Gun control - Why punish the law abiding rather than the criminals?

So you like the idea of police shooting people.... Just shows your basic statist tendencies, like most anti-gunners.

 

Then get rid of the armed police. The UK was far safer when British subjects were armed and the police were not.

 

Texas will never permit private policing.

 

I like the idea of police protecting themselves, you bet. I am no more statist than are you. My common sense works very well. The leges and the cops will not tolerate an "active good guy" on the scene unless they know who he is for sure.

Your duty is to hunker down and protect your few square yards and they people in it. The police will probably let you live if you do that.

 

Pray tell, exactly what is this "private policing" that is constantly being referred to on the part of yourself? Explain such.

 

Pray tell how is it possible you aren’t able to figure it out?

 

On the basis the term is vague, subjective, and highly dependent upon the interpretation of the individual repeating the phrase without even knowing what they are attempting to speak about.

 

Overpowered? AR15's? smh...

 

Nah...not really. It’s pretty damn straight forward.

 

If the phrase "self policing" is truly so straightforward, then elaborate on precisely what it does mean within the context of this discussion.

 

No, need to, Xenamnes, because it is straight forward. What do you not understand?

 

Clearly he's just trolling

 

Yes good guys are tolerated. And encouraged. By good law enforcement. The biggest trainer of concealed carry applicants here is a high ranking state patrol officer. Everyone who attends his classes knows how to handle encounters involving good armed sworn and unsworn individuals at an active crime scene. What’s interesting is it’s all common sense and even states with constitutional carry do not have the problems you predict.

I have been instructed over the phone by the Sheriff dept. to use a a firearm in the interest of public safety to perform an act punishable by $1000 fine and a year in jail if performed under normal circumstances. You telling me law enforcement doesn’t want good guys with guns?

Your assertions here are uninformed hyperbole.

 

No, good law enforcement does not tolerate John Rambos taking the law into their own hands.

What good law enforcement wants is John Rambo to hunker down and defend his little patch, and do what the police tell him to do without argument.

>>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<<

 

The issue with the notion of ‘self-policing’ is the community (gun owners) is too large.

Plus it’s currently a community of excuse-makers, e.g “we can’t be held accountable for the ‘mentally ill’ within our community.”

Self-policing would require stepping up and taking responsibility for their community. It ain’t going to happen.

A trait the gun community shares with their corporate brethren: they want freedom without responsibility. Everyone else should clean up their mess.

IMO it’s past time we drop the tough love hammer. They’ve got to grow up sometime and NOW is as good a time as any.

Plus, **** with the whining. You used the rope to hang yourself.

 

It is time for the gun community to start acting responsibly.

 

557, you clearly do not understand LEO, its role, and how it operates.

My 'crap hole' is up in the sky in a wonderful high rise condo. We have eleven acres down in Iron County. We are doing well.

We have a good LEO, and we support it. They do a pretty good job protecting our society with tolerating the mythical nonsense of "a good guy with a gun."

 

I like the idea of the police supporting and protecting citizens. That you do not just shows your basic anarcho-libertarian philosophy. I have a CCW. Unlike many, I understand the responsibilities and consequences of it completely.

 

Why don’t you back up your claims on law enforcement with substance. Your claims so far are easily demonstrated to be false based on written law. Tell us all how law enforcement really works.

Are your law enforcement bad guys or unarmed? By your definitions they must be one or the other.

 

You made the challenge, 557, so start backing up the claims with substance.

You have not demonstrated anything false at this point.

Your fallacy of false definition is obvious.

 

I cited my state laws. They are in direct conflict with your claim we are to hunker down and let law enforcement protect or not protect us as is their right by law. It has been confirmed in federal court multiple times your protection is not the responsibility of law enforcement unless you are in their custody. The last time this was confirmed was after the Stoneman/Douglas school shooting.

You claim I’m in error on the role of law enforcement yet have not said how or made substantive counter claims. Tell us what their role is.

 

You gave your opinion. So give us the state law, verbatim, that says you are to go out rambo'ing for the bad guy(s).

You have a right to defend yourself, not go on the offensive like die hard.

You have opined but made no substantial statements, 557. Get to it.

 

I’ve never said anything about rambo’ing. That’s all your false premise. I’m not interested in your false premises. I’m interested in you showing me where I’m in error. Saying I am doesn’t make it so.

Here is my state’s law on firearm use.

Self-defense is a topic often associated with firearms, particularly handguns. The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes defense of person and property as a valid exercise of one’s constitutional right to bear arms.23
Nebraska law allows for the use of force, including deadly force, to protect oneself, another, or one’s property.24 Deadly force is defined as force used with the purpose of causing or creating a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. Firing a firearm in the direction of another person or at occupied vehicles constitutes deadly force.
The use of force is justified if an individual believes it is immediately necessary to defend himself or herself against unlawful force by another.
The use of deadly force is justified if an individual believes it necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, or sexual assault
compelled by force or threat. Deadly force is not justified if the individual initially provoked the situation or can avoid using deadly force by retreating, by surrendering possession of an object to a person exerting a claim to
it, or by complying with an order to abstain from doing something which the individual has no right to do.
However, persons have no duty to retreat when accosted in their homes or workplaces, unless they were the initial aggressor or, in the latter case, the other party has a right to be in the workplace.
Deadly force is justifiable for protection of property under two scenarios: (1) To prevent someone from unlawfully taking possession of one’s home; or (2) to prevent an arson, burglary, robbery, or other felonious theft or property destruction, when deadly force has been used or threatened and not responding with deadly force would expose anyone present to substantial danger of serious bodily harm.

Waiting for you to back up your claims on the responsibilities of law enforcement.

 

No state laws, no objective evidence. 557, you need to fill your obligation.

 

Pray tell, precisely how is the concept of personal defense regarded as someone "taking the law into their own hands"? How are the two even remotely related to one another? Explain such.