirely self-centered individuals such as yourself. You need to be aware that there are those who would hold you accountable for your lack of action as well as your actions.

The Police are Not Required to Protect You — Barnes Law

To Protect and to Serve” – the ubiquitous creed emblazoned across millions of police cars throughout Los Angeles and indeed the United States. This motto is consistent with the common belief that police officers as well as other law enforcement officers are here to protect us.

www.barneslawllp.com

the United States Constitution does not require law enforcement officers to protect you from other people, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

the Court found that the government had no affirmative duty to protect any person, even a child, from harm by another person

“Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors," stated Chief Justice Rehnquist

You can keep denying it if you want

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. People have a legal and moral responsibility to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents when it is possible to do so. People unwilling to accept that responsibility are simply a waste of good oxygen.

Wrong

I have no legal obligation to protect the general public from criminals.

SCOTUS has ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so are you trying to tell me that I as a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder have more of an obligation to protect the general public that the police do?

I'm telling you that how you interpret what SCOTUS has ruled is well and truly screwed. No, the police are not obligated to protect everyone everywhere all the time. That is simply recognition of the impossible. Because they simply cannot BE everywhere and know everything all the time. However that does not relieve law enforcement officers the duty of enforcing the law and murder happens to be against the law.
Not being a law enforcement officer does not relieve anyone from the moral obligation to intervene when another person is being subjected to injury or death whether they be armed and/or a permit holder or not. And in some circumstances you can also be held legally responsible. A person who has the chance to help and does not is simply a worthless coward in my opinion whatever the law has to say.
____________________________________________________________
Negligent Death Law and Legal Definition
Negligent death is a civil action which charges another with being liable for injury resulting in another's death by reason of negligent actions or a failure to act which could foreseeably result in death.
____________________________________________________________
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

criminal negligence is a form of - Google Search

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your opinion isn't worth much to me.

And the arbiter of the law of the land has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to render aid to anyone.

you saying SCOTUS is wrong is just another one of your opinions.

And all you need to do to get around that negligence bullshit is to say you didn't get involved because you didn't want to be hurt or killed.

There is not one law on the books that says a civilian must risk his safety to aid another.

I didn't say SCOTUS was wrong I said you are. Try quoting their actual ruling instead of what you think they said. If you were present and armed and stood by and let my wife or daughter be raped and/or/brutalized and/or murdered without lifting a finger to help you would have far more to worry about than what the law had to say about the matter. You are pathetic.

You should be the one to protect your family and not depend on the kindness of strangers.

Why isn't your wife trained in the use of a weapon?

And I did read the ruling and what I said is absolutely true.

I've read the ruling also and it did NOT say what you claim. I and my family are far more trained and experienced than you can probably imagine. If you were actually knowledgeable on the subject you would understand that no one is 100% prepared for any possibility 100% of the time and only a fool thinks otherwise. The unexpected can catch up with anyone. I do not rely on the kindness of strangers because I am well aware of entirely self-centered individuals such as yourself. You need to be aware that there are those who would hold you accountable for your lack of action as well as your actions.

The Police are Not Required to Protect You — Barnes Law

To Protect and to Serve” – the ubiquitous creed emblazoned across millions of police cars throughout Los Angeles and indeed the United States. This motto is consistent with the common belief that police officers as well as other law enforcement officers are here to protect us.

www.barneslawllp.com

the United States Constitution does not require law enforcement officers to protect you from other people, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

the Court found that the government had no affirmative duty to protect any person, even a child, from harm by another person

“Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors," stated Chief Justice Rehnquist

You can keep denying it if you want

I think there are two sides of the coin here.

In most cases if you need protection, somebody is breaking the law, and it's a police officers duty to enforce that law.

I'm at a county fair, and some clown who drank too many beers attacks me for whatever reason. A sheriffs deputy is on duty and sees me being attacked. He took an oath of office to enforce the law, and assault is against the law. He's not going to stand there and wait until the guy beats the hell out of me before he arrests him. His duty is to stop the attack AND arrest the attacker.

Or perhaps a police officer sees a child being abducted. You can't kidnap children. It's against the law. The officer has a duty to stop this person breaking the law thus saving the child's life.

I can't think of any situation where if your protection is needed that doesn't involve somebody breaking the law to cause you harm.

Look at some police cars. Many have the motto on the car that says To Serve and Protect. Even if it's not constitutionally mandated for a police officer to protect you, it's part of their job per department policy.

 

[2aguy]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. People have a legal and moral responsibility to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents when it is possible to do so. People unwilling to accept that responsibility are simply a waste of good oxygen.

Wrong

I have no legal obligation to protect the general public from criminals.

SCOTUS has ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so are you trying to tell me that I as a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder have more of an obligation to protect the general public that the police do?

I'm telling you that how you interpret what SCOTUS has ruled is well and truly screwed. No, the police are not obligated to protect everyone everywhere all the time. That is simply recognition of the impossible. Because they simply cannot BE everywhere and know everything all the time. However that does not relieve law enforcement officers the duty of enforcing the law and murder happens to be against the law.
Not being a law enforcement officer does not relieve anyone from the moral obligation to intervene when another person is being subjected to injury or death whether they be armed and/or a permit holder or not. And in some circumstances you can also be held legally responsible. A person who has the chance to help and does not is simply a worthless coward in my opinion whatever the law has to say.
____________________________________________________________
Negligent Death Law and Legal Definition
Negligent death is a civil action which charges another with being liable for injury resulting in another's death by reason of negligent actions or a failure to act which could foreseeably result in death.
____________________________________________________________
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

criminal negligence is a form of - Google Search

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your opinion isn't worth much to me.

And the arbiter of the law of the land has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to render aid to anyone.

you saying SCOTUS is wrong is just another one of your opinions.

