I don't believe that is true. Guns are used plenty of times every single day to help prevent crime and to save lives.
It just doesn't get the mass media attention that "gun related crime" does.
Home*|*The Armed Citizen
Who arrived AFTER the incident had already started. AND bungled the situation totally. What does that tell you?
I'll never understand the automatic deference to authority. Just because they're cops or wear fancy uniforms doesn't negate the fact that they're human too. Or is the argument more along the lines of "cops are better than Joe Citizen"? Why? Because they're "trained more"?
How many of you know how often a police officer has to qualify with his/her weapon and what are the accepted standards for qualification?
In any case, why the implicit assumption that "there are trained cops ergo YOU citizen donot need personal protection"?
Despite the fact that the courts have decided that you have no right to expect the police to protect you from crime? That the police are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help, even in life threatening situations?
I'm not saying that all cops are bumbling idiots. Nor are they callous slackers. Most officers really do want to protect people, save lives, deter crime. But that doesn't change the fact that they police have zero legal requirement to do so.
I have ZERO problems with this.
Would you also agree then that in such a case, just because one individual violates the law; the rest of us peaceful, conscientious gun owners must not be punished for no fault of our own (i.e. hold the violator responsible and not punish the rest of us who've done nothing wrong) ?
"One of the driving forces behind LEAA’s founding was to dispel the false impression that America’s police favor more gun control."
Cops Versus Gun Control Main
Most cops don't expect Joe Sixpack to be able to draw down on a criminal and make an arrest pending arrival of the cavalry - but they do want to give Joe Sixpack a fighting chance if and when he's about to become a victim. Most cops also know that more often than not, the mere "presence of a firearm" deters criminals. Would you attempt to rob someone who you know is armed?
In any case, none of this still invalidates what the lady said at the end of that video. The purpose of the 2nd amendment isn't so that the Government gives me "permission" (if someone gives you permission to do something, is that a "right" or a "privilege"?) to shoot moose and hunt geese - the purpose is to maintain an armed populace to prevent the growth of a tyrannical government.
All this noise against "assault weapons" is nothing but a smoke screen. When the Constitution was ratified, "arms" meant everything from an axe to the musket. The musket, incidentally was the "assault weapon" of the day (used quite well to defeat the most powerful empire at the time). The founders, who'd just fought a war in their own backyards, not only saw no harm in citizens owning arms... they actually encouraged it ("assault weapons" including).
Lastly - my life, my liberty, my family and my property are not up for bids based on the whims of a two-bit hoodlum or a power-drunk government flunky. The Constitution doesn't "give" me my rights ("constitutional rights" - how I loathe that term!) - my rights exists by virtue of birth; the book merely affirms this.
I will NOT surrender my ability to defend myself or my loved ones.
Dum spiro, Pugno!