Los Angeles Police Warn Residents to Arm Themselves Because of Long Response Times

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Feb 6, 2016.

  1. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    http://constitution.com/los-angeles...rm-themselves-because-of-long-response-times/

    the ORIGINAL article.
    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016...say-more-patrol-needed-in-times-of-emergency/

    you are on your own.
     
  2. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #2
    A police union President saying **** like this. Who would ever believe that?
     
  3. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #3
    Even the best of the police require time to get somewhere. I really have no qualms with people owning guns, responsibly. And there should be a law that says a person can be on a property only by permission, so intruders can't find a way to sue on how they are somehow the victims in the incident.
     
  4. jkcerda thread starter Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    how about straight from the chief?
    http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...es-Not-Affected-by-Budget-Cuts-102403094.html
    5.7 minutes provided you are able to make the call. you are on your own till then.
     
  5. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #5
    In public for all to see, I agree. There are better ways to say they need time to get somewhere other than "Well, we're grossly understaffed so if there's a big problem we're screwed" - which is the very **** that person was saying!
     
  6. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #6
    It's fairly typical of rural county deputy sheriffs to say things like that. One was recently quoted here as suggesting to people they buy a gun while they still can. Not sure the state police are fans of that shift in attitude.
     
  7. sim667 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    #7
    I imagine they'll quite happily say that, until someone shoots an officer.
     
  8. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #8
    West Los Angeles.

    Thats the mean streets around Beverly Hills; UCLA; Bel Air and the J. Paul Getty Museum. Must be lots of violent crime there, right? Lets see what Compstat has to say..... OK, probably not.

    Keep a gun if you want to. But lets not confuse police union officials angling for more jobs with a call for citizens to turn into vigilantes. OK?
     
  9. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #9
    It sounds like he's trying to say rediculous things in order to get funding to have more police on the street, rather than actually wanting more guns out there that could potentially be used on an officer.
     
  10. jkcerda thread starter Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #10
    Who said anything about vigilantes other than you? Defending yourself does NOT make you a vigilante
     
  11. vrDrew, Feb 7, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2016

    vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #11
    You know; sometimes I think "gun enthusiasts" are their own worst enemy. And I'm not even talking about the propensity they have to end up (literally) shooting themselves. Accidentally or on purpose.

    No: The reality is, most people, even most "liberal" people in this country don't really care about your guns. If a person legally entitled to do so wants to buy and own a gun - fine. We aren't coming for your guns. We aren't going to start signing petitions to take them away. And we recognize, sometimes reluctantly, sometimes gladly, that there is a long legal, Constitutional and cultural history of private firearms ownership in this country. For better, or for worse, thats the way it is.

    But thats not good enough for the gun nuts.

    [​IMG]

    No. They aren't going to be happy until they've gotten every nitwit borderline psychopath to join their little club. Every chump with a masculinity problem; every paranoid; every doofus who never really grew up and wants to play at being a cop, or a solider, or an action movie hero. Every deluded parent who thinks its a good idea for their kid to have their own little pink rifle. Or wants to take a video of their nine year old firing an Uzi.

    [​IMG]

    So no. The gun enthusiasts have got to be constantly on our case. Waving - sometimes literally, sometime figuratively - the steel and plastic manifestations of their hobby in our faces. Telling people smarter than they are that unless they join their little club, they are helpless prey for some phantom army of predators.

    Here's a suggestion: Let people make up their own mind about getting a gun. Sensible people are perfectly able to figure out for themselves if they need one.

    But spare us all your dubious rationalizations. Your junk science. The cherry-picked "one in a million" scenarios - while ignoring the morgues filled with toe-tagged
    counterexamples. Keep doing it long enough; and enough people really will start to get angry enough about the tens of thousands of innocent people killed by your little hobby, that they finally will do something about it.
     
  12. jkcerda thread starter Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    You forgot about all the women who carry and are in the sport :D
     
  13. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #13
    here in West LA (which doesn't include the city of Beverly Hills by the way) our local criminals still haven't had brunch by 10AM.....so why would we even need 3 patrol cars during that time period? Even the local muslim population are still making their way to Starbucks thru rush hour traffic.
     
  14. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #14
    Quite the picture you've painted. Carefully selected pictures of people who fit a stereotype and aren't quite physically attractive. A young girl with a menacing looking military man and a scary weapon.

    Come on.

    And ya know, if people stopped trying to ban firearms, people wouldn't feel threatened and have to make a point to display their weapons. It's a reaction, and it didn't appear out of thin air.
     
  15. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #15


    An imperfect sample, but try this:

    Please point out to me examples of PRSI threads in the past year (month, week, decade) that have started out with the premise or assertion that private ownership of firearms in the United States should be banned, or otherwise highly restricted?

    I seriously cannot recall any PRSI regular starting such a thread. Can you?

    Can you show me a post where a PRSI regular has suggested confiscation or banning of firearms sales to currently legal owners? I can't recall one.

    On the other hand, we are endlessly bombarded with junk like this. A out-of-context comment from a police union official magically transmogrified into an imperative to buy guns.

    If you want to rationalize the frankly obnoxious behavior of the gun enthusiast community on the basis that they are constantly under assault from people who want to "ban firearms" - then the very least you can do is provide us with examples of where that has actually happened.
     
  16. jkcerda thread starter Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  17. smallcoffee, Feb 7, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2016

    smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #17
    Uh, you're kidding right?

    The only other thing I could think of is that you're just trying to lure me in so that when I bring out a post where somebody suggests banning AR-15s or something or high capacity magazines you just say that it isn't highly restrictive because it's quite common here that people advocate for those policies and others. Not to mention the continual "we don't have guns in England so you don't need them" that's thrown around here.