And all you need to do to get around that negligence bullshit is to say you didn't get involved because you didn't want to be hurt or killed.

There is not one law on the books that says a civilian must risk his safety to aid another.

I didn't say SCOTUS was wrong I said you are. Try quoting their actual ruling instead of what you think they said. If you were present and armed and stood by and let my wife or daughter be raped and/or/brutalized and/or murdered without lifting a finger to help you would have far more to worry about than what the law had to say about the matter. You are pathetic.

You should be the one to protect your family and not depend on the kindness of strangers.

Why isn't your wife trained in the use of a weapon?

And I did read the ruling and what I said is absolutely true.

I've read the ruling also and it did NOT say what you claim. I and my family are far more trained and experienced than you can probably imagine. If you were actually knowledgeable on the subject you would understand that no one is 100% prepared for any possibility 100% of the time and only a fool thinks otherwise. The unexpected can catch up with anyone. I do not rely on the kindness of strangers because I am well aware of entirely self-centered individuals such as yourself. You need to be aware that there are those who would hold you accountable for your lack of action as well as your actions.

The Police are Not Required to Protect You — Barnes Law

To Protect and to Serve” – the ubiquitous creed emblazoned across millions of police cars throughout Los Angeles and indeed the United States. This motto is consistent with the common belief that police officers as well as other law enforcement officers are here to protect us.

www.barneslawllp.com

the United States Constitution does not require law enforcement officers to protect you from other people, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

the Court found that the government had no affirmative duty to protect any person, even a child, from harm by another person

“Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors," stated Chief Justice Rehnquist

You can keep denying it if you want

I think there are two sides of the coin here.

In most cases if you need protection, somebody is breaking the law, and it's a police officers duty to enforce that law.

I'm at a county fair, and some clown who drank too many beers attacks me for whatever reason. A sheriffs deputy is on duty and sees me being attacked. He took an oath of office to enforce the law, and assault is against the law. He's not going to stand there and wait until the guy beats the hell out of me before he arrests him. His duty is to stop the attack AND arrest the attacker.

Or perhaps a police officer sees a child being abducted. You can't kidnap children. It's against the law. The officer has a duty to stop this person breaking the law thus saving the child's life.

I can't think of any situation where if your protection is needed that doesn't involve somebody breaking the law to cause you harm.

Look at some police cars. Many have the motto on the car that says To Serve and Protect. Even if it's not constitutionally mandated for a police officer to protect you, it's part of their job per department policy.

The concept that the police are not required to protect you simply came from the fact that if they do, in fact, fail to protect you...for example, they arrive too late, or they fail to stop the attack when they do arrive,......it relieves them from the risk of being sued by the citizen........

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. People have a legal and moral responsibility to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents when it is possible to do so. People unwilling to accept that responsibility are simply a waste of good oxygen.

Wrong

I have no legal obligation to protect the general public from criminals.

SCOTUS has ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so are you trying to tell me that I as a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder have more of an obligation to protect the general public that the police do?

I'm telling you that how you interpret what SCOTUS has ruled is well and truly screwed. No, the police are not obligated to protect everyone everywhere all the time. That is simply recognition of the impossible. Because they simply cannot BE everywhere and know everything all the time. However that does not relieve law enforcement officers the duty of enforcing the law and murder happens to be against the law.
Not being a law enforcement officer does not relieve anyone from the moral obligation to intervene when another person is being subjected to injury or death whether they be armed and/or a permit holder or not. And in some circumstances you can also be held legally responsible. A person who has the chance to help and does not is simply a worthless coward in my opinion whatever the law has to say.
____________________________________________________________
Negligent Death Law and Legal Definition
Negligent death is a civil action which charges another with being liable for injury resulting in another's death by reason of negligent actions or a failure to act which could foreseeably result in death.
____________________________________________________________
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

criminal negligence is a form of - Google Search

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your opinion isn't worth much to me.

And the arbiter of the law of the land has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to render aid to anyone.

you saying SCOTUS is wrong is just another one of your opinions.

And all you need to do to get around that negligence bullshit is to say you didn't get involved because you didn't want to be hurt or killed.

There is not one law on the books that says a civilian must risk his safety to aid another.

I didn't say SCOTUS was wrong I said you are. Try quoting their actual ruling instead of what you think they said. If you were present and armed and stood by and let my wife or daughter be raped and/or/brutalized and/or murdered without lifting a finger to help you would have far more to worry about than what the law had to say about the matter. You are pathetic.

You should be the one to protect your family and not depend on the kindness of strangers.

Why isn't your wife trained in the use of a weapon?

And I did read the ruling and what I said is absolutely true.

I've read the ruling also and it did NOT say what you claim. I and my family are far more trained and experienced than you can probably imagine. If you were actually knowledgeable on the subject you would understand that no one is 100% prepared for any possibility 100% of the time and only a fool thinks otherwise. The unexpected can catch up with anyone. I do not rely on the kindness of strangers because I am well aware of entirely self-centered individuals such as yourself. You need to be aware that there are those who would hold you accountable for your lack of action as well as your actions.

The Police are Not Required to Protect You — Barnes Law

To Protect and to Serve” – the ubiquitous creed emblazoned across millions of police cars throughout Los Angeles and indeed the United States. This motto is consistent with the common belief that police officers as well as other law enforcement officers are here to protect us.

www.barneslawllp.com

the United States Constitution does not require law enforcement officers to protect you from other people, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

the Court found that the government had no affirmative duty to protect any person, even a child, from harm by another person

“Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors," stated Chief Justice Rehnquist

You can keep denying it if you want

I think there are two sides of the coin here.

In most cases if you need protection, somebody is breaking the law, and it's a police officers duty to enforce that law.

