Another Virginia Tech Shooting

[Azathoth]

police officers, who have no obligation or duty to protect you in the first place.

[Seth]

My actual position is that if you don't want to carry a gun, I'm fine with that, but don't complain if and when you get victimized by some thug. I'd go so far as to say that if you don't provide for your own self-defense, you ought not be allowed to make a criminal complaint if you get victimized, because you've been attempting to shuffle off your own personal responsibility for providing for your own defense onto the public and police officers, who have no obligation or duty to protect you in the first place.

My position is I don't care if I have a gun or not (if somehow I got hold of it I would destroy it) I do however care that my neighbour or any thug doesnt get hold of one.
My personal responsibilty is ensuring I aid the police with any information that allows them to arrest/shoot anyone carrying a gun

This is a cowardly response that puts the burden for providing for your safety on others who have no duty, nor should they, to keep you safe. It also facilitates tyrannical government.

[Drewish]

What's next, outlawing bullet proof vests?

[Seth]

police officers, who have no obligation or duty to protect you in the first place.

You dispute this? You might want to read this article from the New York Times:

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

This case reaffirms about 10 other appeals and Supreme Court rulings saying the same thing: The police DO NOT have a legal duty to protect you. They can stand there and watch you be beaten to death and not do anything about it and your heirs will have no legal recourse against them.

[Seth]

What's next, outlawing bullet proof vests?

Probably. The UK bans civilian possession of tear gas or pepper spray. Idiots.

[Drewish]

What's next, outlawing bullet proof vests?

Probably. The UK bans civilian possession of tear gas or pepper spray. Idiots.

They already have been banned in a few countries in the EU.

[Gawd]

Crime in DC has plummeted over the last ten years. Talk about Detroit instead.

Are you including crimes ordained by DC to be committed extra judicially? That would show a different picture.

Er, all crimes are committed "extrajudicially." What, exactly, do you mean?

Oh, right, America dictates laws to others when they kill.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You ever get out of the igloo?

[Seth]

Crime in DC has plummeted over the last ten years. Talk about Detroit instead.

Are you including crimes ordained by DC to be committed extra judicially? That would show a different picture.

Er, all crimes are committed "extrajudicially." What, exactly, do you mean?

Oh, right, America dictates laws to others when they kill.

WTF are you talking about?

[Azathoth]

police officers, who have no obligation or duty to protect you in the first place.

You dispute this? You might want to read this article from the New York Times:

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

This case reaffirms about 10 other appeals and Supreme Court rulings saying the same thing: The police DO NOT have a legal duty to protect you. They can stand there and watch you be beaten to death and not do anything about it and your heirs will have no legal recourse against them.

That is pretty fucked up. In most countries they are obliged to intervene. Over there they have given up even the pretence of being anything other than government funded bully boys and revenue gathers then. Interesting

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Crime in DC has plummeted over the last ten years. Talk about Detroit instead.

Are you including crimes ordained by DC to be committed extra judicially? That would show a different picture.

Er, all crimes are committed "extrajudicially." What, exactly, do you mean?

Oh, right, America dictates laws to others when they kill.

WTF are you talking about?

Gawd's Law. Everything bad is American. Anything bad is American.

[Jason]

Oh, right, America dictates laws to others when they kill.

WTF are you talking about?

Gawd's Law. Everything bad is American. Anything American is bad.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, right, America dictates laws to others when they kill.

WTF are you talking about?

Gawd's Law. Everything bad is American. Anything American is bad.

Mine was correct.

[Jason]

OK

[Gawdzilla Sama]

OK

"Everything and anything bad is American." Short version. The "everything and anything" is a standard phrase, so I thought I'd parse it out.