SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
I went to the gun control forum held last night (1.10.2013) at the county administrative building. I waited almost 3 hours to speak. My turn FINALLY came and I had a chance to express my opinion to my representatives.
I got up to the microphone and said, "Hi, my name is Edward Mendoza. I am a resident of Santa Rosa. I would like to ask you, please, to support:
- Criminal background checks for ALL gun sales, including private sales.
- Ban ALL assault weapons, including high-capacity magazines.
- And to make gun trafficking a federal crime.
Thank you."
As I left the crowded forum, at least 3 people enthusiastically shook my hand and said thank you. There were other verbal thank you's as I exited.
There were so many people who attended that there was hardly any standing room outside the forum, anywhere in the large, crowded hallway. There was even an auxiliary room where people could sit and watch the forum take place via CCTV, and that room was also crowded. The forum room itself was a huge can of sardines and many people were standing all along the walls. The hallway had about 30 or 40 seats, all full.
The great majority of this audience, however, unlike myself and a few others, were overwhelmingly an NRA audience. There were some very astonishing things said, including one man who spoke into the mic and accused the public leaders there of preparing a war against American citizens because the federal government had purchased several million rounds of ammunition recently. Needless to say, Ron Paul's name was invoked several times throughout the evening as the many pro-gun speakers got their turn.
Mind you, among the public leaders present, there was also a high-ranking, local police official, a man who has dedicated his life to protecting the public; he was at the receiving end of that accusation of "...preparing to declare war on American citizens." Shocking and pathetic.
I know for a fact that there are police, around the country as well as in Sonoma County, that have committed grave errors in carrying out their duties, and some of those errors have resulted in unwarranted deaths. Those issues need to be dealt with. And in quite a few cases police have even committed horrible crimes themselves. These issues need to be dealt with also.
However, it is a scandalous stretch to accuse our public leaders of wanting to systematically slaughter American citizens like Hitler and Stalin did, which is the accusation that flew around the forum many, many times for almost 3 hours last night. I feel sorry for our public leaders who had to sit through these outrageous insults. Mike Thompson is a decorated combat veteran. He has a Purple Heart. And for someone like him to have to listen, again and again and again, of wanting to subvert his country's democracy and mass murder his own citizens is truly sad and shameful.
There were A LOT of extremist, kooky statements made and I seriously question the mental state of a significant number of people who are AGAINST gun control, especially my having endured the flood of quasi-schizophrenic diatribe last night.
Furthermore, one of the most common red-herrings tossed around by the anti-gun control crowd was that mental health services were lacking. I couldn't agree more, especially with the number of obviously delusional people who spoke. But adequate mental health services are NOT the reason why we have gun violence in the United States. The reason we have so many dead people every year in the US is because we have too many guns freely available to anyone.
Other red herrings included scapegoating video games, a lack of god and religious faith in the U.S., satanic rock music, and more. All of them nonsense. I'm atheist and I don't need to believe in something that doesn't exist in the first place in order to be a good person or to not go around with a gun shooting people. I don't own a gun.
Additionally, the same conservative sector that was yelling and screaming last night in favor of better mental health services is the same crowd who doesn't want "Obamacare." What gives with this contradiction? The Right Wing always behaves in this same hypocritical fashion.
One speaker stated that the the 2nd Amendment doesn't give us the right to bear arms because it is God who gives us that right. Some people laughed out loud. Many speakers were downright rude and disrespectful with the public officeholders present at the forum, including making false claims and accusations, and taking more time than the stipulated 1.5 minutes. It scares me that these characters all have guns. I feel LESS safe, not more, knowing that all of the NRA radicals are armed to the teeth, right here in Sonoma County, in our neighborhoods.
Another speaker told the public officials at the forum that if they dared enact any gun control laws that they would be responsible when the public rose up against them and put a noose around their necks. This only serves to expose the pro-gun community's attitudes for what they are: extremist, fanatic, and unacceptable; a clear example of what today's society is fighting against and does not want. These unreasonably radical pro-gun positions enable more mass murders like the one in Columbine, Connecticut, etc, etc, etc.