I'm at a county fair, and some clown who drank too many beers attacks me for whatever reason. A sheriffs deputy is on duty and sees me being attacked. He took an oath of office to enforce the law, and assault is against the law. He's not going to stand there and wait until the guy beats the hell out of me before he arrests him. His duty is to stop the attack AND arrest the attacker.

Or perhaps a police officer sees a child being abducted. You can't kidnap children. It's against the law. The officer has a duty to stop this person breaking the law thus saving the child's life.

I can't think of any situation where if your protection is needed that doesn't involve somebody breaking the law to cause you harm.

Look at some police cars. Many have the motto on the car that says To Serve and Protect. Even if it's not constitutionally mandated for a police officer to protect you, it's part of their job per department policy.

The concept that the police are not required to protect you simply came from the fact that if they do, in fact, fail to protect you...for example, they arrive too late, or they fail to stop the attack when they do arrive,......it relieves them from the risk of being sued by the citizen........

I don't know about that. What if somebody is getting the shit kicked out of them like that guy in Portland at the riots? I think if a police officer just stands there and watches until those people were done, they will get sued. What if that guy died? Just because it's not constitutionally mandated doesn't mean that a police officer, with the legal resources to stop an attack is insulated from legal action against him and his department.

 

[2aguy]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. People have a legal and moral responsibility to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents when it is possible to do so. People unwilling to accept that responsibility are simply a waste of good oxygen.

Wrong

I have no legal obligation to protect the general public from criminals.

SCOTUS has ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so are you trying to tell me that I as a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder have more of an obligation to protect the general public that the police do?

I'm telling you that how you interpret what SCOTUS has ruled is well and truly screwed. No, the police are not obligated to protect everyone everywhere all the time. That is simply recognition of the impossible. Because they simply cannot BE everywhere and know everything all the time. However that does not relieve law enforcement officers the duty of enforcing the law and murder happens to be against the law.
Not being a law enforcement officer does not relieve anyone from the moral obligation to intervene when another person is being subjected to injury or death whether they be armed and/or a permit holder or not. And in some circumstances you can also be held legally responsible. A person who has the chance to help and does not is simply a worthless coward in my opinion whatever the law has to say.
____________________________________________________________
Negligent Death Law and Legal Definition
Negligent death is a civil action which charges another with being liable for injury resulting in another's death by reason of negligent actions or a failure to act which could foreseeably result in death.
____________________________________________________________
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

criminal negligence is a form of - Google Search

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your opinion isn't worth much to me.

And the arbiter of the law of the land has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to render aid to anyone.

you saying SCOTUS is wrong is just another one of your opinions.

And all you need to do to get around that negligence bullshit is to say you didn't get involved because you didn't want to be hurt or killed.

There is not one law on the books that says a civilian must risk his safety to aid another.

I didn't say SCOTUS was wrong I said you are. Try quoting their actual ruling instead of what you think they said. If you were present and armed and stood by and let my wife or daughter be raped and/or/brutalized and/or murdered without lifting a finger to help you would have far more to worry about than what the law had to say about the matter. You are pathetic.

You should be the one to protect your family and not depend on the kindness of strangers.

Why isn't your wife trained in the use of a weapon?

And I did read the ruling and what I said is absolutely true.

I've read the ruling also and it did NOT say what you claim. I and my family are far more trained and experienced than you can probably imagine. If you were actually knowledgeable on the subject you would understand that no one is 100% prepared for any possibility 100% of the time and only a fool thinks otherwise. The unexpected can catch up with anyone. I do not rely on the kindness of strangers because I am well aware of entirely self-centered individuals such as yourself. You need to be aware that there are those who would hold you accountable for your lack of action as well as your actions.

The Police are Not Required to Protect You — Barnes Law

To Protect and to Serve” – the ubiquitous creed emblazoned across millions of police cars throughout Los Angeles and indeed the United States. This motto is consistent with the common belief that police officers as well as other law enforcement officers are here to protect us.

www.barneslawllp.com

the United States Constitution does not require law enforcement officers to protect you from other people, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

the Court found that the government had no affirmative duty to protect any person, even a child, from harm by another person

“Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors," stated Chief Justice Rehnquist

You can keep denying it if you want

I think there are two sides of the coin here.

In most cases if you need protection, somebody is breaking the law, and it's a police officers duty to enforce that law.

I'm at a county fair, and some clown who drank too many beers attacks me for whatever reason. A sheriffs deputy is on duty and sees me being attacked. He took an oath of office to enforce the law, and assault is against the law. He's not going to stand there and wait until the guy beats the hell out of me before he arrests him. His duty is to stop the attack AND arrest the attacker.

Or perhaps a police officer sees a child being abducted. You can't kidnap children. It's against the law. The officer has a duty to stop this person breaking the law thus saving the child's life.

I can't think of any situation where if your protection is needed that doesn't involve somebody breaking the law to cause you harm.

Look at some police cars. Many have the motto on the car that says To Serve and Protect. Even if it's not constitutionally mandated for a police officer to protect you, it's part of their job per department policy.

The concept that the police are not required to protect you simply came from the fact that if they do, in fact, fail to protect you...for example, they arrive too late, or they fail to stop the attack when they do arrive,......it relieves them from the risk of being sued by the citizen........

I don't know about that. What if somebody is getting the shit kicked out of them like that guy in Portland at the riots? I think if a police officer just stands there and watches until those people were done, they will get sued. What if that guy died? Just because it's not constitutionally mandated doesn't mean that a police officer, with the legal resources to stop an attack is insulated from legal action against him and his department.