    In regard to rationalizing their behavior, I don't really think it's acceptable behavior, but I think it was pretty obvious to anybody with foresight that one of the results of repeated attempts to ban firearms or any derivative restrictions that people were going to react by publicly displaying firearms. It's like telling somebody they don't have the freedom of speech: they're going to just say the most ridiculous crap they can and maybe write a book about it to prove you wrong.

    -edit- was typing from phone made some adjustments
     
  18. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #18


    No, no, no...

    I want you to cite a case of a thread started here that had, as its main assertion, the notion that currently legal firearms in the United States should be banned or confiscated.

    You can't. For the very simple reason that it doesn't happen. And yet gun enthusiasts are constantly bleating that they are under attack. And that unless they rush out and buy yet still more guns, American civilization is inevitably headed towards the gas chambers.

    Gun enthusiasts are constantly obsessing over things that - statistically at least - not only don't happen, Aren't ever going to happen. Like them being attacked by a would-be murderer at the precise moment they have their weapon loaded; cocked; and comfortably cradled in their loving arms. Or some future State or Federal government agent showing up at their door and hauling away their arsenals.
     
  19. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #19
    Do you want the title to literally say that, or should it be implied by the OP? Besides, why does that matter? If the posts are in the threads, it matters not that it was post #1 or posts 5-37. To be fair:

    A thread is different than a post. I'm more than happy to just chalk it up to confusion. I don't know if I can find a thread where somebody has said "ban all guns" or something, but to suggest that posts like that aren't a regular occurrence would be quite the lie.

    Well, gun enthusiasts are under attack. There have been numerous claims to ban certain firearms, or magazine sizes, or all sorts of other restrictions. Agree or disagree with these, it's a pretty active topic. I do think that the fantasy land situations are mostly unreasonable, but there have been plenty of cases of people successfully saving their lives or the lives of others by having a firearm either in their house or on their person.
     
  20. vrDrew, Feb 7, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2016

    vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #20

    It does matter.

    I will grant that - from time to time - someone will voice the belief that it might not be a bad idea to
    make it a little less likely that a potential murderer or terrorist will get his hands on a gun. And in the wake of a tragic mass-shooting event, a few people might suggest support for the idea that limiting ordinary civilians access to military-grade hardware might not be a bad idea.

    But that's not "banning" guns.

    Thats just pointing out basic facts. And usually it only happens as a reaction to one of our resident gun enthusiasts having a tantrum over some piddling municipal regulation that prevents him from carrying a loaded gun into a grade school.

    Nobody, to my recollection, has ever started a thread here at PRSI promoting the idea that guns should be banned. Maybe it has happened. But none the I can remember.

    Gun Enthusiasts: If you want to keep your guns, stop waving them in people's faces. Carry concealed, and keep quiet about it.
     
  21. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #21


    Why?

    You're downplaying what people say. Go look at the gun violence mega thread. Plenty of threads are unrelated to mass-shootings. I'm not sure what you're reading, but banning assault rifles, for example, is a far cry from "make it a little less likely that a potential murderer or terrorist will get his hands on a gun".

    Calling assault rifles military-grade hardware is just fear mongering dude. Should really be focusing on reducing access to handguns, especially for minorities who are gunning each other down.

    Stop being condescending. It's going to be very difficult to get sensible gun legislation passed when we have people treating gun owners like either villains or idiots instead of citizens of the United States. All you're doing is making them more entrenched and less reasonable, and in turn the anti-gun crowd get's even more entrenched and unreasonable.

    Instead of saying "keep your guns out of sight or we'll take them away" like these people are children or something, or attacking what is the least of our problems (assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, etc...) you should try focusing on proposing real solutions and not reacting to people who, while annoying, do have a right to openly carry firearms.
     
  22. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #22
    At first you say "banning firearms", as is there is a widespread movement and/or constant posts on here about banning all firearms. When it appears that you actually mean "ban certain types of firearm, accessory, ammunition, etc". Those are two very, very different scenarios, and why these discussions are so difficult. One person says "We should look into restricting this type of firearm", and you people respond with "They're banning firearms!!!!" You claim that others are downplaying what people say, while I say that you guys are far overreacting to what people say.

    I have been told that I'm anti gun and that I want all guns banned from private ownership in response to a post in which I said that I was not against carrying, but that I just wanted the people who were being allowed to carry to have proper training and testing. So, after I literally said that I was okay with carrying, I was told I was anti-gun and wanted all guns banned. Now, I know you're going to want a source, but that's going to be impossible to trace back with as many gun posts as there are on here. So believe it or not. So maybe look at your own side for the overreaction.

    The idiot mantra is brought on by none other than the gun owners themselves. And as far as the "instead of saying...like these people are children", look at your own post:

    That is childish behavior. It is exactly the same behavior my three-year-old displays when I tell him he can't do something.

    Don't want to be treated like a child? Stop acting like a child.

    And you say that we should concentrate on "real solutions". But when any of us bring up training and testing requirements, only a very small few of the gun enthusiasts agree. What the hell else could possibly help? And no, more guns is not the answer.
     
  23. jkcerda thread starter Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #23
    Oh please
    image.jpeg
     
  24. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #24
    Not to say "we told you so". But we told you so.
     
  25. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #25

    The first sign of having a problematic stance on an issue shows when the poster starts from a point of clear dishonesty.

    What is suggested here is that people be able to protect themselves. No law enforcement has mentioned firearm ownership, or even arming themselves. Protection can mean a number of things...anywhere from having really good locks on your home that are secured, to having a guard dog in the house, to being conversant in self-defense. If your first thought in protection is "GUN", someone breaking into your home might not be the biggest issue you have in life. Perhaps it is a pathology and a fear of the outside world that goes much deeper.
     

Share This Page