But we will have gun control because the majority of Americans want it. And we will win and we will defeat the NRA and the weapons industry and the gun lobby, and other corporate interests who benefit from the deaths of thousands of Americans every year. We shall overcome, much to their dismay and disbelief.
Edward
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
I was at the meeting last night also. I was saddened to see how well the turn out was for the NRA. They are well organized. We need to find a way to be as well organized and verbal. I've been trying to find a group of local, like minded people to get together with to work for gun regulations.
I'd love to hear from anyone who has started a group, is already a member of some group, or who would like to work with me on forming a group.
Regards,
Shirley
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
I went to the gun control forum held last night (1.10.2013) at the county administrative building. I waited almost 3 hours to speak. My turn FINALLY came and I had a chance to express my opinion to my representatives.
I got up to the microphone and said, "Hi, my name is Edward Mendoza. I am a resident of Santa Rosa. I would like to ask you, please, to support:
- Criminal background checks for ALL gun sales, including private sales.
- Ban ALL assault weapons, including high-capacity magazines.
- And to make gun trafficking a federal crime.
Thank you."
As I left the crowded forum, at least 3 people enthusiastically shook my hand and said thank you. There were other verbal thank you's as I exited.
...
The great majority of this audience, however, unlike myself and a few others, were overwhelmingly an NRA audience. There were some very astonishing things said,
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
Thank you, Shirley.
I would very much like to help you organize a gun control group.
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by chani:
I was at the meeting last night also. I was saddened to see how well the turn out was for the NRA. They are well organized. We need to find a way to be as well organized and verbal. I've been trying to find a group of local, like minded people to get together with to work for gun regulations.
I'd love to hear from anyone who has started a group, is already a member of some group, or who would like to work with me on forming a group.
Regards,
Shirley
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
Red herring defined:
- Something, esp. a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting: "the book is fast-paced and full of red herrings"
So, people talking about mental health at a gun control forum could be a bit off of the topic. however, talking about mental health with relation to school shootings is necessary. check out this article with facts on the matter:https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/...pree-shooters/
Quote:
Furthermore, one of the most common red-herrings tossed around by the anti-gun control crowd was that mental health services were lacking. I couldn't agree more, especially with the number of obviously delusional people who spoke. But adequate mental health services are NOT the reason why we have gun violence in the United States. The reason we have so many dead people every year in the US is because we have too many guns freely available to anyone.
Other red herrings included scapegoating video games, a lack of god and religious faith in the U.S., satanic rock music, and more. All of them nonsense. I'm atheist and I don't need to believe in something that doesn't exist in the first place in order to be a good person or to not go around with a gun shooting people. I don't own a gun.
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
And there will be people who stand up for the 2nd amendment even if you don't. As Kitty Werthmann wrote in growing up in Austria before and during WWII "…Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns.
Most citizens were law-abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long afterwards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.
“No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.
“Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.”
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
I went to the gun control forum held last night (1.10.2013) at the county administrative building. I waited almost 3 hours to speak. My turn FINALLY came and I had a chance to express my opinion to my representatives.
I got up to the microphone and said, "Hi, my name is Edward Mendoza. I am a resident of Santa Rosa. I would like to ask you, please, to support:
- Criminal background checks for ALL gun sales, including private sales.
- Ban ALL assault weapons, including high-capacity magazines.
- And to make gun trafficking a federal crime.
Thank you."
...
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
[SIZE=2]I went to the gun control forum held last night (1.10.2013) at the county administrative building. I waited almost 3 hours to speak. My turn FINALLY came and I had a chance to express my opinion to my representatives.
I got up to the microphone and said, "Hi, my name is Edward Mendoza. I am a resident of Santa Rosa. I would like to ask you, please, to support:
- Criminal background checks for ALL gun sales, including private sales.
- Ban ALL assault weapons, including high-capacity magazines.
- And to make gun trafficking a federal crime.
Thank you."
......There were some very astonishing things said, including one man who spoke into the mic and accused the public leaders there of preparing a war against American citizens because the federal government had purchased several million rounds of ammunition recently.....
.....among the public leaders present, there was also a high-ranking, local police official, a man who has dedicated his life to protecting the public; he was at the receiving end of that accusation of "...preparing to declare war on American citizens." Shocking and pathetic.......