There is Constitutional protection, then there is the jury system......a relative of mine is a police officer.....they had a guy at a bar when a soft ball team came in. This guy starts a fight with the soft ball team and they kicked the snot out of him. My relative and another officer get to the scene after the fight, and they are talking to the guy. He is all reasonable and they are listening to what happened when a black officer approaches....and this guy starts going on a racist rant against the other officer. He is warned to stop....and then he gets physical with all of the officers.

They arrest him...........he sues the department stating it was the cops...and not the soft ball team that beat him...they settled out of court just to make it go away.....

The village didn't want to incur the expense of going to a trial.......

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. People have a legal and moral responsibility to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents when it is possible to do so. People unwilling to accept that responsibility are simply a waste of good oxygen.

Wrong

I have no legal obligation to protect the general public from criminals.

SCOTUS has ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so are you trying to tell me that I as a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder have more of an obligation to protect the general public that the police do?

I'm telling you that how you interpret what SCOTUS has ruled is well and truly screwed. No, the police are not obligated to protect everyone everywhere all the time. That is simply recognition of the impossible. Because they simply cannot BE everywhere and know everything all the time. However that does not relieve law enforcement officers the duty of enforcing the law and murder happens to be against the law.
Not being a law enforcement officer does not relieve anyone from the moral obligation to intervene when another person is being subjected to injury or death whether they be armed and/or a permit holder or not. And in some circumstances you can also be held legally responsible. A person who has the chance to help and does not is simply a worthless coward in my opinion whatever the law has to say.
____________________________________________________________
Negligent Death Law and Legal Definition
Negligent death is a civil action which charges another with being liable for injury resulting in another's death by reason of negligent actions or a failure to act which could foreseeably result in death.
____________________________________________________________
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

criminal negligence is a form of - Google Search

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your opinion isn't worth much to me.

And the arbiter of the law of the land has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to render aid to anyone.

you saying SCOTUS is wrong is just another one of your opinions.

And all you need to do to get around that negligence bullshit is to say you didn't get involved because you didn't want to be hurt or killed.

There is not one law on the books that says a civilian must risk his safety to aid another.

I didn't say SCOTUS was wrong I said you are. Try quoting their actual ruling instead of what you think they said. If you were present and armed and stood by and let my wife or daughter be raped and/or/brutalized and/or murdered without lifting a finger to help you would have far more to worry about than what the law had to say about the matter. You are pathetic.

You should be the one to protect your family and not depend on the kindness of strangers.

Why isn't your wife trained in the use of a weapon?

And I did read the ruling and what I said is absolutely true.

I've read the ruling also and it did NOT say what you claim. I and my family are far more trained and experienced than you can probably imagine. If you were actually knowledgeable on the subject you would understand that no one is 100% prepared for any possibility 100% of the time and only a fool thinks otherwise. The unexpected can catch up with anyone. I do not rely on the kindness of strangers because I am well aware of entirely self-centered individuals such as yourself. You need to be aware that there are those who would hold you accountable for your lack of action as well as your actions.

The Police are Not Required to Protect You — Barnes Law

To Protect and to Serve” – the ubiquitous creed emblazoned across millions of police cars throughout Los Angeles and indeed the United States. This motto is consistent with the common belief that police officers as well as other law enforcement officers are here to protect us.

www.barneslawllp.com

the United States Constitution does not require law enforcement officers to protect you from other people, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

the Court found that the government had no affirmative duty to protect any person, even a child, from harm by another person

“Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors," stated Chief Justice Rehnquist

You can keep denying it if you want

I think there are two sides of the coin here.

In most cases if you need protection, somebody is breaking the law, and it's a police officers duty to enforce that law.

I'm at a county fair, and some clown who drank too many beers attacks me for whatever reason. A sheriffs deputy is on duty and sees me being attacked. He took an oath of office to enforce the law, and assault is against the law. He's not going to stand there and wait until the guy beats the hell out of me before he arrests him. His duty is to stop the attack AND arrest the attacker.

Or perhaps a police officer sees a child being abducted. You can't kidnap children. It's against the law. The officer has a duty to stop this person breaking the law thus saving the child's life.

I can't think of any situation where if your protection is needed that doesn't involve somebody breaking the law to cause you harm.

Look at some police cars. Many have the motto on the car that says To Serve and Protect. Even if it's not constitutionally mandated for a police officer to protect you, it's part of their job per department policy.

The concept that the police are not required to protect you simply came from the fact that if they do, in fact, fail to protect you...for example, they arrive too late, or they fail to stop the attack when they do arrive,......it relieves them from the risk of being sued by the citizen........

I don't know about that. What if somebody is getting the shit kicked out of them like that guy in Portland at the riots? I think if a police officer just stands there and watches until those people were done, they will get sued. What if that guy died? Just because it's not constitutionally mandated doesn't mean that a police officer, with the legal resources to stop an attack is insulated from legal action against him and his department.

There is Constitutional protection, then there is the jury system......a relative of mine is a police officer.....they had a guy at a bar when a soft ball team came in. This guy starts a fight with the soft ball team and they kicked the snot out of him. My relative and another officer get to the scene after the fight, and they are talking to the guy. He is all reasonable and they are listening to what happened when a black officer approaches....and this guy starts going on a racist rant against the other officer. He is warned to stop....and then he gets physical with all of the officers.

They arrest him...........he sues the department stating it was the cops...and not the soft ball team that beat him...they settled out of court just to make it go away.....

The village didn't want to incur the expense of going to a trial.......

That's the most pathetic part of our justice system. It takes tons of money for procedures. I'm sure you are aware of the Tamir Rice case here in Cleveland. The officer was found not guilty by a grand jury for shooting and killing the 12 year old, but the city still gave the mother 5 million dollars.

Yes, it's politics because the kid was black, the officer was white, and Cleveland is predominantly a black city. However the legal costs were part of the reason as well.

