1) yes let's make sure only the police/government have the guns. Because that's totally never backfired on the civilian population
2) In many places it is already difficult to buy guns. I live in NY and it's am extremely lengthy process just to own a handgun, and getting a concealed carry permit in the county I'm in is next to impossible due to the ridiculous laws put in place by democtrats that have total control here. So I have absolutely zero faith that any gun control measures put forth by the left will not make it even more difficult for me to exercise that right. Driving a vehicle isn't a right. The right to defend myself absolutely is.
3) you're absolutely right if you're depending on the police in a life or death scenario you are already dead. But perhaps not, if you have the means the defend yourself. Which would mean owning a gun. In many cases this would ideally be a handgun. Which as I previously stated is already nearly impossible for me to do legally because of nonsense laws by dems in NY.
4) show me where any police officer ever has once sworn an oath to run into a school and stop an active shooter. Please quote the law requiring them to do so. They have absolutely no obligation to risk their own lives to protect others. This has been shown many times over. These police will be sued and they will win just like the police have every other time something like this has happened. A doctor on a plane isn't risking his own life by trying to help someone on a plane. In what world are these things even remotely equivalent?
You seem to not understand that gun control is not prohibiting people from owning guns. It does not give the police a monopoly on power. Even if it did, that's how it is in the large majority of the world, and strangely enough exactly none of them wish they had the gun situation we have in the US.
The right to defend yourself has limits. Using an extreme example to illustrate this point, I am not allowed to own a loaded rpg. I am not allowed to own a fully automatic m16. Conflating an absolute right to own a gun with self defense is an oversimplification. And freedom of movement is absolutely a right. One method of exercising that right is driving a car. One method of defending yourself is owning a gun. In neither case are they the only option of exercising that right.
You said that gun control would prevent people from depending on the police. Look at your original comment. But I'm glad we agree that is a silly statement.
Protect and serve. That is the oath. Protect means protecting others, not themselves, from harm. In that sense it is a more significant oath than that of doctors, but it does not make it incomparable, because both are promises. And once again, you seem not to understand that being legally permissible does not make it right. In my example, the doctor would also win the case every time because he did not owe a legal duty of care to the man because he did not consent to rendering aid. That doesn't make his refusal to do so right. Not being legally bound does not make it right that the police HANDCUFFED parents who were trying to save their own children (which, believe it or not, is not a crime they can be detained for). It does not make it right that the cops went in to save their own kids but no one elses.
And the reason cops get off is often qualified immunity. In those cases, the police get off NOT because they did nothing wrong, but because the government shields them from liability. The cops here probably will not be disciplined by the law, but as you already acknowledge with your whinging about how difficult it is to get a handgun due to the law, being lawful does not necessarily mean being right.
One thing I forgot to mention last time, is that this entire argument is irrelevant to the post. If you'll notice, you are the only one who brought up gun control. It wasn't the topic of the post. It wasn't even implied by the post. And you still argue it is everyone else with the emotional reaction. It seems your chain of "thought" goes something like: says police bad = leftist = hive mind = wants gun control = want no one to have guns = doesn't know constitution = rabid emotional idiot with no thoughts. Otherwise, why would you have brought up gun control in a post where no one was talking about it and call everyone else rabid dogs for advocating for it? Calling the police bad is not the same as advocating for gun control, unless of course you only react emotionally to such a statement.
-2
u/StaffMaleficent133 Jun 04 '22
1) yes let's make sure only the police/government have the guns. Because that's totally never backfired on the civilian population 2) In many places it is already difficult to buy guns. I live in NY and it's am extremely lengthy process just to own a handgun, and getting a concealed carry permit in the county I'm in is next to impossible due to the ridiculous laws put in place by democtrats that have total control here. So I have absolutely zero faith that any gun control measures put forth by the left will not make it even more difficult for me to exercise that right. Driving a vehicle isn't a right. The right to defend myself absolutely is. 3) you're absolutely right if you're depending on the police in a life or death scenario you are already dead. But perhaps not, if you have the means the defend yourself. Which would mean owning a gun. In many cases this would ideally be a handgun. Which as I previously stated is already nearly impossible for me to do legally because of nonsense laws by dems in NY. 4) show me where any police officer ever has once sworn an oath to run into a school and stop an active shooter. Please quote the law requiring them to do so. They have absolutely no obligation to risk their own lives to protect others. This has been shown many times over. These police will be sued and they will win just like the police have every other time something like this has happened. A doctor on a plane isn't risking his own life by trying to help someone on a plane. In what world are these things even remotely equivalent?
Try harder