........it is a scandalous stretch to accuse our public leaders of wanting to systematically slaughter American citizens like Hitler and Stalin did, which is the accusation that flew around the forum many, many times for almost 3 hours last night. I feel sorry for our public leaders who had to sit through these outrageous insults. .......
........There were A LOT of extremist, kooky statements made and I seriously question the mental state of a significant number of people who are AGAINST gun control, especially my having endured the flood of quasi-schizophrenic diatribe last night........
..........Other red herrings included scapegoating video games, a lack of god and religious faith in the U.S., satanic rock music, and more. All of them nonsense. I'm atheist and I don't need to believe in something that doesn't exist in the first place in order to be a good person or to not go around with a gun shooting people.......
......Additionally, the same conservative sector that was yelling and screaming last night in favor of better mental health services is the same crowd who doesn't want "Obamacare." What gives with this contradiction? The Right Wing always behaves in this same hypocritical fashion.........
.....Another speaker told the public officials at the forum that if they dared enact any gun control laws that they would be responsible when the public rose up against them and put a noose around their necks. This only serves to expose the pro-gun community's attitudes for what they are: extremist, fanatic, and unacceptable......
Edward
Seems preposterous, doesn’t it Edward?
But you were vastly outnumbered for a reason. Thank you very much for the report, it was impressive.
You were surrounded by people who know that analyzing world events according to what mass media says as if the mass media is broadcasting anything factual whatsoever is now obsolete.
I don’t hear a word from you responding to any of the concepts likely motivating these speakers that has been offered to you as in the MK ULTRA program, documented false flags, manchurian candidates, who owns mass media outlets and it’s long and constant use to propagate blatant lies... and manufactured events... to manipulate opinion and facts and push self-serving agendas... including all day today.
The majority in that room were well aware of your data and analysis, but you have no interest in theirs. You chose instead to ridicule them.
The internet has blown open a world of long suppressed dangerous and paradigm shifting information.
Some have taken the time to look, most have not.
Yes it’s hard work to sift through the maze of very crafty disinfo to isolate truth and it takes a LOT of time.
But the doors have been blown open for a while now, and a lot of incredibly intelligent and grounded people have done a lot of the work for you already and are moving forward into what would be even more preposterous true things to you probably.
To us who have done this homework and are no longer questioning the substantiated new data - and are analyzing issues and world events through this updated information - you look like someone stuck in a time warp still adamantly insisting the Earth is flat and ridiculing anyone who says differently.
You are not alone. Many are so threatened by the seeming danger and ugliness of the new data that they choose to totally ignore it, defend the outdated data to death and ridicule the messengers.
I guess history tells us this is normal procedure for replacing long embedded paradigms.
So be it, but it also takes courage and you found yourself outnumbered by many solidly on that path, Edward.
Thank you Wacco questioners, thinkers, all the people at the meeting - all potential 100th monkeys - who are taking the time do their homework and make a difference by doing when the opportunity arises or even just re-thinking, which is also helpful doing.
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
Salon.com published the following article on FRIDAY, JAN 11, 2013
The Hitler gun control lie
Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong
BY ALEX SEITZ-WALD
https://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/sto..._about_hitler/
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
I would like to repeat here my suggestiont that gun ownership be directly linked to service in the National Guard. Service (6 months/ 1year?) leads to the right to own a checked and licensed gun. Without service only hunting with a few bullets would be permitted. This fulfills the second ammendment and instills the responsibility that comes from wishing to excersice ones' rights.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
Thank you, Shirley.
I would very much like to help you organize a gun control group.
Edward
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
I was so aghast by this article, the conclusions this person made and how he stated it...his theories and those he quoted. He spoke apples and elephants in many of his questions and responses.
"The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general." I disagree... I just wrote what the Nazis did in Austria generally.
"Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning?" YES, it was urban planning... for extinction... just not what we want to think about in that term. It was planned and it was in an urban area. Call it what you want.
Who does this guy think was working on the underground with guns? It wasn't all atheists or protestants.
The nazis had to start somewhere in taking rights away...as the Austrian said..."creeping gradualism." And then add this to present time with the Patriot Act, TSA, Drones on US citizens and allowing of US citizens to be arrested w/o warrants and murdered, and on and on. Take the 2nd amendment away and then watch the 1st go. Watch the false flags keep coming.