 

[kaz]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. People have a legal and moral responsibility to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents when it is possible to do so. People unwilling to accept that responsibility are simply a waste of good oxygen.

Wrong

I have no legal obligation to protect the general public from criminals.

SCOTUS has ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so are you trying to tell me that I as a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder have more of an obligation to protect the general public that the police do?

I'm telling you that how you interpret what SCOTUS has ruled is well and truly screwed. No, the police are not obligated to protect everyone everywhere all the time. That is simply recognition of the impossible. Because they simply cannot BE everywhere and know everything all the time. However that does not relieve law enforcement officers the duty of enforcing the law and murder happens to be against the law.
Not being a law enforcement officer does not relieve anyone from the moral obligation to intervene when another person is being subjected to injury or death whether they be armed and/or a permit holder or not. And in some circumstances you can also be held legally responsible. A person who has the chance to help and does not is simply a worthless coward in my opinion whatever the law has to say.
____________________________________________________________
Negligent Death Law and Legal Definition
Negligent death is a civil action which charges another with being liable for injury resulting in another's death by reason of negligent actions or a failure to act which could foreseeably result in death.
____________________________________________________________
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

criminal negligence is a form of - Google Search

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your opinion isn't worth much to me.

And the arbiter of the law of the land has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to render aid to anyone.

you saying SCOTUS is wrong is just another one of your opinions.

And all you need to do to get around that negligence bullshit is to say you didn't get involved because you didn't want to be hurt or killed.

There is not one law on the books that says a civilian must risk his safety to aid another.

I didn't say SCOTUS was wrong I said you are. Try quoting their actual ruling instead of what you think they said. If you were present and armed and stood by and let my wife or daughter be raped and/or/brutalized and/or murdered without lifting a finger to help you would have far more to worry about than what the law had to say about the matter. You are pathetic.

You should be the one to protect your family and not depend on the kindness of strangers.

Why isn't your wife trained in the use of a weapon?

And I did read the ruling and what I said is absolutely true.

I've read the ruling also and it did NOT say what you claim. I and my family are far more trained and experienced than you can probably imagine. If you were actually knowledgeable on the subject you would understand that no one is 100% prepared for any possibility 100% of the time and only a fool thinks otherwise. The unexpected can catch up with anyone. I do not rely on the kindness of strangers because I am well aware of entirely self-centered individuals such as yourself. You need to be aware that there are those who would hold you accountable for your lack of action as well as your actions.

The Police are Not Required to Protect You — Barnes Law

To Protect and to Serve” – the ubiquitous creed emblazoned across millions of police cars throughout Los Angeles and indeed the United States. This motto is consistent with the common belief that police officers as well as other law enforcement officers are here to protect us.

www.barneslawllp.com

the United States Constitution does not require law enforcement officers to protect you from other people, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

the Court found that the government had no affirmative duty to protect any person, even a child, from harm by another person

“Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors," stated Chief Justice Rehnquist

You can keep denying it if you want

I think there are two sides of the coin here.

In most cases if you need protection, somebody is breaking the law, and it's a police officers duty to enforce that law.

I'm at a county fair, and some clown who drank too many beers attacks me for whatever reason. A sheriffs deputy is on duty and sees me being attacked. He took an oath of office to enforce the law, and assault is against the law. He's not going to stand there and wait until the guy beats the hell out of me before he arrests him. His duty is to stop the attack AND arrest the attacker.

Or perhaps a police officer sees a child being abducted. You can't kidnap children. It's against the law. The officer has a duty to stop this person breaking the law thus saving the child's life.

I can't think of any situation where if your protection is needed that doesn't involve somebody breaking the law to cause you harm.

Look at some police cars. Many have the motto on the car that says To Serve and Protect. Even if it's not constitutionally mandated for a police officer to protect you, it's part of their job per department policy.

The concept that the police are not required to protect you simply came from the fact that if they do, in fact, fail to protect you...for example, they arrive too late, or they fail to stop the attack when they do arrive,......it relieves them from the risk of being sued by the citizen........

I think the difference is proactive and reactive.

The police do not provide proactive protection. You have to have security at your own home or to protect yourself on the street where there is hardly ever a case that a cop is there if someone attacks or robs you. The police come and take a statement and draw a line around the body.

The police do provide reactive protection. If a crime is being committed and they are there, they will act to stop it. Note Rays examples are all valid, but they are all reactive, not proactive.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. People have a legal and moral responsibility to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents when it is possible to do so. People unwilling to accept that responsibility are simply a waste of good oxygen.

Wrong

I have no legal obligation to protect the general public from criminals.

SCOTUS has ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so are you trying to tell me that I as a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder have more of an obligation to protect the general public that the police do?

I'm telling you that how you interpret what SCOTUS has ruled is well and truly screwed. No, the police are not obligated to protect everyone everywhere all the time. That is simply recognition of the impossible. Because they simply cannot BE everywhere and know everything all the time. However that does not relieve law enforcement officers the duty of enforcing the law and murder happens to be against the law.
Not being a law enforcement officer does not relieve anyone from the moral obligation to intervene when another person is being subjected to injury or death whether they be armed and/or a permit holder or not. And in some circumstances you can also be held legally responsible. A person who has the chance to help and does not is simply a worthless coward in my opinion whatever the law has to say.
____________________________________________________________
Negligent Death Law and Legal Definition
Negligent death is a civil action which charges another with being liable for injury resulting in another's death by reason of negligent actions or a failure to act which could foreseeably result in death.
____________________________________________________________
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

criminal negligence is a form of - Google Search

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your opinion isn't worth much to me.

And the arbiter of the law of the land has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to render aid to anyone.

you saying SCOTUS is wrong is just another one of your opinions.

