Summations Only

Just watched the last episode of Fargo, where the bad guy was, in fact, executed by a good guy. And I do mean executed, no self defence, pure execution. He then recieved a commendation. It spoiled an otherwise good series for me. In the film the good guy (gal) shot the evil one in the leg. Minimum force is what a civilised soicety requires; not total vengeance.

The argument wasn't that people should be unable to defend themselves. The argument was that the defense response to non-lethal threats shouldn't be lethal.Here's a couple good ones:

• Texas dad fatally shoots 17-year-old boy he finds hiding in daughter’s bedroom
  
• Minnesota man who killed teens in break-in charged with murder

Surely you agree that the lethal response was in both cases unjustified.--Percy

Another strawman.
As a matter of fact your whole response was a strawman.
That's fucked up.

The argument that Heathen is making is that people defending themselves with lethal force is that person judging the guilt of a crime and administering the death penalty, and that the average person should not have the capacity for that.

National Rifle Association of America11250 Waples Mill RoadFairfax, VA 22030Sirs:I have been a member of the NRA over the years and have Life Member status. I am also a retired police officer. I have owned firearms since I was a boy and depended on firearms my entire adult life.I had hoped beyond hope that the leadership of the NRA would show some modicum of decency and hear the cries of the victims and their families at the scourge of gun violence that is racking this nation. That the NRA reversed itself on something as simple as background checks is mind-boggling. Your positions are the greatest detriment to the reputation of reasonable gun-owners.Instead, we hear nothing but empty rhetoric and a callous disregard for life and liberty. Yes, liberty as defined by the founders as a quality of life to be shared by all, not just the few who have come to believe that living in a democratic republic means that they get to do whatever they want whenever they want. That is the argument of immature self-interested children.The last straw for me was the constant rhetoric of Stand and Fight and Don’t Tread on Me.Now two of my brother officers lie dead in Las Vegas because of the vitriol you have drummed into the heads of faux patriots.Only someone in denial would fail to recognize that the blood of those officers is on your hands.Therefore, due to the irresponsibility of the leadership of the NRA and its failure to recognize its role in creating a culture of violence and fear, I am returning my Life Member card. I no longer wish to be associated with such an irresponsible organization.Sincerely,Gary Pudup, Rochester, NYJune 12, 2014

A gun is not a defensive weapon. It can't ward off bullets. All you can do with a gun is shoot first or hope the other guy misses.

Yes, you've got it right this time. He wasn't arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves.So since you do actually understand his argument, reply to that argument instead of one you make up.--Percy

Hello Percy, I have some questions for gun control advocates that I've never seen asked of them before. I'd like to see them calmly and reasonably answered - not necessarily to go into a deep discussion on it here, but just so I and other pro second amendment people can hopefully better understand how the seemingly unlimited 'trust- of-government' mindset works.Here are some recent news stories that are comparable to the ones you linked in message 2537, only in these cases it was a policeman that used lethal force where most would agree that it was not necessary.Kentucky community outraged after 19-year-old woman shot by deputy outside field party — New York Daily NewsIn this one, a policeman arrived at the site of a "field party", where a group of young people were having a good time, probably including some underage drinking / marijuana use. A car was leaving with 4 young people inside, the young driver refused to stop when the policeman held up his hand, so (begin conflicting accounts) he ended up on the hood of her car, and fired 4 shots through the windshield, killing her. No reasonable person would believe that he feared she was about to use a gun on him.In the next one, a policeman entered private property (looking for a lost child apparently) without any kind of permission or warrant, and shot and killed the property owners dog.http://www.ijreview.com/...-confront-police-officer-shot-dogNow suppose in 2014, gun control advocates across the U.S. get most, if not all, of the gun control legislation passed that they desire. Now almost no one, (except police and other government authorities) can legally posses a firearm. My question is, would you have subsequent, new ideas about what to do about the small percentage of police and other government agents who make mistakes with firearms? Would you advocate only better training, more stringent requirements for their positions only, or would you in any way advocate gun control for government?Do you think their mistakes (or overzealous use) of firearms would go down if public ownership of guns was illegal? Would guns and associated problems disappear to a great extent, or would the problems decline only slightly, comparable to the current problems associated with marijuana use, an illegal product?

