Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.
The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.
I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.
Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.” Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection. Literally every level of law enforcement shat the bed on that one.
See, what I hear in this argument is, "We can't trust the trained people with guns to protect you, so we should train some more people with guns, less thoroughly, to protect you -- and it will all be awesome."
I think Chris is advocating for a persons right to defend themselves, particularly when government is unable or unwilling to do so.
Precisely.
So, what about the kids? He brought up Parkland as the example of why people should defend themselves because law enforcement "shat the bed." If what he was doing was advocating for a person's right to defend him- or herself in that case, then... is he saying all the kids should be armed?
Are you under the impression that law enforcement have a duty to defend adults but not kids???
No. I'm trying to figure out what Chris is saying here, and what he's implying is the solution. As far as I can follow:
1) Chris said, in response to law enforcement not having an obligation to protect people, "Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.” Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection."
2) Since his example of this was Parkland, I found it odd to choose an example in which trained officers were too chicken to go into the school to take down the assailant, and then say that this is why "gun nuts" (his words) want their own guns -- because it seemed that he was implying that other people (presumably teachers) who are even less well trained than law enforcement would be less chicken. But:
3) I was corrected by Bender (and then Chris22) agreed with him that what Chris was saying was that people should be able to defend "themselves." So, I'm wondering who the "themselves" are in this case, and I can only conclude that they are the children. So I'm trying to understand.