This is a discussion on Self Defense Poll... within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Tubby45 Yes, this is why a lot of "moral" crimes are still illegal. It isn't so much the crime itself, but the ...
The existence of police highly discourages people to provide for their own defense.
The existence of police somewhat discourages people to provide for their own defense.
The existence of police neither encourages nor discourages people from providing their own defense.
The existence of police somewhat encourages people to provide for their own defense.
The existence of police highly encourages people to provide for their own defense.
I look it at it the same as I look at the Santa Claus. It's a dream to think you'll always have some goodies when your a child, and it's also a dream to think the Police will always be there to protect you. There isn't enough money available to pay that many Officer's to stand next to everyone.
Les Baer 45
N.R.A. Patron Life Member
I think most people believe that all they have to do is call 911 and if somebody is breaking in yell out i'm calling the police and the threat will leave or be taken care of which we know is absolutely ridiculous
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .
I voted neither encourages/discourages
I think our gov't in general has gradually discouraged people from thinking for themselves, fixing problems by themselves, and from providing their own defense over the last several decades.
The "general" society's view of firearms has gradually turned negative over the last few decades based on the propoganda of the antis.
as for the response times, etc, I totally agree, only I can provide for me or my family's defense at the point of attack, when the stuff is splattering on the fan
I went on a ride-along with our local PD in March, and I wrote about it in th LEO section of our forum. I was already convinced that we need to be prepared to defend ourselves, but my eyes were opened when I saw how the calls were responded to, in time and priority. When the shots fired calls go out, its still a few minutes before officers are on the scene. (and I'm not bashing LEO, I'm about to become one)
Certified Glock Armorer
"I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?
I voted for "highly discourages", I'm not knocking Leo's, I think they are for the most part dedicated hard working people that want to serve their community in the best way they can. I still have to believe that most people "present company excluded" believe that a quick call to 911 will take care of pretty much any situation, In the words of an anti I wrote to challenge their views on 2A
One of my reasons for owning and carrying guns "Police are not responsible for the individual citizen. (you and me)"
Their replyI live in a rural county that has by their own admission 2-4 deputies on patrol at any one time. We have IIRC 2 state troopers on duty at any one time covering 4+ counties, with one neighboring county not even working their own accidents, I don't expect to have any help on site before any type of true need has been resolved one way or the other. These numbers were given during a Q & A while a in a group or applicants were about to take the written and physical test with the Sheriffs Office. At that time I met several of the deputies, and a couple of the detectives, There wasn't one of them I wouldn't want to respond to a call from us. But in a county that takes 30 minutes at highway speed to drive from one end to the other, and us living at the lesser populated end.Who else should they be responsible for? We pay their salaries, if we call they should show up. If someone's in trouble, and the police can help, they should. If not, we need to put new police officers in place.
I firmly believe that most of the citizens for what little thought they have probably put into it, don't want to believe that they could be on there own, and that it just won't happen to them. By and large
"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand
I wasn't sure how to answer this, took some thinking and brain cells I probably killed off long ago.
When the question asks does the presence of police discourage...
Is that referring to discouraging in the sense of "the police say you shouldn't defend yourself, that is why we are here." or does is indicate "I don't need to defend myself, the cops are only minutes away". Either way I think the combination of the two dictate that the presence of the police discourage it, to a point.
With that said, I am grateful for those who stand and say "I'll stand watch and defend you" and appreciate that the police are there.
"Don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep." - Theodore Roosevelt
If there were enough police to stop all crime and provide all of us constant protection we would be a high end Police State and I would be looking for a country to escape to. I never want the police to have that much power over us.
Colt 1911 New Agent, CTLaser
You do not work for them, they work for you.
I don't believe cops prevent crimes, I believe they respond to them... a good example is the local "stop n robs" etc, how can police actually stop something like this unless they are literally right there as it happened? Rare occurrences, and the norm is if the worst happened, they draw a chalk line around the victims body.
It's a shame some people don't use their intelligence to figure out the obvious, they are responsibly for their own safety.
Sig P220R/Sig P239 (9mm)/ S&W 640/ Ruger Single Six Hunter (.22LR/Mag)/ CZ 452 Varmint .22LR/ Lee Enfield No4 MK2 sporterized dated 1959/ Mosin Nagant M90-30 dated 1942/
-When cocaine was not illegal there was very little, if any, theft by people to support their habit. It was cheap and could be bought at the drugstore. Drugs are only expensive because they are illegal. If supplied legally, supply would increase, the price would come down (called the Law of Supply and Demand), and few people, even the most heavily addicted, would have to steal to support their habit. Also, they wouldn't be street drugs anymore. They'd be supplied by companies who would have a reason to control their quality. The common street thug would have to go and find something else to do, like maybe get an education and a job. Further, since they wouldn't have to worry about being arrested, more drug-addicted people would likely seek treatment, just like alcoholics often do with AA and the like. Narcotics were only made illegal because of scare-tactics like convincing people that cocaine caused black men to indiscriminately rape white women, which was as close to a complete lie as anything can be.
-When alcohol was made illegal, a whole criminal underworld sprang up to supply it on the black market. Once it was de-illegalized, that criminal underworld had to go and find something else to do. Even though alcoholism is as harmful as drug addiction (my dad's family was destroyed by alcoholism), you never hear of alcohol-related violence on the same level as drug-related violence. It would be absurd. Coors employees don't do drive-by's on Budweiser plants.
-Why are fully-automatic weapons so expensive? Because they are, for the most part, illegal. A severely restricted supply increases the price, just like for every other good ever known to exist in the history of the world.
FWIW, we can argue all we want, but the above rationales are well-known to be economic fact. Government prohibition of something distasteful doesn't eliminate it, it just forces it underground, where it becomes more expensive and inspires crimes over territory, procurement, etc. Drugs are no different. Additionally, while I hate drugs and think they are terrible to put into one's body, I do not have the right to force my decision on anyone else, and neither do our "elected" officials have that right.
Well I see this was really a drug thread from the start. I think boiling it down to pure economics is over-simplifying it.
If we assume that the cost of crack, smack, weed and speed goes down if the supply increases, it is also logical to assume that demand will increase. If dope costs a dollar per hit and 'it's legal' and 'it's fun' and 'everybody's doing it', how long will it be before a large part of the population succumbs to addiction?
Why go to work when you could just do one more hit. It's only a buck on the Mickey D's breakfast menu. Oh crap, you were supposed to be at work 3 hours ago. Now you have no job and you can't pass a drug test. You want drugs. You need drugs. You'd commit a crime to get high.
How many drug addicts have you ever known that you would hire?
The word "discourages" can be taken several ways.
Some people let their guards down because there are police, and I expect some leave their guns at home because there are police. How many? Depends on how much crime they have heard of recently.
But, "discourages" sounds active, and my initial reading of the question translated to "police discourage carry", and that is not true. I had to see how many ways it could be interpreted.