There are certainly countries such as the UK where the use of firearms by police is strictly limited. It is reserved to trained firearms officers, who are issued with guns on a per-incident basis rather than carrying them around on the offchance. As a result of which: This does not seem to result in a greater number of UK police officers being intentionally killed in the line of duty. There are some figures here.

quote:

---

Now suppose in 2014, gun control advocates across the U.S. get most, if not all, of the gun control legislation passed that they desire. Now almost no one, (except police and other government authorities) can legally posses a firearm.

---

How come so many continue to use this strawman? Advocates of more responsible gun ownership are NOT trying to take peoples' guns away. The only way that your statement above could ever be true would be if you are proposing that almost every gun owner currently is a convicted felon, domestic abuser or mentally ill. Is that what you are saying?As far as irresponsible police officers go, they should be treated like anyone who uses unjustified lethal force.

Hi Marc,The foremost issue is how to reduce gun deaths in this country. What we know is that the lower the prevalence of guns the lower the incidence of gun deaths. About the arming of police, I'd prefer something closer to the UK approach, but of course this would be impractical while the citizenry is still armed.--Percy

There are three groups of people in the USA: people who don't have guns, sensible people who have guns and idiots who have guns. Gun control won't effect the people who don't have guns or the idiots who have guns. It's only for the sensible people who have guns; it helps them be sensible.So your question really is: What's the proportion of sensible people who have guns compared to idiots who have guns? More idiots → less effective gun control.

I understand all that, and if the U.S. could simply pass one massive gun control law that would instantly transform its gun violence statistics to those of the U.K, I would be for it. But the societies are too different - many generations in the U.K. up to today have lived their entire lives with guns practically non-existent, while much of the U.S. has had a keen interest in guns for many generations. That interest can't be erased with laws.As a comparison, Americans were used to driving 65 to 75 mph on interstate highways up to 1973. Then congress thought it could erase what they were used to by passing a national 55 mph speed limit. They didn't forsee the mess it would make, the CB craze, the radar detector craze, the countless 70's movies depicting police as idiots, etc. The money ran out, the corruption faded, and the national 55 mph speed limit is just a sad memory now. But the damage it did still lingers, mainly the continuing lack of respect for police. And a (however slight) decline in the number of quality people willing to become policemen.

What we need is a massive publicity campaign to interest them in something else, such as crochet. You wouldn't believe how hard it is to kill someone with a crochet hook. Take it from me, what with all the effort and the mess and the shouting for help it's hardly worth killing them at all.

They state this FACT (not straw man) because they can clearly see it in just about every gun control discussion they see. From Message 3

quote:

---

If the guns had never been legal in the first place, the parent wouldn't have the guns to steal. The gun shows wouldn't have the guns to sell. Only criminals would own guns..

---

From Message 6

quote:

---

Of course simply making firearms illegal wouldn't magically remove guns already in existence...and there are many, many guns already in the US.

​

But it would limit the ability to move guns. You couldn't just go to a gun show and buy one. Ammunition would no longer be legal.

---

There are many other examples of this, in this thread and other discussions about gun control, that "guns serve no useful purpose" etc. and those pro gun controllers who claim that they are "not trying to take peoples guns away" are completely silent every time. It's phony, but it's part of how "incrementalism" works. While that sounds good, its not realistic. Everyone knows that policeman that shot the 19 year old girl that I linked above won't spend any time in jail. There are extra harsh punishments for anyone who shoots a police officer most anywhere in the U.S. The mother of the 19 year old girl probably wishes someone would have shot this one - her daughter could still be alive.I'm not a policeman hater - 95% of the ones I've dealt with in my 59 years have been as courteous and professional as they can be. But the other 5% have serious problems.