The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.
- Dr. Josef Mengele
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
Doesn't seem practical to me. I can't imagine the NG taking everyone who wanted to own a gun, regardless of age, physical ability, and so on. Would they take a 70 year old disabled woman? Your solution isn't well thought out.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Skye:
I would like to repeat here my suggestiont that gun ownership be directly linked to service in the National Guard. Service (6 months/ 1year?) leads to the right to own a checked and licensed gun. Without service only hunting with a few bullets would be permitted. This fulfills the second ammendment and instills the responsibility that comes from wishing to excersice ones' rights.
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
"Mayors Against Illegal Guns" a national PAC type organization founded after the Arizona massacre. They sent me a notice about the local gun violence forum, asked me to RSVP for it, and then phoned me with a reminder about it.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by chani:
I was at the meeting last night also. I was saddened to see how well the turn out was for the NRA. They are well organized. We need to find a way to be as well organized and verbal. I've been trying to find a group of local, like minded people to get together with to work for gun regulations.
I'd love to hear from anyone who has started a group, is already a member of some group, or who would like to work with me on forming a group.
Regards,
Shirley
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
Are drug-pushing shrinks manufacturing a generation of spree-shooters?
YES!!! As is the for-profit medical industry in general. Like all MDs, it is the master the shrinks are really serving.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by prana:
Red herring defined:
- Something, esp. a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting: "the book is fast-paced and full of red herrings"
So, people talking about mental health at a gun control forum could be a bit off of the topic. however, talking about mental health with relation to school shootings is necessary. check out this article with facts on the matter:https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/...pree-shooters/
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
The problem I see with gun control is that it will realistically only effect law abiding citizens. Those of us that respect the law, are not the problem when it comes to gun violence. The problem comes from the criminals, and on occasion, the mentally unstable. These people are not concerned with the law.
I once heard an interview with an incarcerated gang member from Oakland, who admitted that it was too easy to get an illegal gun in Oakland. He said you know the right person, and it's easy. To me this is the problem, not the people who go to the local store, fill out their paperwork and submit to a background check and a wait period, and pay the sales tax.
I have a neighbor that moved here from Chicago, the brain child of gun control in America. He said it go so bad there that he felt the need to acquire a gun for his own safety, and that it was very easy. He admittedly does not like guns, but said he felt like he needed one, and it was very easy to do.
These are the kind of issues that need to be addressed before we even consider putting more limits on the people abiding by the law.
I ask those for gun control this:
Do you think a good person with a gun can stop a bad person with a gun?
If your answer is "no" let me ask you this:
Who would you call when you are at risk of physical harm or death? Police right? Are the police not good people with guns?
Why should citizens be denied self defense in the same way a police officer is allowed?
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
Here is a good example, a law abiding gun owner's information was published, and not long after his home was burglarized and his gun safe was the target. Luckily no one got into the safe, but this is just proof that the criminals will not care about any new law. And putting law abiding citizens at risk is just foolish, and potentially putting other innocent people in harms way if those criminals had gotten inside the safe.
https://www.nysenate.gov/press-relea...-news-gun-maps
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
I consider your statements and information to be intelligently based in reality. If all law abiding gun owners gave up their guns tomorrow, who would have the guns? We know the answer, and it won't prevent massacres by criminals or the mentally unstable. It might prevent gun accidents.
Your questions at the end are also very thought provoking, and made me aware that just because the police are legally armed, doesn't mean that they are mentally stable. We've seen police brutality maim and murder. Since they're exposed to the worst evils of humanity, how can we even expect them to be balanced?
Only recently I lived with someone who was excited about going for a "ride" (I can't think of the proper name) with a local officer, because he had told her that he'd show her how he tasers people. When I heard this, I realized that she was showing a side of herself that I'd never seen. And having that information about that officer, who I discovered was a drug addict, who got his pills from her, made me want to find a new place to live ASAP.
It also created a new awareness that just because someone wears a badge doesn't mean they're trustworthy. It also doesn't mean I wouldn't call a cop if I felt the need, but some people enter the force to be able to use "force" legally. Something to be aware of.