And all you need to do to get around that negligence bullshit is to say you didn't get involved because you didn't want to be hurt or killed.

There is not one law on the books that says a civilian must risk his safety to aid another.

I didn't say SCOTUS was wrong I said you are. Try quoting their actual ruling instead of what you think they said. If you were present and armed and stood by and let my wife or daughter be raped and/or/brutalized and/or murdered without lifting a finger to help you would have far more to worry about than what the law had to say about the matter. You are pathetic.

You should be the one to protect your family and not depend on the kindness of strangers.

Why isn't your wife trained in the use of a weapon?

And I did read the ruling and what I said is absolutely true.

I've read the ruling also and it did NOT say what you claim. I and my family are far more trained and experienced than you can probably imagine. If you were actually knowledgeable on the subject you would understand that no one is 100% prepared for any possibility 100% of the time and only a fool thinks otherwise. The unexpected can catch up with anyone. I do not rely on the kindness of strangers because I am well aware of entirely self-centered individuals such as yourself. You need to be aware that there are those who would hold you accountable for your lack of action as well as your actions.

The Police are Not Required to Protect You — Barnes Law

To Protect and to Serve” – the ubiquitous creed emblazoned across millions of police cars throughout Los Angeles and indeed the United States. This motto is consistent with the common belief that police officers as well as other law enforcement officers are here to protect us.

www.barneslawllp.com

the United States Constitution does not require law enforcement officers to protect you from other people, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

the Court found that the government had no affirmative duty to protect any person, even a child, from harm by another person

“Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors," stated Chief Justice Rehnquist

You can keep denying it if you want

I think there are two sides of the coin here.

In most cases if you need protection, somebody is breaking the law, and it's a police officers duty to enforce that law.

I'm at a county fair, and some clown who drank too many beers attacks me for whatever reason. A sheriffs deputy is on duty and sees me being attacked. He took an oath of office to enforce the law, and assault is against the law. He's not going to stand there and wait until the guy beats the hell out of me before he arrests him. His duty is to stop the attack AND arrest the attacker.

Or perhaps a police officer sees a child being abducted. You can't kidnap children. It's against the law. The officer has a duty to stop this person breaking the law thus saving the child's life.

I can't think of any situation where if your protection is needed that doesn't involve somebody breaking the law to cause you harm.

Look at some police cars. Many have the motto on the car that says To Serve and Protect. Even if it's not constitutionally mandated for a police officer to protect you, it's part of their job per department policy.

The concept that the police are not required to protect you simply came from the fact that if they do, in fact, fail to protect you...for example, they arrive too late, or they fail to stop the attack when they do arrive,......it relieves them from the risk of being sued by the citizen........

I think the difference is proactive and reactive.

The police do not provide proactive protection. You have to have security at your own home or to protect yourself on the street where there is hardly ever a case that a cop is there if someone attacks or robs you. The police come and take a statement and draw a line around the body.

The police do provide reactive protection. If a crime is being committed and they are there, they will act to stop it. Note Rays examples are all valid, but they are all reactive, not proactive.

All this nonsense could be stopped tomorrow if we had honest leadership in this country. I read that in Britain, they have a Loser Pays All law. Sue anybody you like. But if you lose, you are legally liable for all the costs associated with the defense of the person or people you tried to sue: court costs, attorney costs, loss of work costs, travel time.......all of it.

Unfortunately for us, that will never happen because many of our representatives were lawyers, and such a policy would reduce BS lawsuits by about 80% if not more.

 

[Gaeandilth]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. People have a legal and moral responsibility to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents when it is possible to do so. People unwilling to accept that responsibility are simply a waste of good oxygen.

Wrong

I have no legal obligation to protect the general public from criminals.

SCOTUS has ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so are you trying to tell me that I as a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder have more of an obligation to protect the general public that the police do?

I'm telling you that how you interpret what SCOTUS has ruled is well and truly screwed. No, the police are not obligated to protect everyone everywhere all the time. That is simply recognition of the impossible. Because they simply cannot BE everywhere and know everything all the time. However that does not relieve law enforcement officers the duty of enforcing the law and murder happens to be against the law.
Not being a law enforcement officer does not relieve anyone from the moral obligation to intervene when another person is being subjected to injury or death whether they be armed and/or a permit holder or not. And in some circumstances you can also be held legally responsible. A person who has the chance to help and does not is simply a worthless coward in my opinion whatever the law has to say.
____________________________________________________________
Negligent Death Law and Legal Definition
Negligent death is a civil action which charges another with being liable for injury resulting in another's death by reason of negligent actions or a failure to act which could foreseeably result in death.
____________________________________________________________
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

criminal negligence is a form of - Google Search

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your opinion isn't worth much to me.

And the arbiter of the law of the land has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to render aid to anyone.

you saying SCOTUS is wrong is just another one of your opinions.

And all you need to do to get around that negligence bullshit is to say you didn't get involved because you didn't want to be hurt or killed.

There is not one law on the books that says a civilian must risk his safety to aid another.

I didn't say SCOTUS was wrong I said you are. Try quoting their actual ruling instead of what you think they said. If you were present and armed and stood by and let my wife or daughter be raped and/or/brutalized and/or murdered without lifting a finger to help you would have far more to worry about than what the law had to say about the matter. You are pathetic.

You should be the one to protect your family and not depend on the kindness of strangers.

Why isn't your wife trained in the use of a weapon?

And I did read the ruling and what I said is absolutely true.

