Can the police protect you from crime

I take it republican politicians do not have armed security guarding them?????

 

Of course they do. They are not infringing on second amendment rights like Democrats. Gun laws only provide killers with easy victims.

Out of curiosity, where do you draw the line on guns?

 

Honestly, I think double barrel shotguns, single bolt action Rifles and musketry meet the second amendment requirements.

 

Cartridge shotguns and bolt action rifles came later. It appears you are okay with including advancing technology that increases the rate of fire. What about a straight-pull bolt action? (One less step than standard bolt action)

 

so do I. Along with AR15 and AKs with 30 round mag. Glocks with 30 rd mags. Barrett50cal. Sniper rifles.
Machines guns and other various Hi capacity and hi powered weapons.

 

Guns are only a false sense of security. If someone wants you dead, ain't a damn thing a gun can do about that ! There is NO defense against an ambush.

 

I take no position either way on this.

 

Yes, you're right in that there's little you can do if you are effectively ambushed.

I know because I was ambushed by 4 guys with knives on a woodland path and felt that it was wiser to hand over my pitiful $37- than to try to Kung Fu my out of the predicament.
As they were leaving, I did manage to find a formidable, 4' long, hardwood branch and chase them through a Greyhound bus station where it was just as well that I lost sight of them.

Anyway, what you seem to be describing is an assassination and you're right, too, in that all you can hope for is that he misses.

The reason I am responding is to point out that guns provide more than a false sense of security since ambushes / assassinations are only a fraction of the threats that the average citizen faces.

In the three instances when I have had to deploy a firearm, I had adequate notice beforehand to chamber a round, take cover or otherwise prepare for an altercation.

I also don't feel that the HK45 I keep on my bedside table provides only a false sense of security since my dogs provide plenty of warning in the event of an attempted home invasion etc.

I'm sure that other readers could provide additional examples but I simply think that there are ample exceptions to your opinion that: "Guns are only a false sense of security."

Thanks,

 

Perhaps you can ask @Pixie if I remember correctly she has expressed that sentiment before

 

gang members shoot each other over beefs territory dru8gs and plain stupidty

 

I think that it is noteworthy that at the time the 2nd Amendment was established, everyday citizens were allowed to own firearms just as sophisticated and advanced as the firearms issued to America's military.

 

So what you’re saying is guns don’t actually make things safer?

 

It appears he’s saying don’t be a gang banger if you wish for a long life.

 

Actually I have read somewhere that the courts have ruled that LEO and EMS people have no duty to protect you generally unless it is a special circumstance like you are already in their custody or control.

 

But guns are safe and make everyone safer and stop the evil evil government from infringing upon the rights of gangs. Shouldn't gang violence decrease with the more access to guns they have?

 

The invention of the cartridge and rifling greatly increased accuracy, reliability, and rate of fire. There is a big difference between muskets and those firearms on your list. It appears that you have no problem with technology that came after the second amendment was written. Of course, its just an opinion, so my only response will be "fair enough"

While you may draw the line based on mechanics, I draw the line based on human behavior. Today, any amateur machinist can produce a firearm. 3D printers can make AR15 receivers for every criminal and gang member. Gun laws only provide these criminals with easy victims.

We cannot erase advances in technology and we cannot erase history. When is comes to mass murder, government leads by a huge margin and their victims are unarmed.

Gun control is not from a position of concern for human life. While I believe you have a genuine concern, that concern is being exploited by politicians and enjoy the luxury of armed security and safe neighborhoods.

 

Gun control does not limit access for criminals; only their victims. When is comes to mass murder, government is the main offender and unarmed people is their main victim.

 

It is so confusing to me that people who feel the need to carry a gun with them everywhere they go, claim that people who wear masks are living in fear.

 

Let me clear it up for you. Guns are effective; masks are not.

 

Effective at what? Stopping people from being victims of a crime, 98% of which will never even be in a situation where they are a victim of a crime, and even if they are exposed to a crime, having a gun isn't 100% effective at ensuring they won't become a victim.

it actually sounds quite a bit like covid.

 

Thats irrelevant because it doesn’t matter. We have a case with gangs to show whether or not more guns means less death. After all, shouldn’t more guns in the hands of gangs increase the risk of using them? And even then, show me where access to guns means fewer civilian deaths by the hands of the government. BLM literally sprung up because the government thought people had “guns” and needed to kill to protect themselves.

 

.

 

So, I guess BLM was right after all !!!

 

I see what you did there. Clever. Gun control does not affect gang members; only their innocent victims.

More guns in the hands of non-violent people is unsafe for criminals, killers, and rapists.

Odd that you would bring up BLM considering their position on abuse of power by law enforcement. Do you think cops should be the only ones with guns?

When it comes to mass murder, democide leads by a huge margin.

 

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. If they were about opposing abuse of power by law enforcement, I would support them.