Mandatory Gun Ownership

[Hyena Dandy]

http://gunowners.wordpress.com/2012/...ing-a-firearm/

I think this is a bit silly, but I figure that people here will have stronger feelings than me.

The one thing I'd object to is "Why should gun owners pay for police protection for those who chose not to protect themselves?"

Don't police protect gun owners as well as those without guns?

[Greenday]

The one thing I'd object to is "Why should gun owners pay for police protection for those who chose not to protect themselves?"

Don't police protect gun owners as well as those without guns?

They protect everybody, whether you need protection or not. Some people prefer to protect themselves.

[Hyena Dandy]

But don't even gun-owners need protection, or are we operating under an assumption that all gun-owners are superheroes?

Because I feel like that's not the case.

[Greenday]

Why do they have guns then? If I carry a gun around with me, I am protecting myself. I'd have the training necessary to do whatever I need to do, God forbid it becomes necessary. Now, if that is the circumstance, why am I paying for police to "protect" me when I can do it better and quicker than they? I mean, if someone tries to mug me in an alley, why am I paying for an inferior service who isn't going to save my ass?

[HYHYBT]

As has been mentioned here before, the police aren't, in most cases, really around to protect. They're there to arrest afterwards.

I hesitate to mention this, given how these threads always turn, but there are also times when lethal force is inappropriate.

There are also people who really shouldn't be carrying a gun, whether it is legal for them to do so or not. By phrasing their possible choice not to carry as "refusing to defend themselves" and saying they therefore don't deserve protection, you'd be encouraging them to do something we're all better off for their not doing.

[Hyena Dandy]

Police try to keep drunk drivers off the road.

You can be hit by a drunk driver, whether you have a gun or not.

Unless guns give you superpowers, the police also protect gun owners.

[Mr. Anubite]

One of the commenters in that article suggested that this is just the lawmaker's attempt at poking holes in Obamacare. I hope that's the case. I also don't like the authors assertion that people with guns shouldn't pay taxes toward police.

A town in my state has a law like this, but they have an ethical/religious exemption. If this law actually passed, I would hope they at least put an exemption like that in. Overall, I strongly dislike laws like this one.

[Rapscallion]

Many of the pro-gun mouthpieces, in my experience, have used the line of the government not telling them they can't have guns and so forth. How many such commentators will object to the government telling them they must have something?

Rapscallion

[protege]

As has been mentioned here before, the police aren't, in most cases, really around to protect. They're there to arrest afterwards.

That's just it. There are many areas, in which the police simply aren't there, or by the time they'd arrive, the perp would be long gone. For example, where my grandmother lived. She lived in the country, about 5 miles from the nearest town. Unless someone had been injured or killed, the police department would take their sweet time arriving. That's why many homeowners out there are armed. They're not about to let some asshole break in and get away with it.

I know about that first hand. When she was in the hospital in '94, I was staying there while taking college summer courses. One night, someone tried to force open the front door sometime after midnight When I turned on the porch light, someone ran across the yard towards the highway. I grabbed a pitchfork and went after the bastard! Never had that problem again.

I wasn't about to wait for the Keystone Kops to show up. Nor was I willing to become a victim. Also, what if they tried that shit when she was home? Grandma lived alone and was (at that time) in no shape to defend herself. The car accident had left her confined to her bed. Easy prey for a criminal, in other words.

That's why, many homeowners there are armed...and why you should take the "Posted" and "No Trespassing" signs seriously. You never know when you'll stumble on someone's home...or if the property owner is running a meth lab. Yep, that's a problem down there now. Those folks are paranoid enough that they *will* shoot you.

[crashhelmet]

What about those that are not legally allowed to own a gun, like convicted felons? Federal law would most definitely trump State law in this aspect. Are they going to kick all felons, domestic abusers, and those with "orders of protection" out of the state?

How does this work in Kennesaw, GA?

[BlaqueKatt]

How does this work in Kennesaw, GA?

Since that's where my ex-husband, ex-inlaws, and child live, I can answer that.

They can't check, and it's not really enforceable(illegal search), the crime deterrent effect in Kennesaw was mainly a variant of "herd immunity". My ex and his family don't own any firearms, their neighbor had one that was disassembled and encased in Lucite.



It's mandatory to wear a seatbelt, most states have laws making it mandatory to have lights on a bicycle, it's more of a "feel good" totally unenforceable law.

[HYHYBT]

Many of the pro-gun mouthpieces, in my experience, have used the line of the government not telling them they can't have guns and so forth. How many such commentators will object to the government telling them they must have something?

Rapscallion

Apparently, they're fine with it... so long as the thing you have to buy is not health insurance.

[wolfie]

They protect everybody, whether you need protection or not. Some people prefer to protect themselves.

Hence the saying "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

When the first mandatory gun ownership law was passed (I believe it was Kennesaw) years ago, I heard about another town that passed a parody law - every household must own a fishing pole.

[Hyena Dandy]

You still need protection from things like drunk drivers, as well as other issues.

You can't get a drunk driver off the road, even if you're good with a gun.

If someone calls in a bomb threat, you can't dispose it, even if you're really damn good with a gun.

Someone in the thread mentioned meth labs in their area. You can't clear out a meth lab, even if you know how to use a gun.

Hence why I say that not all gun owners are superheroes. Because even if you do not need to be physically protected from assault, the police STILL help you.

This isn't just a case of "If there was a guy with a gun in the room, [X tragedy] would have been stopped."

The police still provide valuable, helpful services, even to gun owners. And even gun owners need to be protected because not everything that the police deal with is something that is going to be immediately prevented because you had a gun.

[Mr. Anubite]

You could shoot the drunk driver, bomber, and meth-maker.

You're absolutely right, though. As much as we love to hate on police, they do provide important services, and making people buy guns won't replace them.