Thank you
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Twisted Minis:
The problem I see with gun control is that it will realistically only effect law abiding citizens. Those of us that respect the law, are not the problem when it comes to gun violence. The problem comes from the criminals, and on occasion, the mentally unstable. These people are not concerned with the law.
I once heard an interview with an incarcerated gang member from Oakland, who admitted that it was too easy to get an illegal gun in Oakland. He said you know the right person, and it's easy. To me this is the problem, not the people who go to the local store, fill out their paperwork and submit to a background check and a wait period, and pay the sales tax.
I have a neighbor that moved here from Chicago, the brain child of gun control in America. He said it go so bad there that he felt the need to acquire a gun for his own safety, and that it was very easy. He admittedly does not like guns, but said he felt like he needed one, and it was very easy to do.
These are the kind of issues that need to be addressed before we even consider putting more limits on the people abiding by the law.
I ask those for gun control this:
Do you think a good person with a gun can stop a bad person with a gun?
If your answer is "no" let me ask you this:
Who would you call when you are at risk of physical harm or death? Police right? Are the police not good people with guns?
Why should citizens be denied self defense in the same way a police officer is allowed?
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
I was not trying to imply that police men and women are not mentally stable, however I do grasp the point you are making. What my intentions where to imply, is why is it so bad for a good law abiding citizen to defend themselves with a gun, yet it is commonly accepted for police to protect you with guns.
Something I also find interesting, is that police legally have no duty to protect you. Meaning they are not required to come to your rescue when you call 911, even if the dispatcher says help is on the way. "The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists."
See Warren v. District of Columbia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren...ct_of_Columbia
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
You have a legitimate point regarding cops being armed with, among other things, firearms. It is also true that not all cops are good people.
Whether they are good or bad people, cops are extensively trained in use of force, including firearms, and dealing with confrontational and dangerous situations and/or persons. The average schmoe is not; all to often what ends up happening is that the gun does not provide protection for its untrained owner and even gets used against the owner.
NY Mayor Bloomberg was on Charlie Rose discussing these issues shortly after the Newtown massacre. Here's a link to that episode:
https://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12697
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Twisted Minis:
I was not trying to imply that police men and women are not mentally stable, however I do grasp the point you are making. What my intentions where to imply, is why is it so bad for a good law abiding citizen to defend themselves with a gun, yet it is commonly accepted for police to protect you with guns. ...
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
I understand that. There are a lot of gun owners out there that do keep current on their own training however. And it has been proven that countries in which the majority of law abiding citizens are issued and trained with a firearm, hold lower crime rates than we do.
Also, please do not disregard the second portion of my post. Police are not obligated to protect you. So is some form of protection better than nothing?
1. If you are a mother, and an armed criminal were to threaten the life or lives of your child or children, and you had a legal and private firearm, would you shoot said criminal? Would you do whatever it takes to protect them from harm and possibly death, or would you allow death to come to them?
2. When a criminal breaks into your house, you call 911 if possible, because you know that cops will arrive soon and these cops have guns. Why not simply have your own gun in the house to defend yourself and keep your family safe?
3. If your children attend a local school, and a criminal or madman enters said school with the purpose of killing your kids and the kids of others, wouldn't you want someone there who has the capability of defending and protecting your kids, say, with a firearm of their own?
4. If you are in a situation, any situation, wherein an armed criminal wishes to do you harm, would you seek to dialogue with this person or would you defend yourself with firearms?
5. Knowing that some banks, sports arenas, politicians, and government buildings are protected by armed guards, wouldn't you want that same protection for your chidren? You can always make more money. Sports teams are just for entertainment. Politicians come and go. Government buildings can be rebuilt. But what about your children? Are they not more important than all these other things? Why accept protecting them with firearms when none of these things really matter at the end of the day? Family, however, is forever. Family is worth protecting.
6. To say that only police should be allowed to carry guns is saying that you wish for a true police state. You see, when only police carry guns, and no legal citizens are allowed to legally carry privately-owned guns, you create a police state. Is this acceptable to you?
