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.

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........

you forgot to mention If they don't come at all even if you call for help

 

[Gaeandilth]

You know the real reason Democrats want to take your guns? They know damn well their vision of America will not work if the people are armed. But I say let them take our guns and police both like they want to. You know what the first thing I will do? I will take all their shit and will not be a damn thing they can do about it. I will be living in their house on the beach in Florida and make them clean it and mow my yard. How would they stop me?

 

[kaz]

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

Yep. The reality is Billy000 is fighting for only the criminals to have the guns

 

[westwall]

Yes, and you're a moron for even suggesting it.

So what do you think would happen if the Democrats could make all guns illegal? Do you think the criminals would turn their guns in? Of course not. They break laws. That's why they're criminals in the first place.

What we would end up with is a society where only the police and criminals have firearms. The rest of us would be helpless because nobody can open handedly defend themselves from a person with a gun.

Do you think Democrats want to make all guns illegal?

If so, you're wrong.

Yes, ultimately they do. So long as the people have guns they are a threat to the Dem Party.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You know the real reason Democrats want to take your guns? They know damn well their vision of America will not work if the people are armed.

The Democrats don't mind us having guns. What bothers them are we are able to use them for self-defense.

If everybody could take care of themselves, who would need the Democrat party around?

So they take all our firearms, and that leaves only the police and criminals with the guns. Unable to protect ourselves, crime would be out of control. So how does one defend themselves against Big Crime? The same way they defend themselves against Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Business, and that is with a bigger government.

More cops, more lawyers, more courts, more judges......

Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats. It's in their political interests to create more victims and government dependents. So the real reason they want our guns is to expand their tent of victims.