And how do you do that? People talk about gun control but the Democrats have already taking that. You may have a gun but what good is it? You are too afraid to use it because the Democrats will arrest you, Someone talks about that guy in Portland you think if he would of been a legal conceal carrier and pulled a gun there and shot his attackers he would of not been arrested AND convicted and called a racist? That situation it should of been perfectly legal for him to shoot them out of self defense. With the other recent cases of people using their guns to protect their home and family and actually showing restraint but yet still get arrested for doing EXACTLY what the 2nd amendment is intended for.
Heck where I live you can have a gun if you register and do a bunch of crap. But once you have it if you do have one you can be arrested and sent to prison for 10 years for something as simple as having a gun in your car that was not in a lockbox. How is that going to help you defend yourself or your family? The Republicans talk about stopping the Dems from taking our 2nd amendment I argue they already took it and we need to fight to get it back.

 

[esalla]

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.

www.yahoo.com

A new study found that states with looser concealed-carry gun laws have higher rates of gun homicide.

The results also showed that higher levels of gun ownership are associated with more mass shootings.

The study suggests the US could reduce gun violence by lowering levels of gun ownership and passing stricter concealed-carry laws.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The "good guy with a gun" theory goes like this: If more well-intentioned people carry guns, there's a higher chance of stopping a violent shooter.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is.

Democrats like you are silly, first you want government cops defunded then you babble that you want the government to have all the guns

Grow up kid

 

[Blues Man]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. People have a legal and moral responsibility to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents when it is possible to do so. People unwilling to accept that responsibility are simply a waste of good oxygen.

Wrong

I have no legal obligation to protect the general public from criminals.

SCOTUS has ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so are you trying to tell me that I as a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder have more of an obligation to protect the general public that the police do?

I'm telling you that how you interpret what SCOTUS has ruled is well and truly screwed. No, the police are not obligated to protect everyone everywhere all the time. That is simply recognition of the impossible. Because they simply cannot BE everywhere and know everything all the time. However that does not relieve law enforcement officers the duty of enforcing the law and murder happens to be against the law.
Not being a law enforcement officer does not relieve anyone from the moral obligation to intervene when another person is being subjected to injury or death whether they be armed and/or a permit holder or not. And in some circumstances you can also be held legally responsible. A person who has the chance to help and does not is simply a worthless coward in my opinion whatever the law has to say.
____________________________________________________________
Negligent Death Law and Legal Definition
Negligent death is a civil action which charges another with being liable for injury resulting in another's death by reason of negligent actions or a failure to act which could foreseeably result in death.
____________________________________________________________
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

criminal negligence is a form of - Google Search

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your opinion isn't worth much to me.

And the arbiter of the law of the land has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to render aid to anyone.

you saying SCOTUS is wrong is just another one of your opinions.

And all you need to do to get around that negligence bullshit is to say you didn't get involved because you didn't want to be hurt or killed.

There is not one law on the books that says a civilian must risk his safety to aid another.

I didn't say SCOTUS was wrong I said you are. Try quoting their actual ruling instead of what you think they said. If you were present and armed and stood by and let my wife or daughter be raped and/or/brutalized and/or murdered without lifting a finger to help you would have far more to worry about than what the law had to say about the matter. You are pathetic.

You should be the one to protect your family and not depend on the kindness of strangers.

Why isn't your wife trained in the use of a weapon?

And I did read the ruling and what I said is absolutely true.

I've read the ruling also and it did NOT say what you claim. I and my family are far more trained and experienced than you can probably imagine. If you were actually knowledgeable on the subject you would understand that no one is 100% prepared for any possibility 100% of the time and only a fool thinks otherwise. The unexpected can catch up with anyone. I do not rely on the kindness of strangers because I am well aware of entirely self-centered individuals such as yourself. You need to be aware that there are those who would hold you accountable for your lack of action as well as your actions.

The Police are Not Required to Protect You — Barnes Law

To Protect and to Serve” – the ubiquitous creed emblazoned across millions of police cars throughout Los Angeles and indeed the United States. This motto is consistent with the common belief that police officers as well as other law enforcement officers are here to protect us.

www.barneslawllp.com

the United States Constitution does not require law enforcement officers to protect you from other people, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

the Court found that the government had no affirmative duty to protect any person, even a child, from harm by another person

“Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors," stated Chief Justice Rehnquist

You can keep denying it if you want

I think there are two sides of the coin here.

In most cases if you need protection, somebody is breaking the law, and it's a police officers duty to enforce that law.

I'm at a county fair, and some clown who drank too many beers attacks me for whatever reason. A sheriffs deputy is on duty and sees me being attacked. He took an oath of office to enforce the law, and assault is against the law. He's not going to stand there and wait until the guy beats the hell out of me before he arrests him. His duty is to stop the attack AND arrest the attacker.

Or perhaps a police officer sees a child being abducted. You can't kidnap children. It's against the law. The officer has a duty to stop this person breaking the law thus saving the child's life.

I can't think of any situation where if your protection is needed that doesn't involve somebody breaking the law to cause you harm.

Look at some police cars. Many have the motto on the car that says To Serve and Protect. Even if it's not constitutionally mandated for a police officer to protect you, it's part of their job per department policy.

if a person is doing you bodily harm is that not breaking the law cops are supposed to enforce?

SCOTUS has very clearly said that there is no duty to protect anyone from another private person.

And all those police departments that refused to come to the aid of people have department policy as well but if there is no legal obligation the paper those policies are written on are only good for wiping your ass.

 

[Blues Man]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. People have a legal and moral responsibility to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents when it is possible to do so. People unwilling to accept that responsibility are simply a waste of good oxygen.

Wrong

I have no legal obligation to protect the general public from criminals.

SCOTUS has ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so are you trying to tell me that I as a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder have more of an obligation to protect the general public that the police do?

