Why does everyone expect the government to offer protection against criminals?

Question

I have just read the news release on how lives could have been saved at VT. It talked about earlier warnings and communcations. It does not say anything about people taking control of the situration. Are we American just passive lambs wanting the government to do everything for us? Or, should we be more active and pro-active with the challenges we face?

Answer 1

It is reports like the VT report that demonstrate quite loudly and clearly the contradiction of our government and police force. It has been decided time and time again that it is not the job of the police to protect you. You cannot hold the police liable if they fail to protect you from crime. Why, oh why then, do folks like to spout off that if the police had done this or that,then all would be well and good, no one would get hurt.

Horse feathers.

Our police force is a reactionary force. They cannot act UNTIL a crime has occurred. otherwise, they would be trampling on your individual rights as a citizen. Be glad that they cannot act until something happens, otherwise, folks would be dragged out of bed at 2 am to disappear into a prison ..... ( KGB anyone?)

Yes, too many Americans are passive lambs. They expect the government to bail them out. Think of New Orleans. How many lambs failed to get out of the way of the approaching storm even though they were told of it imminent arrival? Then how many of those people blamed the government for not doing enough to help them. Sad really. People in the USA need to be aware that we are ultimately responsible for ourselves. We have the right and duty to protect ourselves.

How many students do you really think would have died at VT if any other students were armed? Would Cho have even attempted such a act if he had known there was the possibility that someone else in the buildings were armed too? It is my position that fewer people would have died if the anti gun nuts in the country would stop trying to make it impossible for people to defend themselves. I am sick of rules that seem to trump our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms in this country. Why can a school state that it is a gun free zone? Heck, all they are doing is advertising there are no other guns on campus, so any criminals who want to shoot, come on in!

Americans need to be more proactive in their own defense. More proactive with the challenges we face. We are facing not only Cho's ouot there, but there are real terrorists out there who want to do more. Wouldn't it be nice if a law abiding citizen caught a terrorist in the act and was able to stop it quickly, without waiting for the police?

Answer 2

When I've worked at a restaurant, part of my training has always been on how to respond in a robbery- comply with the thief, then, when he/she has left, call the cops. The reason being that money can be replaced, but a human life can't. A criminal is unstable by definition, but an angry/fearful one is even more dangerous.

(Note--- No, a criminal that tells me to not call the police isn't going to "confuse" me- Duh! He/she left, I'll do whatever the heck I want, including "disobeying" the criminal by calling the cops!)




On the other hand, if someone came into my home to rob me, I'd probably respond completely different!.. This is my stuff, my home, my life, and the tresspasser has absolutely NO right to be there. He can either get out or pay up. I took a self defense class, and they explained where the law sees the line between self defense and assault. As soon as the threat is incapacitated, then it stops being self defense. If someone comes into my home and I warn him/her to leave and they don't, then I figure untill they leave or become unconscious, I can and will defend me and mine.



Not everyone in the US is as fierce about things, I know. And maybe I'm the odd one. It seems that the common mentality is to expect the government to "fix" everything..... from the inequality in the workplace or in the education system, to what individuals think of minorities, even the weather...

Answer 3

Self reliance is what this country used to be based on. The Government is not our nanny and doesn't hold our hand when we go potty. However, too many people feel the Government should do this and make everything all better.

You can take some control of your life without becoming a criminal. Be prepared at your own home for any contingency. Storms, no power, no fuel,food, etc.

In States where you can conceal carry, make use of that. In Virginia, they have ( compared to Illinois) very generous concealed carry laws but the college campus would not allow students to carry firearms on their campus. One brave individual carrying a firearm may have stopped this incident.

The college has already said what they think was wrong with the situation. They avoided saying they would allow concealed carry.

I am not advocating that everyone be armed. It would be a personal choice and should have taken alot of thought, especially if you are willing to get involved and possibly die for a total stranger.

Yes, feeding at the Government teat has made us all a little sheepish. Be responsible for your actions and make preparations for your own safety. Too many Katrina victims are still waiting for Momma Government to take care of them and they refuse to leave their state or to help themselves out to a better life. I only advocate self-reliance within the law.

Answer 4

ONLY the mega wealthy (who can afford bodyguards) or those in power expect the government or someone else to protect them.

The common people must resort to our own resources for self preservation, which is why we must not allow our Constitutional Rights to keep and bear arms to be eroded further. Unfortunately, anytime some gun-packing, irresponsible idiot pulls a VT there goes a little more of our right to defend ourselves. If that fool had known that the campus was replete with lawfully carrying teachers and students he would have lacked the intestinal fortitude to do what he did. It is a pity, a crying shame that the students and teachers were unarmed and helpless...

H

Answer 5

Jack, I just commented on this mentality the other day.

For years, we've been told to comply with the criminal's demands and call the police afterwards. Since the criminal often demands that their victims not call the police, some victims are even further confused and don't even commit to that deterrant on crime.

The police cannot protect you from crime. They cannot do anything to a criminal until he has committed a crime. Then they can arrest him, if they can figure out who he is to prevent future crimes by him.

