The NRA has repeatedly pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police departments do not have a duty to protect any individual. This was one of the major points used in the NRA support of concealed-carry around the country. I just got back from the NRA meetings in Charlotte and saw a preview of a video coming out that has several police officers stating that it is very rare for an officer to be able to respond to an assault in time to protect you and that everyone citizen needs to protect themselves. NRA has been saying this for years and the article's author should know this.karl wrote:I think it's foolish to promote gun ownership and not be a member of the NRA. That being said I think he makes some interesting points. Not having seen evidence on the contrary, I think some of his points have at least some bearing. I agree that if the NRA promoted the "duty of police is not to protect" issue that a lot of people would change their minds. A common defense to gun control I've heard is that you can always call the police. What do you gentlemen in disagreement think about this?
This points out the problem/danger in typical NRA-bashing crap. Based upon your post, I'm sure you were not aware that the NRA has been doing precisely what the article accuses it of not doing. People tend to believe something simply because it is in print. It's the same tactic used by anti-gunners like the Brady Campaign when they say "studies show a firearm in your home is 47 times more likely to injure or kill a family member than an intruder." That is garbage, but those unfamiliar with the subject matter tend to believe it, simply because it was stated or in print. Only when the NRA provides accurate information do people realize they have been duped.
Chas.