Summations Only

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?

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.

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.

But the U.S. citizenry will be armed for generations, no new laws, or increases in the size and scope of government will change it. Attempts to do it will only make a mess, similar to the national 55 mph speed limit of the 1970's.In the past decade or two, the city of Cincinnati, (or certain suburbs of it, I can't remember exactly) was having a seemingly unusual number of vicious attacks by "pit bull dogs". An ordinance was passed to "ban" that breed from the city. While I'm sure the ban resulted in that breed's decline in the areas it was enacted, it sure prompted a pride in ownership of pit bulls in other areas like Northern Ky.Government can never prepare for range and types of backlash that always happen to some extent when they nip away at traditional liberties.

Agreed. That doesn't make any sense to me. They don't need help being sensible. They don't need to be made more helpless so as to be more vulnerable to the idiots who have guns, thus furthering the danger posed by idiots who have guns. I don't understand why you think sensible gun owners need to be further controlled. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix 2/3 quote box.

I agree. I don't know what the cost or feasability is of helmet cams, but IMO the dash cams on their cars seem to work well, including showing people (through television newscasts) some of the dangers they face.

No reasonable pro-gun advocate expects to be able to kill someone without facing the U.S. legal system and make a case why he/she shouldn't be punished for what happened. Oh come on, you know they understand there will be plenty of reasonableness at their trial.

There are plenty of ways in the U.S. to address problems and issues without the federal government. Though the NRA and other pro-gun advocates might disagree with me, I wouldn't mind seeing a few states, like New York, or California, or Illinois take the lead on satisfying every anti-gun advocates desires, up to and including a complete ban of privately owned firearms. Then everyone in the entire country can watch how it works. We can see if crime goes down there. We can see if the police in those states all suddenly become pussycats like the U.K. police, or if some small percentage of them seem to retain their arrogance, and how the people in those states like it, and how it all compares with other states that left things how they are. I believe that's the way politics in the U.S. was intended to work - states can experiment, and if something works, other states can choose to follow that example.I'm glad you brought up prohibition. It's an important part of U.S. history IMO, and I think there are similarities in the alcoholic beverage conflict as there is in the gun conflict. Some may wonder why I call the alcoholic beverage issue a "conflict", but just because it isn't constantly in the news doesn't mean that everyone in the U.S. suddenly agreed in 1933 that recreational alcohol consumption is a wonderful thing. My home state of Kentucky has 120 counties - somewhere close to half of them are "dry", that is, sales of alcoholic beverages are prohibited, because the voters of those counties want it that way. It's true that there are some beer drinkers in dry counties, they just drive to neighboring counties to get their stuff, and I'm not sure if that's even illegal. Votes are taken periodically, and sometimes dry counties change and go wet. I'm not sure if it goes the other way these days or not. But my point is, I don't see why similar actions can't be taken with gun control, while almost completely leaving the federal government out of it. If a state action turns out to be the wrong thing to do, it's easier to reverse than a federal government action.

In the U.S. we have to be taught how to live?? Who's the teacher? That's a basic anti-gun opinion, and not considered true by many people. It's been covered before I'm sure. That's not being sensible, it's being liberal.

The Trayvon Martin case was something that the news media jumped on, and did a masterful job of drawing peoples attention to their reports, by dividing people on the issue, and thereby generating profits for themselves. Only the jurors and others who were there in person had the best information on just what happened. My position is that it's not reasonable to be helpless when confronted by a thug, something that happens all too often in the U.S. The difference seems to actually be in our trust of the U.S. justice system. I think it works pretty well - it has its flaws, but I know of nothing that works better. It depends on how often something like that happens, when compared to how often someone is shot, stabbed or clubbed because of the money they're carrying, or (a new thing lately) someone looks like a fun target for the "knock out" game. Have you ever been a victim of the fun little knock out game, or do you know anyone who has?

How about the District of Columbia at 14.2, with probably the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S.?I don't think the varying gun laws from state to state are different enough at this time to make a clear distinction. If the federal government would stay out of it, maybe someday there will be. And there are other ways to make distinctions than just shooting statistics about how desirable a certain state is to live. As one example from your link in Message 2537, how many more teenage boys will be hiding under teenage girls beds if they have nothing to fear from her dad in a gun restrictive state? I'd rather live in a moral state, with fewer abortions and welfare moms.

A gun's mere presence (in the hands of the law abiding) is often a deterrent to crime. This is proven time and time again. You said this;

quote:

---

Nobody is made "more helpless" by not having one.

---

and

quote:

---

Part of self-control and part of being sensible is the understanding that you don't need a gun to be safe.

---

If you've never heard of anyone successfully defending themselves with a gun (often just its presence) in the past 10 or 20 years alone, there's not much I can do to overcome your short attention span.But I entered this thread with only one intention, to get some honest answers from gun control advocates on their positions of irresponsible use of guns from government representatives, and haven't received any detailed answer yet. I'll repeat it from my Message 2543

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. 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?

---

When a policeman shoots and kills an unarmed 19 year old girl, there is never a mention of government gun control. Should there be?As a gun control advocate, do YOU know why the dept of homeland security needs 450 million hollow point bullets?

It's not a case of interest, it's a case of acting on that interest. All things being equal, teenage boys in states without gun control are going to be more respectful of dads with a gun than they are in states where dad can't have a gun, especially if the dad is a little wimpy guy and the teenage boy is big and strong.In the same way, (regarding my link about the policeman shooting the 19 year old girl because she refused to stop), I'd bet thousands of teenagers all across northern Kentucky will now think twice before they'll thumb their nose at a policeman who tells them to stop. Gun control advocates are always quick to point to the U.K. concerning their lack of guns and gun violence, but the issue goes way deeper than that when we consider, as only one example, how often teenagers run from the police there and get by with it. A lot of people want to live in a society where there's law and order.

Teenage pregnancy, people getting shot, and the U.S./Mexican border. The same political party that is illegal immigrant friendly, blames hardware (guns) for the increased violence illegal immigration causes. Imagine that. Seems to be quite a dilemma for my opponents in this thread, since there have been no direct comments thus far about my link detailing the police shooting of an unarmed 19 year old girl.

They have many uses; threatening out-of-control-horny teenage boys, threatening violent criminals, mercifully killing rabid animals in heavily populated areas, the list is long. I never said that. I want teenage boys to be aware that a spur of the moment passion of a girls father could cause them to get shot if they don't think twice about having their way with her.