who is responsible for your safety/security

My safety = My uncle.

My family?

...I'll go to jail in a heartbeat; I ain't trippin'..

 

I'm really conflicted about this stuff... I mean I do want to live in a society that has stability soooo that kinda requires some form of security, but I also don't like the idea of the government spying on everyone. :3

 

I think that if you live in an area where you have to own a gun to stay safe, then you need to move. For that reason, I'll never own one.

 

ME. I can't rely on my family for shit.

I'll use government asistence if I have too, but for the most part, I like being independent.

Ironically, cites without extremely strict gun bans tend to be safest.

However, I still don't think felons should be allowed to own guns. That's just asking for trouble.

 

You're responsible for protecting yourself, although government has a role to a degree, particularly in protecting citizens from a terrorist attack from another country.

 

Me first, then my boyfriend/family and then the government

 

I take a feminist contractarian view of human rights, so my position is that the State must ultimately protect human rights (not just its citizens), and its legitimacy can be judged on the basis of its willingness and ability to actually defend human rights.

That said, the mere existence of the State has never negated the individual's right to defend herself or others, should that prove more efficacious.

 

Immediately responsible is the individual. Collectively though, wider circles are less and less accountable, going to household/family members, friends, and the public. All the government should do regarding our safety is "provide for the common defense." Intruding on our private lives is in the realm of the uncommon IMO, so they should really chill there.

Of course we'll have more problems the less the government controls, but that's why personal security is important. Self-defense, whether through martial arts, weapons, alarms, or physical barriers all should play a larger role. They are the immediate resistance to a threat and might deter one without incident if they are well-maintained. As Thomas Jefferson said, "An armed society is a polite society." Big Brother can only try so hard, then sweep up the pieces and go after whoever did it when something does happen.

*quick note about gun ownership Gaytheist rose: I agree. Thankfully, where I live, the chances of a citizen needing a gun are infinitesimal. But the likelihood that one is present in a house or on a person should be some warning to criminals.

 

Both. We can't fully depend on either. We can only somewhat depend on both. If you can't, I feel comfortable knowing I at least have the government to step in while in a time of need. As a society, I feel we are responsible to decide what we have to do to ensure security from the government.

For example, if someone texts their friend "I'm going to bomb the white house," then the government should get & flag that text for all of our protection. We as a society then can decide to have the government not read all of our texts, to balance out the situation, just those that raise a red flag.

 

For me, I would say both myself, and police/government. I think people's views about this rightly vary depending on where they live, for example out in the country, there's less policing, and more of a need to protect oneself if the need arises.

 

Or we could just not trust the State, since there's been no historical reason to do so, and use encryption in our communications.

 

I feel if someone poses a threat through text or phone call, the government should be notified, so they can protect us. I'd feel unsafe knowing such threats can be going unmonitored.

 

Are you saying people should not be allowed to use encryption?

Remember, part of saying the State should be responsible for our safety is also assuming that we can trust the State to be responsible for our safety. I think we have specific reasons to doubt the United States government's commitment to defending human rights.

 

I'm not anti-gov't, at least not against the government of today. I feel a sense of protection knowing that they will be able to see threats & whatnot.

 

I think the fatal flaw is that this would not stop terrorism. It would slow it. But slow means nothing to a determined enemy; the same amount of victims die. So basically it is worth nothing but the restriction of civil liberties.

One would think that threats can be stopped when they arise, rather than when people talk about them, with the notable exception of 9/11. But how did a handful of hijackers take on an entire plane full of people? The passengers didn't rise up against them. I am loath to play monday morning quarterback as this practice is frowned upon when cops' actions are reviewed (we weren't there and can't judge with perfect hindsight), but if given the choice between potential death in a close-quarter fight or certain death in a huge explosion, I'd take the former option. Our world is modern, but not so modern that courage is not sometimes needed.

 

Yeah, the trust you're putting in government is just a little crazy excessive.

There's always going to be a threat of terrorism. Period. Trying to completely eradicate that threat by giving government the kind of power you're advocating for would not be a smart move. At all.

There's always going to be a certain level of evil in society that people will have to contend with. Government can't stop every threat, nor should it try to. That's just reality.

 

Have we been threatened with invasion recently? A terrorist attack? Over here in Montana, I don't see any indication that weakening Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections has made any of us materially safer.

All I see is a legal system biased against women, queers, and people of color, and a set of police departments whose officers are able to get away with brutality against citizens instead of getting fired, blacklisted, and being forced to starve in the streets like they ought to be.

 

Well my dad is retired law enforcement & he isn't part of those officers who brought brutality to the people, he speaks out against them, & knows something ought to be done about that.

But the government's job is really to protect us when we need them, & I'd like them to take care of anything that may raise a flag via text or phone call.

 

To an extent, the state has a great role in protecting the citizenry. The most important role, of course, is the national defense and security of our country from state and non-state actors who try to attack the nation. It also has a role to ensure that criminals are punished/rehabilitated and to ensure that public safety is maintained through and adequate police force.

That said, we must be ultimately vigilant for our own personal safety. I am an advocate of reduced gun control for that, and many other reasons. We also must be careful of where we go, always be mindful and watchful of others, and ensure we are ready to respond to an eventualities to the best of our abilities. When good citizens are able to meet force with force, well, I think the world is a better place.

Whenever I go to a new place, I always look at the entrances and exits, walk around if I have time, and observe people to watch for any suspect behavior. People use to think I was paranoid, but I guess that's the new normal.