GuyWithQuestions
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 451
I am wondering how you can contruct a good argument for the anti's using "police reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" and "in reality they often can't help soon enough or may not at all"? I was in a discussion with one of my roommates and he was quite against firearms, especially concealed firearm permits, unless they're used for sport. I was wondering if someone could give me advice on how to make the position I shared with him stronger? If you don't like these reasons for allowing people to carry firearms, then let me know that also.
I told him that personally, one of the most important reasons why I believe that concealed firearms permits should be allowed is the police reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. The government doesn't have a legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. When you call 911, you're making a request for help, but the police's legal duty is to the government, not the citizens and so you can't sue them if they outright refuse to help you. I used the case of Warren vs. District of Columbia and what the Courts said. If the police reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, then it doesn't make sense to say that citizens shouldn't be allowed to have the means to protect themselves.
My roommate pointed out that I said the police are legally supposed to protect society as a whole, not individual citizens, so the police overall protect society and so we don't need citizens with guns to create more trouble. He said that I was arguing for concealed carry permits, while Warren vs. District of Columbia happened inside the home, not in public where you'd need a permit (does anyone know of some famous Supreme Court cases where it happened outside of the home?). I responded to that by saying that the Courts never said police don't have to help you only if you're inside your home, they said the police don't have a legal duty to protect individual citizens, which would apply anywhere. He said that those were very rare cases and that the vast majority of the time the police help individual citizens and do so right away. He said that if you call the police saying someone's breaking in your house or attacking you, they check it out right away and the times they don't is so very rare. I used the crime statistics from http://defensedevices.com/crimstat.html , where so many thousands of crimes of violence weren't responded to within an hour and so many thousands of 911 calls for help weren't responded to at all. He said that that was just in Florida and that it was posted by a website trying to sell me self-defense products and not to believe everything I see. He said that the vast majority of times the police help citizens out and respond right away. (Does anyone have good insight into this or have research/statistics on in reality how often the police help compared to when they don't and what their response times are?)
I then said, "We have fire extinguishers even though the fire department responds to 911 calls. Because the fire department responds to 911 calls, does that mean you shouldn't have fire extinguishers" He said that that was a logical error on my part because you don't use a fire extinguisher to put out a large problem, the fire department does that. However, someone who wants concealed firearm permits wants to use it to put out a large problem when the police will take care of it.
I know that some of you may say, "Why bother with these types of people?" However, I am wondering how I could have made my arguments in this situation stronger and more convincing, just for future reference? I want to be able to defend my position more efficiently the next time something like this comes up and am asking for help. If you don't like my reasons of "the police reserve the right to refuse service to individual citizens" and "they often can't help soon enough", then let me know too.
Thanks
I told him that personally, one of the most important reasons why I believe that concealed firearms permits should be allowed is the police reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. The government doesn't have a legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. When you call 911, you're making a request for help, but the police's legal duty is to the government, not the citizens and so you can't sue them if they outright refuse to help you. I used the case of Warren vs. District of Columbia and what the Courts said. If the police reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, then it doesn't make sense to say that citizens shouldn't be allowed to have the means to protect themselves.
My roommate pointed out that I said the police are legally supposed to protect society as a whole, not individual citizens, so the police overall protect society and so we don't need citizens with guns to create more trouble. He said that I was arguing for concealed carry permits, while Warren vs. District of Columbia happened inside the home, not in public where you'd need a permit (does anyone know of some famous Supreme Court cases where it happened outside of the home?). I responded to that by saying that the Courts never said police don't have to help you only if you're inside your home, they said the police don't have a legal duty to protect individual citizens, which would apply anywhere. He said that those were very rare cases and that the vast majority of the time the police help individual citizens and do so right away. He said that if you call the police saying someone's breaking in your house or attacking you, they check it out right away and the times they don't is so very rare. I used the crime statistics from http://defensedevices.com/crimstat.html , where so many thousands of crimes of violence weren't responded to within an hour and so many thousands of 911 calls for help weren't responded to at all. He said that that was just in Florida and that it was posted by a website trying to sell me self-defense products and not to believe everything I see. He said that the vast majority of times the police help citizens out and respond right away. (Does anyone have good insight into this or have research/statistics on in reality how often the police help compared to when they don't and what their response times are?)
I then said, "We have fire extinguishers even though the fire department responds to 911 calls. Because the fire department responds to 911 calls, does that mean you shouldn't have fire extinguishers" He said that that was a logical error on my part because you don't use a fire extinguisher to put out a large problem, the fire department does that. However, someone who wants concealed firearm permits wants to use it to put out a large problem when the police will take care of it.
I know that some of you may say, "Why bother with these types of people?" However, I am wondering how I could have made my arguments in this situation stronger and more convincing, just for future reference? I want to be able to defend my position more efficiently the next time something like this comes up and am asking for help. If you don't like my reasons of "the police reserve the right to refuse service to individual citizens" and "they often can't help soon enough", then let me know too.
Thanks