I do not actually live in California :/

Sorry, your location said that.

I don't blame you.

I've talked to multiple cops in the US, and they would laugh at that statement. Their job isn't to enforce pre crime and be everyone's bodyguard, it is to enforce laws and investigate the crime after it happens. The supreme court has even ruled that police are not required to protect you.

In a debate you need to provide proof to justify your point. Prove they are not planning to take guns away. Your state just required microstamping of handguns, which no manufacturer will do. Since your state already has a registry, it is effectively banning handguns.

I found Jones on Piers Morgan pretty funny considering that Morgan starts screaming over his opposition every time he starts losing an argument

 

 

1) That seems to be different in the USA then. LEO's in my country are sworn to protect and serve the public from all harm. That includes preventing crimes from happening or responding to them as they happen. This is proven by the fact that we have proactive units like the anti-banditism units who patrol sensitive areas in unmarked cars. Investigating the crime after it happens is primarily a task for detectives over here.

 

2) Exactly. Throwing with statements without proper arguments is pointless. As to taking guns away, I don't think any law will be able to do so since the total amount of privately owned guns lies between 270,000,000 and 310,000,000 in the USA. That is an astronomical amount which will never be completely controlled, laws or no laws.

3) I respected Jones before that debate, despite his controversial views. However, after that debate, I lost all that respect. He just spewed out facts and figures to support his statements without even letting Morgan speak or try to contradict his views. Morgan didn't scream at all. It was Jones who couldn't control himself and had no answer to some of the arguments Morgan made so he started shouting and calling Morgan names. Too bad, since Jones does have some valid points but he doesn' know how to make them without shouting and screaming.

3) I respected Jones before that debate, despite his controversial views. However, after that debate, I lost all that respect. He just spewed out facts and figures to support his statements without even letting Morgan speak or try to contradict his views. Morgan didn't scream at all. It was Jones who couldn't control himself and had no answer to some of the arguments Morgan made so he started shouting and calling Morgan names. Too bad, since Jones does have some valid points but he doesn' know how to make them without shouting and screaming.

I didn't say I support Jones either. I personally think he is a clown. However, in every other Piers Morgan"debate" Morgan starts talking over opposition when they bring something up. Just look at the first debate with Larry Pratt when Larry pointed out his high firearm ownership county had a tenth of the crime Britain did. Piers then tried everything he could to talk over him and divert that. Seeing something worse done to Morgan, who later joked about shooting an unarmed Jones (imagine the outrage if it was was other way around), was ironic and funny to me

1) That seems to be different in the USA then. LEO's in my country are sworn to protect and serve the public from all harm. That includes preventing crimes from happening or responding to them as they happen. This is proven by the fact that we have proactive units like the anti-banditism units who patrol sensitive areas in unmarked cars. Investigating the crime after it happens is primarily a task for detectives over here.

...

3) I respected Jones before that debate, despite his controversial views. However, after that debate, I lost all that respect. He just spewed out facts and figures to support his statements without even letting Morgan speak or try to contradict his views. Morgan didn't scream at all. It was Jones who couldn't control himself and had no answer to some of the arguments Morgan made so he started shouting and calling Morgan names. Too bad, since Jones does have some valid points but he doesn' know how to make them without shouting and screaming.

1) What c13 is referring to, obliquely, is the fact that you can't sue the police for failing to respond. The Supreme Court ruled that the police are there to protect the public, but they are not there to protect you personally (special cases aside). It's not that the police don't protect people; it's that you aren't entitled to a police response unless there is some special relationship. That is not to say that they don't have to protect the public, only that you can't sue them for not protecting you.

About responding vs. investigating: The idea there is that police can't respond fast enough to stop a crime in progress. Because they really can't. It's not that they don't respond to crimes; it's that, if someone starts shooting, they are likely to be finished by the time the police show up minutes later. A patrol officer doesn't just investigate; they are there to protect the public, they do respond to calls for help, they do patrol to find crimes and stop them. However, they can't respond fast enough to matter in a shooting.

3) I like what a friend of mine said: "Alex Jones has somehow made Piers Morgan look like the good guy in an argument." At this point, citing Alex Jones makes me much less likely to support the side.

I didn't say I support Jones either. I personally think he is a clown. However, in every other Piers Morgan"debate" Morgan starts talking over opposition when they bring something up. Just look at the first debate with Larry Pratt when Larry pointed out his high firearm ownership county had a tenth of the crime Britain did. Piers then tried everything he could to talk over him and divert that. Seeing something worse done to Morgan, who later joked about shooting an unarmed Jones (imagine the outrage if it was was other way around), was ironic and funny to me

 

 

1) What c13 is referring to, obliquely, is the fact that you can't sue the police for failing to respond. The Supreme Court ruled that the police are there to protect the public, but they are not there to protect you personally (special cases aside). It's not that the police don't protect people; it's that you aren't entitled to a police response unless there is some special relationship. That is not to say that they don't have to protect the public, only that you can't sue them for not protecting you.

About responding vs. investigating: The idea there is that police can't respond fast enough to stop a crime in progress. Because they really can't. It's not that they don't respond to crimes; it's that, if someone starts shooting, they are likely to be finished by the time the police show up minutes later. A patrol officer doesn't just investigate; they are there to protect the public, they do respond to calls for help, they do patrol to find crimes and stop them. However, they can't respond fast enough to matter in a shooting.

3) I like what a friend of mine said: "Alex Jones has somehow made Piers Morgan look like the good guy in an argument." At this point, citing Alex Jones makes me much less likely to support the side.

 

1)Though I do understand your point, that does seem to be different out here. Police are required by law to respond to every call and if negelected, you can sue them. If I understand you correctly, you mean you can't sue police for failing to protect you, right?

 

2)Again, you make a valid point. Apart from some special proactive units, police do indeed respond to crimes instead of preventing them. However, I doubt some armed civilians will be of more value when such a shooting happens. That is of course unless you arm every single individual. Out here, police have very good response times since we have about 373 police officers per 100,000 people while the US has got 256 LEO's per 100,000. We are a small country as well which benefits those response times greatly. As I said, when those times start to drop, I'm sure a lot of civilians will want to take matters into their own hands as well and demand more lenient gun laws. But for now, the police is doing a great job protecting us against crime. Lately though, budget cuts have taken effect which could mean bad news.

 

3) You're both absolutely right about Morgan. He is a perfect representation of what I called anti-gun fanatics. He also abuses facts to support his statements. He doesn't respect the fact that the US has got a gun culture. He tries to compare gun crime in the UK with the US, something you simply can't do as I saw in multiple classes of criminology. When you put a Morgan type next to his complete opposite, being Jones, you aren't going to have much of a debate.

Not again, god damn it :*(

 

R.I.P Those who innocently lost their lives.