I'm telling you that how you interpret what SCOTUS has ruled is well and truly screwed. No, the police are not obligated to protect everyone everywhere all the time. That is simply recognition of the impossible. Because they simply cannot BE everywhere and know everything all the time. However that does not relieve law enforcement officers the duty of enforcing the law and murder happens to be against the law.
Not being a law enforcement officer does not relieve anyone from the moral obligation to intervene when another person is being subjected to injury or death whether they be armed and/or a permit holder or not. And in some circumstances you can also be held legally responsible. A person who has the chance to help and does not is simply a worthless coward in my opinion whatever the law has to say.
____________________________________________________________
Negligent Death Law and Legal Definition
Negligent death is a civil action which charges another with being liable for injury resulting in another's death by reason of negligent actions or a failure to act which could foreseeably result in death.
____________________________________________________________
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

criminal negligence is a form of - Google Search

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your opinion isn't worth much to me.

And the arbiter of the law of the land has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to render aid to anyone.

you saying SCOTUS is wrong is just another one of your opinions.

And all you need to do to get around that negligence bullshit is to say you didn't get involved because you didn't want to be hurt or killed.

There is not one law on the books that says a civilian must risk his safety to aid another.

I didn't say SCOTUS was wrong I said you are. Try quoting their actual ruling instead of what you think they said. If you were present and armed and stood by and let my wife or daughter be raped and/or/brutalized and/or murdered without lifting a finger to help you would have far more to worry about than what the law had to say about the matter. You are pathetic.

You should be the one to protect your family and not depend on the kindness of strangers.

Why isn't your wife trained in the use of a weapon?

And I did read the ruling and what I said is absolutely true.

And how do you do that? People talk about gun control but the Democrats have already taking that. You may have a gun but what good is it? You are too afraid to use it because the Democrats will arrest you, Someone talks about that guy in Portland you think if he would of been a legal conceal carrier and pulled a gun there and shot his attackers he would of not been arrested AND convicted and called a racist? That situation it should of been perfectly legal for him to shoot them out of self defense. With the other recent cases of people using their guns to protect their home and family and actually showing restraint but yet still get arrested for doing EXACTLY what the 2nd amendment is intended for.
Heck where I live you can have a gun if you register and do a bunch of crap. But once you have it if you do have one you can be arrested and sent to prison for 10 years for something as simple as having a gun in your car that was not in a lockbox. How is that going to help you defend yourself or your family? The Republicans talk about stopping the Dems from taking our 2nd amendment I argue they already took it and we need to fight to get it back.

WTF are you talking about?

I know SCOTUS ruled that police have no legal obligation to render aid and I have posted links proving it.

And I'm not too afraid to use my gun in self defense or the defense of my wife I just won't defend you or anyone else because I am not a cop and if you want to walk around defenseless that's your choice so you can deal with the consequences

I have a concealed carry permit so my gun is always on my person I don't just throw a gun under the seat when I'm driving.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. People have a legal and moral responsibility to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents when it is possible to do so. People unwilling to accept that responsibility are simply a waste of good oxygen.

Wrong

I have no legal obligation to protect the general public from criminals.

SCOTUS has ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so are you trying to tell me that I as a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder have more of an obligation to protect the general public that the police do?

I'm telling you that how you interpret what SCOTUS has ruled is well and truly screwed. No, the police are not obligated to protect everyone everywhere all the time. That is simply recognition of the impossible. Because they simply cannot BE everywhere and know everything all the time. However that does not relieve law enforcement officers the duty of enforcing the law and murder happens to be against the law.
Not being a law enforcement officer does not relieve anyone from the moral obligation to intervene when another person is being subjected to injury or death whether they be armed and/or a permit holder or not. And in some circumstances you can also be held legally responsible. A person who has the chance to help and does not is simply a worthless coward in my opinion whatever the law has to say.
____________________________________________________________
Negligent Death Law and Legal Definition
Negligent death is a civil action which charges another with being liable for injury resulting in another's death by reason of negligent actions or a failure to act which could foreseeably result in death.
____________________________________________________________
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

criminal negligence is a form of - Google Search

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your opinion isn't worth much to me.

And the arbiter of the law of the land has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to render aid to anyone.

you saying SCOTUS is wrong is just another one of your opinions.

And all you need to do to get around that negligence bullshit is to say you didn't get involved because you didn't want to be hurt or killed.

There is not one law on the books that says a civilian must risk his safety to aid another.

I didn't say SCOTUS was wrong I said you are. Try quoting their actual ruling instead of what you think they said. If you were present and armed and stood by and let my wife or daughter be raped and/or/brutalized and/or murdered without lifting a finger to help you would have far more to worry about than what the law had to say about the matter. You are pathetic.

You should be the one to protect your family and not depend on the kindness of strangers.

Why isn't your wife trained in the use of a weapon?

And I did read the ruling and what I said is absolutely true.

And how do you do that? People talk about gun control but the Democrats have already taking that. You may have a gun but what good is it? You are too afraid to use it because the Democrats will arrest you, Someone talks about that guy in Portland you think if he would of been a legal conceal carrier and pulled a gun there and shot his attackers he would of not been arrested AND convicted and called a racist? That situation it should of been perfectly legal for him to shoot them out of self defense. With the other recent cases of people using their guns to protect their home and family and actually showing restraint but yet still get arrested for doing EXACTLY what the 2nd amendment is intended for.
Heck where I live you can have a gun if you register and do a bunch of crap. But once you have it if you do have one you can be arrested and sent to prison for 10 years for something as simple as having a gun in your car that was not in a lockbox. How is that going to help you defend yourself or your family? The Republicans talk about stopping the Dems from taking our 2nd amendment I argue they already took it and we need to fight to get it back.

Like I always say, you get what you vote for.

A gun is only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. In my state, are laws are heavily tilted toward the shooter whereas NCY, even if I had reciprocity there, I would never take my gun yet alone use it.