# The police have no duty to protect individuals (yep, another gun debate) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2001, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222 "2001-04-08T03:05:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2001, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/101 "2001-04-25T10:06:47Z")
jab1… > [@](#): > > Do you honestly believe that the rates of suicide in Japan and Denmark would be the same if gun ownership was not restricted there? Do you have evidence otherwise? > [@](#): > > I say it would be even higher because the most effective means of committing suicide is with a handgun. You say that as if you’ve actually been to the point of holding a gun up to your head and about to pull the trigger. I assure you, it’s easier said than done. > [@](#): > > And yet you agree that people with a history of mental-health problems should not be permitted to own guns. Quite a leap of logic. You take “suicidal depression” and extrapolate that to mean “general mental illness”. I’m certain that, if you spent a couple moments thinking on that statement, you’d like to revise it a tad. > [@](#): > > If guns did not exist, most mental-health problems would be less of a concern. And most personal-safety and Contstitutional Rights issues would be MORE of a concern. Quite the trade-off, I think, one you seem all too willing to make. > [@](#): > > We wouldn’t have to worry about some nut shooting up a school or an office or their home. How naive. Minty Green… > [@](#): > > The meaning of those statements seems clear enough to me–that “the people” as a whole are “the militia” of which the Second Amendment speaks. Some people take a dual approach to the whole militia issue by going strictly by dictionary definitions, which mentions both the Official and Unofficial militias - the National Guard and “the People”, respectively. I don’t know how widely a held interpretation this is among the GCD crowd, however. > [@](#): > > As for your insistence that the Bill of Rights does not “grant” rights, allow me to quote the Sixth Amendment, just as one example: > > (Amendment snipped for brevity) > > That looks to me like an affirmative grant of a right to a speedy trial, etc. It does NOT say the government cannot prevent a speedy trial, etc. In no way does that indicate that the Constitution “grants” rights… simply that the Constitution acknowledges them. Just because it doesn’t specifically state “Congress shall make no law etc. etc.” that doesn’t mean that the BoR is “granting” the right. In addition, how does a right being outlined in the Constitution translate as “It does NOT say that the government cannot prevent a speedy trial”? Of COURSE it says that the government cannot prevent a speedy trial. It says specifically what the accused shall have. Think of it this way… if I say “I’m giving you ten bucks” (and then give you ten bucks), can I then steal the ten dollars back from you later because “I didn’t say I wouldn’t take it back”? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2001, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/102 "2001-04-25T13:32:14Z")
**Spoofe** : Actually, I think the Sixth Amendment does grant rights. Its key language says “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial.” I have a hard time seeing that as confirming a right that already existed or imposing a restriction on the government, the two other manners in which the Bill of Rights addresses Americans’ basic liberties. Of course, once a person has a right, the government cannot act to prevent the exercise of that right, no matter how that right is put into the constitution. It’s largely a semantic difference whether a right is affirmatively granted, confirmed by amendment, or created by negative implication because the government is prohibited to act in certain ways–unless you think that certain rights existed even in the absence of the BoR, and that the Ninth Amendment protects these ethereal rights or broadens the rights explicitly contained in the BoR. Hope that clarifies. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2001, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/103 "2001-04-25T18:58:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Do you honestly believe that the rates of suicide in Japan and Denmark would be the same if gun ownership was not restricted there? > > Do you have evidence otherwise?\*\* Do you have evidence that it would have no effect? The only way to prove my claim would be to ask Japan and Denmark to re-write their gun laws so that they were more like ours and then see what happens. I don’t think they’re going to go along with this suggestion. > [@](#): > > **I say it would be even higher because the most effective means of committing suicide is with a handgun.** You say that as if you’ve actually been to the point of holding a gun up to your head and about to pull the trigger. I assure you, it’s easier said than done. [/quote] No, I say it as though the statistics say it’s [the most common method](http://www.suicidology.org/youthsuicidetaskforce.htm), among youth, anyway. (Look at #5 & #6 on that page.) Also, look at [this page](http://www.iusb.edu/~jmcintos/SuicideStats.html) on overall statistics for 1998. The most common method of committing sucide was “Firearms and Explosives,” accounting for 57% of all suicides. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2001, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/104 "2001-04-25T21:35:57Z")
I wasn’t finished… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > If guns did not exist, most mental-health problems would be less of a concern. > > \*\* > > And most personal-safety and Contstitutional Rights issues would be MORE of a concern. Quite the trade-off, I think, one you seem all too willing to make. You’re darn right. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2001, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/105 "2001-04-26T06:43:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Do you have evidence that it would have no effect? Only the comparison of the suicide of countries with similar (as similar as you can get) economic systems and opposite (as opposite as you can get) gun control laws. Aside from a mass-experiment where we manipulate the gun laws of an entire society, while forcibly maintaining all other social and economic factors, I can’t think of any other realistic means of gathering such evidence. In any case, the evidence supports that the presence of guns has a negligible effect on suicide rates. > [@](#): > > The most common method of committing sucide was “Firearms and Explosives,” accounting for 57% of all suicides. Yes, in the United States. But near-exact suicide rates in countries such as Canada and Australia suggest that a high level of substitution goes on… if you take away the guns, they find some other way to end their lives. Conclusion? The presence of guns is negligible to suicide! Gee, what a coincidence, exactly what you’ve been told this whole time (and exactly what’s been said in each and every Gun Control debate when suicide was brought up). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222.md?page=5)