It is high time we change this lesson to: "When someone tries to victimize you, you do what is necessary to stop it, detain him and then call the police so they can arrest him." Criminals (just like the lion choosing his gazelle) pick on the weak. They don't like to get bruised up for a few dollars they're stealing from someone.

American society and the justice system must stop criminalizing the potential victim that prevents the crime.

If these concepts are adopted by American Society, crime will go down because the criminals will decide that it just isn't worth the risk. Hence violent crime went down in FL after right to carry laws went into effect. Crime doubled in England after guns were confiscated and banned.

Fight Crime. Don't be a victim. Fight back!

Answer 6

Many Americans are just horribly ignorant about civics, that is, the way the government works and what the rights and duties are of citizens. You see the LAPD motto on a police car on TV, "to protect and serve", and you think it applies to you.

Surprise. According to the United States Supreme Court, law enforcement authorities in the United States do not have a positive duty to "protect." You cannot sue the cops, or any other government authority, if the guy you are supposed to testify against is bailed out and comes to your house and kills you. The streets are full of nuts because nuts have civil rights. There are criminals on the streets between arrest and trial because bail is only to make sure they show up in court. The only way to keep a bad guy in jail for what he might do next is if he has already done it before, and the judge is convinced by the DA that letting him out means he certainly will hurt somebody again.

You hear the argument, "if we had a law so that nobody had a gun, we would be safe." Sounds good, makes sense, but is not true. Criminals, by definition, disobey laws, so gun control only disarms the law-abiding. A "gun-free zone" is safe only when everyone, absolutely everyone, including nuts and criminals, do not bring guns into it. Since a gun, by itself, is no more than a machine for throwing balls, what counts is not the gun but the person who is holding it. A lunatic does not need a gun to kill you. On the other hand, to keep a lunatic from killing you, you need a cop right there or a gun yourself plus the knowledge and skill to use it properly. Since the chance of there being a cop right there when you need one is small, and the time it takes to get a cop there is about seven to ten minutes on average, and the time it takes to get killed is about 90 seconds, your best defense is training and equipment of your own.

Ben Franklin had a lot to say about this issue, and I am not going to repeat it here. However, the Founding Fathers assumed that the militia, the armed citizenry, would be the first line of defense against invasion, tyranny, and gang violence, and they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights accordingly. Unlike in Switzerland, adult male Americans are not required by law to own firearms, train in their use, and be ready to use them at a moment's notice. However, it is our right to do so. Statistics show that certain kinds of crimes, which might be expected to be more prevalent in the absence of "gun control", are in fact less so, because the crooks do not know which citizen is armed to defend him/herself. Contrary to simple logic (based on erroneous assumptions), things like the VT incident happen less where many citizens have and exercise the right to carry concealed firearms. You cannot stop a lunatic who has swindled somebody into giving them a gun from taking a couple of shots, but if there are several trained armed citizens in range, you can make absolutely sure that he doesn't get off more than a couple of shots.

Go figure!

Answer 7

When a lion attacks a herd of gazelles, the gazells scatter and scram, leaving the one the lion chose for lunch to it's fate. These gazelles, if they worked together could use their hoofs and sharp horns to beat the slop out of that lion. If they wanted to, they could make him have a really bad day.

All of my life, I have been told that we are human beings. We are supposed to be better than wild animals. That's why we have civilization and the rule of law. But there are times when our instincts, along with subtle lifelong training, subvert our humanity.

If we were trained to attack a shooter instead of running, hiding, and calling 911, many lives could be saved. If a shooter walks into a classroom or a mall and opens fire, he might get one or two, but he couldn't get them all, if they turned and attacked. Even a classroom full of first graders could tackle and kill an assailant if they were conditioned to do so.

I fear that it will be a long time before we learn the lessons of 9/11 and flight 93.

Answer 8

"just passive lambs wanting the government to do everything for us"

Boy I like this comment. I usually voice the fact that I feel many more people today are nothing but a flock of sheep because they expect the government to tell or show them what to do, give them what they need to do it and if they are lucky will send someone in to do the job for them.

Many folks don't want to take the initiative in the decisions that effect things around them. They want someone else to do their thinking and planning. They do very little to properly care for or protect themselves against dangers around them. To educate themselves in matters they need for everyday care and survival.

Yes, I think we are seeing a larger number of just plain lazy folks that are content to let this happen.

Answer 9

Government schools are largely responsible for this. Children in government schools are taught that you should never stand up to someone that wishes to do you harm. They are taught to report bullies and such to the administration. Of course, if you have ever dealt with a bully, you know that the only way to change their behavior is to fight back. But if you fight back in school, you are treated more harshly than the bully. This is a result of liberals dominating the public(government) school system.

Answer 10

Government is just another form of parent to many youngsters these days - they expect someone to take care of them because nobody has ever taught them to take care of themselves. The Super Nanny and similar shows are full of kids and parents like this - it's amazing that so many of them actually go to college.