Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
28 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,658 Year: 16,694/19,786 Month: 819/2,598 Week: 65/251 Day: 18/24 Hour: 0/4


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 2543 of 5179 (730544)
06-28-2014 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2537 by Percy
06-28-2014 7:49 AM


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.

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

--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.

http://www.nydailynews.com/...ld-gathering-article-1.1771525

In 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-dog

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2537 by Percy, posted 06-28-2014 7:49 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2544 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 9:39 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 2545 by Asgara, posted 06-28-2014 9:50 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 2546 by Percy, posted 06-29-2014 6:47 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 2547 by ringo, posted 06-29-2014 2:54 PM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 2548 of 5179 (730692)
06-29-2014 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 2544 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2014 9:39 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2544 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 9:39 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2549 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2014 8:37 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 2550 of 5179 (730696)
06-29-2014 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2545 by Asgara
06-28-2014 9:50 PM


How come so many continue to use this strawman? Advocates of more responsible gun ownership are NOT trying to take peoples' guns away.

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.

As far as irresponsible police officers go, they should be treated like anyone who uses unjustified lethal force.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2545 by Asgara, posted 06-28-2014 9:50 PM Asgara has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2551 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2014 8:55 PM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 2552 of 5179 (730699)
06-29-2014 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 2546 by Percy
06-29-2014 6:47 AM


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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2546 by Percy, posted 06-29-2014 6:47 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2560 by Percy, posted 06-30-2014 6:25 AM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 2553 of 5179 (730700)
06-29-2014 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2547 by ringo
06-29-2014 2:54 PM


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.

Agreed.

It's only for the sensible people who have guns; it helps them be sensible.

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.

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 don't understand why you think sensible gun owners need to be further controlled.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix 2/3 quote box.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2547 by ringo, posted 06-29-2014 2:54 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2561 by ringo, posted 06-30-2014 11:47 AM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 2554 of 5179 (730701)
06-29-2014 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 2551 by Dr Adequate
06-29-2014 8:55 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2551 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2014 8:55 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2555 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2014 9:23 PM marc9000 has acknowledged this reply

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 2563 of 5179 (731827)
06-30-2014 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 2558 by vimesey
06-30-2014 5:55 AM


I fear that the debate in the US has become so polarized, that it is seen as an unbearable admission of weakness on the part of the pro-gun movement, to accept any concept of reasonableness. In fact, they want to go the opposite way, and have the right to kill somebody just because they felt a bit threatened by them.

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.

By moving the goalposts so far to the extreme, they don't need to worry about being limited by reasonableness any more.

Oh come on, you know they understand there will be plenty of reasonableness at their trial.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2558 by vimesey, posted 06-30-2014 5:55 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2566 by vimesey, posted 07-01-2014 2:55 AM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 2564 of 5179 (731837)
06-30-2014 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2560 by Percy
06-30-2014 6:25 AM


I understand. You believe we can't get there (reduced gun deaths) from here (30,000 gun deaths per year) and should stop trying because of the law of unintended consequences as illustrated by the double nickle (and even better by prohibition). But by this reasoning government should never do anything. It doesn't seem particularly persuasive.

What means would you propose for reducing gun deaths?

--Percy

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2560 by Percy, posted 06-30-2014 6:25 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2568 by Percy, posted 07-01-2014 8:33 AM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 2565 of 5179 (731843)
06-30-2014 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 2561 by ringo
06-30-2014 11:47 AM


marc9000 writes:

They don't need help being sensible.

Sure they do. Sense isn't something you're born with. You have to learn to be a good citizen.

In the U.S. we have to be taught how to live?? Who's the teacher?

marc9000 writes:

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.

As I mentioned in another post, a gun is not a defensive weapon. Nobody is made "more helpless" by not having one.

That's a basic anti-gun opinion, and not considered true by many people. It's been covered before I'm sure.

marc9000 writes:

I don't understand why you think sensible gun owners need to be further controlled.

I didn't say the sensible people "need" to be controlled. They're the only ones who can be taught self-control. Part of self-control and part of being sensible is the understanding that you don't need a gun to be safe.

That's not being sensible, it's being liberal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2561 by ringo, posted 06-30-2014 11:47 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2569 by ringo, posted 07-02-2014 1:21 PM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 2570 of 5179 (732190)
07-03-2014 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2566 by vimesey
07-01-2014 2:55 AM


Trayvon Martin's killing, and George Zimmerman's acquittal, would suggest that the bar is set so low, that an ant with broken legs would look for something more challenging.

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.

This is my point - laws like "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" prevent any genuine application of reasonableness to self defence. If your position is that it is reasonable to kill someone because you feel a bit threatened by them, then your definition of "reasonable" becomes valueless.

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.

marc9000 writes:

Oh come on, you know they understand there will be plenty of reasonableness at their trial.

We seem to differ on what is reasonable.

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.

Me, I think it is unreasonable to be shot dead for walking through the wrong neighbourhood - I even think (and boy is this radical, I know) that it is unreasonable to be shot dead for walking through the wrong neighbourhood, and looking like there's a possibility that you might be up to no good.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2566 by vimesey, posted 07-01-2014 2:55 AM vimesey has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 2571 of 5179 (732191)
07-03-2014 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 2568 by Percy
07-01-2014 8:33 AM


I'm all in favor of this experiment, but I think there's already enough evidence. If you look at this table of firearm death rates by state, it looks like the states with stronger gun control laws tend to have lower firearm death rates. New York, California and Illinois have rates of 5.1, 7.7 and 8.2 respectively, while your own state of Kentucky is 12.4. Tennessee right next door is 14.4. Alaska, Sarah Palin's home state, is 20.4. Alabama, home of the redneck, is 16.2.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2568 by Percy, posted 07-01-2014 8:33 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 2573 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2014 9:32 PM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 2572 of 5179 (732193)
07-03-2014 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2569 by ringo
07-02-2014 1:21 PM


It's a sensible opinion. A gun is no good unless you shoot first.

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.

marc9000 writes:

It's been covered before I'm sure.

I have a short attention span. Feel free to cover it 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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2569 by ringo, posted 07-02-2014 1:21 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2580 by ringo, posted 07-04-2014 12:01 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 2599 by Theodoric, posted 07-05-2014 10:30 AM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 2574 of 5179 (732196)
07-03-2014 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2573 by Dr Adequate
07-03-2014 9:32 PM


Do you know how many teenage boys you'd need to shoot to stop teenage boys from being interested in teenage girls?

All of them.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2573 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2014 9:32 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2575 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2014 10:15 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 2576 by hooah212002, posted 07-03-2014 11:49 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 2578 by Straggler, posted 07-04-2014 8:21 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 2581 by NoNukes, posted 07-04-2014 12:01 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 2582 by ringo, posted 07-04-2014 12:13 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 2584 of 5179 (732228)
07-04-2014 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 2575 by Dr Adequate
07-03-2014 10:15 PM


It seems like if anything there's a correlation between teenage pregnancy and people getting shot.

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.

But then a lot of people want to live in a society where the police don't shoot citizens. It's quite the dilemma, isn't it?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2575 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2014 10:15 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2593 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2014 11:54 PM marc9000 has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1014
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 2585 of 5179 (732229)
07-04-2014 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 2576 by hooah212002
07-03-2014 11:49 PM


So guns are for threatening teenage boys for doing what teenage boys do? Threatening teenage boys?

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 just want to be clear: do you advocate shooting a teenage boy just for sleeping with your daughter? That "crime" is punishable by death?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2576 by hooah212002, posted 07-03-2014 11:49 PM hooah212002 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2586 by NoNukes, posted 07-04-2014 9:38 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019