I believe there was a quote from Thomas Jefferson on the subject that said something along the lines of "the second amendment won't be necessary until the government tries to take it." Or at least that's what it essentially implied. There's a reason loose gun laws lower crime rates. I'm all for class licenses and such, but registration and bannings are a joke.
There's a reason loose gun laws lower crime rates.
Do they? I haven't really looked at any studies in a long time, but the last time I did, they mostly seemed to be conflicting. It seems difficult to actually measure this, but my general impression was that there isn't really a distinct correlation. If you have any salient studies or articles supporting your statement, I'd be interested in reading them.
What about the right to arm bears?
Yes, I think that should happen. Please make that happen.
I do not own a gun because a travel so much. But once my traveling dies down, I do plan to purchase two handguns. One near my bed and one in my kitchen area because I am in my kitchen most of the time.
These are points that I agree with.
Why have we let our government legislate us into becoming potential victims? Criminals have guns while law-abiding citizens are left helpless.
Any gun control that restricts law-abiding citizens is ridiculous - we're not the people who commit crimes.
Finally, police cannot protect citizens, and even if they could, they do not have an obligation to do so. One must accept responsibility for one's own security.
all agreed. and someone who trains "peace officers" in the states...the ones in my area wont be called. they cant hit the broad side of a barn and will just accidentally shoot my wife, dog, turtle, fish tank.... then sprinkle some crack on all of us and say they stopped a drug deal
The frame up would probably work pretty well too: turtles are notorious for dealing the crack rock.
Sounds like the problem, in your area, isn't a question of gun-control or -ownership but an issue with a) a poorly motivated/corrupt police force OR b) a big case of anti-police confirmation bias.
neither. i was sarcastically referring to the 20 years of training military and police in firearms. as well as pointing out sophie's last comment about what police officers in the U.S. are obligated to do, to "protect and serve" is not one of them. thats a post riot marketing slogan.
The poor marksmanship of many people who are required to be professionally armed goes to poor motivation, I think, but I get what you're saying.
As I asked Sophie, though - if the police do not have an obligation to protect the citizenry, what ARE they obligated to do?
in short? arrest people for crimes, or detain them if they have reasonable proof they committed one. this should not be confused with protecting you. in all the tv and movies this country has exported have you ever heard the phrase "anything you say can be used AGAINST you in the court of law". it is a literal explanation that nothing you say will be used FOR YOU in a court of law. hence arresting criminals or detaining suspected criminals DOES NOT translate to protecting the individual, any individual... if you decide to do any research, you should conclude that police for the most part here
a) not here to protect any individual citizen (warren v d.c.), and
b) speaking to the police is of absolute no benefit without retained counsel.
sad as it may sound. sophie is right, you are on your own. if you ever have to defend yourself....in the u.s.....remember this:
I have always found that video to be very informative.
There is one occasion when you should consider talking to the police...when you have a need to protect evidence and identify witnesses, to prove your innocence.