7. By seeking to impose tougher regulations and restrictions on certain firearms within America, determining what should be legal and illegal, aren't you setting the stage for something bigger, ie, the confiscation and removal of privately-owned firearms, whether they be semi-automaic or single-action? This is a slippery slope. Are you prepared to dismantle the Second Amendment out of emotionally-driven knee-jerk reactionism that focuses on the immediate but lacks vision for the future?
8. By punishing legal gun owners, you are doing no damage to illegal gun owners. The stance that the anti-gunners havetaken is illogical at best. Are you prepared to live in an America that has outlawed guns, making it so only outlaws have guns?
9. The Gannett Company, Inc. has allowed the names of private citizenry to be published publicly, exposing and revealing their gun permit status or lack of gun permit status, in three New York State counties. In doing this, many law officers have had their privacy compromised, leaving themselves and their families (wives, children), open to real danger from the friends and associates of currently incarcerated individuals. Would you want that for your family?
And lastly-
10. Say you were at a local store, standing in line with your children (or by yourself), awaiting your turn, and the person in front of you pulled out a handgun and began to threaten those in the store with it, saying they were going to shoot everyone. Now say I was standing behind you, and I drew my gun, shooting said assailant and bringing them down to the floor, wherein they were apprehended and subdued. Would you thank me, or would you be angry at me for having a legal gun and removing the threat to you and your children, quite possibly saving your life and theirs?
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
I realize that I did point out another angle, apart from your intention. I'm thinking that one argument could be the training (or lack of) required.
Again, we are making a distinction between "bad" and "good" people with guns.
I appreciate the information you've given us, and I'm pretty sure that most of us were unaware of this fact.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Twisted Minis:
I was not trying to imply that police men and women are not mentally stable, however I do grasp the point you are making. What my intentions where to imply, is why is it so bad for a good law abiding citizen to defend themselves with a gun, yet it is commonly accepted for police to protect you with guns.
Something I also find interesting, is that police legally have no duty to protect you. Meaning they are not required to come to your rescue when you call 911, even if the dispatcher says help is on the way. "The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists."
See Warren v. District of Columbia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren...ct_of_Columbia
Re: SoCo Sups & Mike Thompson Gun Control Forum
All of your questions are important for us to seriously consider as a reality we could be faced with. Basically, you are reminding us about the personal responsibility of being "prepared" for a crisis, as much as possible, even though we know that each day holds risks. Who wouldn't choose to have a "roadside assistance" policy, if they could afford it? Having access to an item, such as a gun for personal defense is like insurance that you pay for, but hopefully never have to use.
I came to an awareness only recently that everytime I leave my home, I'm exposing myself to unpredictable risks. This has probably developed as a result of limited physical abilities.
Also, in my experiences of having to room with strangers over the past several years, I've discovered how vulnerable I am to people who put up a front to cover psychotic tendencies and deep mental instability.
One rental experience was that when I put a lock on my bedroom door, after discovering that my landlord was going in my room. She tried to intimidate me by telling me that she was going to get a "gun". The real test of her mindset was when she tried to break in my room, as I was reading in bed about 9:30pm. She was aware that I was home, with my light on, and my car parked in front. At first I couldn't believe it, and was quickly thinking about what I was going to do. I considered calling the police to tell them that "someone" was trying to break into my locked room, (in a loud enough voice that she could hear). Instead, I quietly pulled out my baseball bat from nearby, and waited. I figured that my lock would hold, and that she might hesitate to inflict damage on her door. She continued to work at it for about 5 minutes, before giving up with a loud, angry expletive.
I might not be around to share this story if she had been able to break in, enraged, with a gun in hand; my baseball bat wouldn't have been much use. Other experiences with mentally unstable landlords have increased my awareness about the need to create a questionaire that would be a basic part of the initial interview; something that might give me clues to behavior responses. Also asking for references to past tenants might be helpful, and also neighbors could provide some insight.
Please keep the information coming, it's much appreciated.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Twisted Minis:
I understand that. There are a lot of gun owners out there that do keep current on their own training however. And it has been proven that countries in which the majority of law abiding citizens are issued and trained with a firearm, hold lower crime rates than we do.
Also, please do not disregard the second portion of my post. Police are not obligated to protect you. So is some form of protection better than nothing?
