Poll: Research on the Police has shown....

[David VanDusen]

I'll keep it short because people don't like to be destoryed by walls of text.

I've noticed in the last few years that gamers are a very very fickle former subculture. That is why I actually would like to have their opinion on this matter.

I just got done doing a little research for a speech class, and in the process I discovered something I had only ever heard in rumors or passing but never took the time to personally look into. As it turns out, via local courts and the United States Supreme Court, the Police in the United States are not legally nor do they have a "Consitutional Duty" to protect the people.

Simple google searches can provide dozens of case info pages so I won't ramble, but it does force the hand of that other discussion which is so popular here which is Gun Control. I've noticed that a lot of people from other countries have an even stronger negative opinion about Gun Control and the rampart problem in the US than liberals here do.

What I wonder via everyones thoughts is whether or not the problem is too few trained armed citizens (which is a constitutional right here and strongly supported and dictated by the founding fathers) or the absence of police obligated by law and review to do a proper job (or in general) of protecting the public.

Any thoughts?

 

[Soviet Steve]

Do you have a source?

 

[shadyh8er]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

 

[Phishfood]

Well, here's the thing. Police are not robots. Assimov's first law of robotics does not apply.

The reason they aren't legally required to protect people is so that they can also protect themselves. I'm assuming you are talking in a physical sense here because of the mention of guns.

I have more, but dinner is ready.

 

[isometry]

I've seen this argument before from pro-gun people. Their claim that the police are "not legally obligated to protect us" is based on something we all know, which is that we can't sue the police or the government when they fail us.

It's a misleading argument, since the police officers are sworn to uphold the law, so it is the duty of the police to protect us. It's just not a legally obligated duty, meaning we can't sue them if they fail to protect us.

Anyway, gun control is good and misleading right-wing propaganda is bad. There are no cited sources because only right-wing pro-gun organizations talk about this "not legally obligated to protect us", but that would give away the game.

 

[kouriichi]

Its very simple when you think about it.

Having government and state controlled police forces are nice. But whoever they are, theyre still human. Capable of being a-holes and wanting nothing more then to put a bullet in someone's head because they got flipped the bird.

And citizens have the right to protect themselves. Its impossible to stop gangs, thief's or murderers from getting guns. Having armed citizens goes all the way back in human history.

We have to have both. If police do get out of control, citizens need to be able to protect themselves. If citizens get out of control, we need police to keep order.

Its a comfortable balance between the two that need to be reached.

 

[Limecake]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

I don't follow your logic, if everyone is armed wouldn't the criminals have them too? not to mention most gun related deaths are by accident anyway. and what about the people who are not able to afford guns, is it free reign on them?

It's the police, the great thing about living in the first world is that we have systems in place to make sure the people we put in charge of 'protecting and serving' actually do those things.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

At what point are we allowed to declare all gun-control related threads as automatic flame-bait?

There is a sensible and rational discussion to be had here, but it's not going to be had, and it never will be had, and even in the greatest halls of American power it is not had because there is far more to it than the issue of whether citizens should be armed or not. All that pride you place in a two-hundred years out of date document, all the crazed rednecks who'd storm Washington if guns were controlled even a little better than they are now, all the politicians who will say the opposite of one side just to be contrary instead of any rational reason for disagreement.

I'm going to get quoted for saying this a lot, I can tell, mostly by people screaming that the debate needs to be had because dammit this is a constitutional right but frankly I'm bored of the whole argument.

Here's an idea America. Arm every single citizen with a large bore shotgun then stand back and wait. Once you've solved the problem of global overcrowding on your own the rest of us can go back to not giving a shit about what you do in your country.

I'll be back in six pages to see if a single rational argument has come out of this thread, or if it's been locked for devolving into one side whining about 'constitutional rights' and the other side whining about 'maybe if not everyone was allowed to be armed then the criminals wouldn't have weapons and thus the citizens wouldn't need weapons to defend themselves.'

 

[shadyh8er]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

I don't follow your logic, if everyone is armed wouldn't the criminals have them too? not to mention most gun related deaths are by accident anyway. and what about the people who are not able to afford guns, is it free reign on them?

It's the police, the great thing about living in the first world is that we have systems in place to make sure the people we put in charge of 'protecting and serving' actually do those things.

Criminals will have guns regardless of what laws are in place. Because that's what criminals do, break the law. And let's be honest here, chances are someone who can't afford a gun probably won't have anything worth stealing. Just saying.

And cops are all still human. They can't be everywhere at once, so they can't stop every crime that goes on.

As for accidental deaths, I'm willing to bet that most of them are due to lack of knowledge on the respect that guns need to be treated with.

 

[Phishfood]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

Bullshit. It just means that the criminals with guns are more likely to shoot you in case you are going for your gun. It also increases the odds of when someone goes off the chain, they can get a gun and shoot people. America does not have a good crime rate.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

An armed society is a polite society.

I say both. People dedicated to their jobs, and people who still have an ability to defend themselves.

 

[MurderousToaster]

Research on the Police has shown that:

Every breath you take, every move you make, every step you take, they'll be watchin' you.

You shouldn't stand so close to them.

Women called Roxanne do not, in fact, have to wear that dress tonight.

Seriously, though, I have no idea on the actual topic. Since I live in the UK, the concept of armed citizenry is relatively alien to me.

 

[shadyh8er]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

It also increases the odds of when someone goes off the chain, they can get a gun and shoot people.

But if the people that "off the chain" person is shooting had guns, they could shoot back.

 

[MysticToast]

Research on the Police has shown that:

Every breath you take, every move you make, every step you take, they'll be watchin' you.

You shouldn't stand so close to them.

Women called Roxanne do not, in fact, have to wear that dress tonight.

Seriously, though, I have no idea on the actual topic. Since I live in the UK, the concept of armed citizenry is relatively alien to me.

Ladies and gentlemen, the /thread

*applause*

 

[Eat Uranium]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

10 The more civilians are armed, the more criminals feel the need to be armed;
20 The more criminals are armed, the more civilians feel the need to be armed;
30 ++ARMED_CRIME;
40 IF (Everyone armed == TRUE) END;
50 GO TO 10;

You either don't run the program, or you run it to completion.

 

[Smooth Operator]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

Nope, crime will always happen, getting more people armed will just result in more shootings and casualties.

But I understand the "more guns = good" education runs deep in America so we really won't change any hearths and minds here.

 

[shadyh8er]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

Nope, crime will always happen, getting more people armed will just result in more shootings and casualties.

But I understand the "more guns = good" education runs deep in America so we really won't change any hearths and minds here.

That's why I said "less" crime, not "no" crime.

 

[Terminate421]

Im pro guns. Why? Because the police are still human. If someone attacks me, I want the legal ability to level the playing field. Gun control laws don't do shit, because CRIMINALS will still break the law and use them.