The gun control argument you never see presented

[Nuclear Unicorn]

You don't need a gun. Law enforcement has a proven track record that shows they respond promptly and decisively to budding crimes. Response times have decreased so dramatically that you can often have a police officer on-scene sooner than you could run to the bedroom to retrieve a pistol from storage.

Moreover, the police have shown themselves to be courteous, service-minded professionals that work towards bettering their communities. They take seriously their sacred charge to serve and protect the citizens of their districts.

All in all, the ability of the police to interdict criminals before any real harm can be done is high enough to make the risks associated with gun ownership substantially higher than the risks of summoning the police and patiently awaiting their immediate arrival.

I would think this would be the best argument out there. Yet, no one seems to argue that point.

I wonder why that is?

[rock]

1. It sounds like a BS argument to me n/t

[TexasProgresive]

2. ROTFLOL

Where's the emoticon?

Speaking of which, why isn't there a satire and an irony emoticon? They are not the same thing. I would think your post was an ironic use of satire and not strictly speaking sarcasm.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. Because the police need to be disarmed as well? nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. I have no idea what that means or how it relates to the OP. nt

[Duckhunter935]

4. If only it was true

until then.....

[ManiacJoe]

16. Exactly this.

Anyone who might be inclined to make such a claim knows it to be untrue and easily to be discredited.

[spin]

6. Police may respond quickly in a large urban area but crime also happens ...

in more remote rural areas.

Even if you are lucky enough to live in an area with a fast police response you still have to contact the police. You most likely will have to find your cell phone and dial 911. An intruder may not give you the chance to make that call.

On a weekend with a full moon, the cops may be so busy that they might not be able to respond quickly to your call.

I remember an incident that happened years ago. A man noticed a prowler in his yard so he called the cops. They didn't arrive so he called again and said, "You know that prowler I called you about? It's OK now and you don't have to come quickly. I shot him and he is dead!"

The man was amazed at how fast the cops showed up and there even was a helicopter flying overhead. The prowler was caught but the guy said the cops chewed his ass out for a false call. He almost was arrested.

Of course it is also possible to be attacked on the street by a person who wishes to put you in the hospital or six feet under. You most likely would never have the time or the chance to call the cops. If you have a carry permit and you show that you are armed there is an excellent chance that your attacker may decide to turn and run. Of course if he continues to attack you, you may have to shoot him.

Firearms are also used for sporting purposes. The same handgun or shotgun I use for home protection may be the weapon I target shoot with or hunt with.

[Puha Ekapi]

26. Call the cops....

....from my home and it'll be at least 30 minutes, often as long as 60 minutes, before they arrive.

[Binkie The Clown]

7. This is satire, right?

You don't need a gun. Law enforcement has a proven track record that shows they respond promptly and decisively to budding crimes.

Don't get me wrong, I am very much in favor of gun control, but the claim that law enforcement has our best interests at heart is becoming less true with every passing day.

May I refer you to:

http://www.policestateusa.com/
http://www.policemisconduct.net/
http://filmingcops.com/

[stone space]

8. Instead, we're told to accept yahoos like Ready, Zimmerman, Dunnachie and Hicks...

...walking around with their guns, because we're told "an armed society is a polite society".

Moreover, the police have shown themselves to be courteous, service-minded professionals that work towards bettering their communities. They take seriously their sacred charge to serve and protect the citizens of their districts.

Yeah, we should just trust the JT Ready's of this world, the George Zimmerman's of this world, the Veronica Dunnachie's of this world, the Craig Hicks's of this world to be courteous, service-minded professionals that work towards bettering their communities, and who take seriously their sacred charge to serve and protect the citizens of their districts.

You say the argument isn't made.

But it is.

It's made right here in this forum.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. "the Craig Hicks's of this world"

Every one of Hick's victims was unarmed.

Just like you like it.

[stone space]

10. Blaming the victims. Typical.

Every one of Hick's victims was unarmed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. That's not victim blaming.

You, on the other hand, would have those students arrested if they had chosen to defend themselves.

That's victim making.

[stone space]

12. He openly wore his gun several times.

Why was he allowed to do this?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. What do you care? You aren't worried about the Hicks' of the world. The only people you

are trying to disarm are the people who would be the victims of Hicks et al.

News Flash -- people who commit multiple public acts of murder are not dissuaded by laws. They are absolutely intent on harming their victims. They cannot be deterred. They cannot be reasoned with. They have no sense of self-preservation that leads them to turn away from their chosen course as a means of protecting their life/freedom. Laws do not bring peace. The police do not stop crime.

[NYC_SKP]

15. Now that's a detour into oncoming traffic. None of us want protection from other owners.

We just want to be left the fuck alone and allowed to defend ourselves as we please.

Your comment tries to put on and Zimmerman and Hicks in the same group on the same side.

Look, we all despise them and their ilk as much as you do, and none of us support the things they did or the POS legislation that condones any of their acts.

[stone space]

18. Do we?

Look, we all despise them and their ilk as much as you do, and none of us support the things they did or the POS legislation that condones any of their acts.

My impression is that some here support their right to terrorize their neighbors.

[GGJohn]

19. Yeah? And who would those "some here support their right to terrorize their neighbors?"

Post one link of ANY member here who supported that shit.

[NYC_SKP]

20. I know that impression exists but I challenge you to find an example of anyone here.....

...who supports Zimmerman or who feels safer in knowing that Zimmermans are out there.

...or who support the "right to terrorize their neighbors.

If these neighbors feel terrorized by the mere presence of guns in possession of the owner next door then they are suffering from an irrational fear and should seek help.

If that owner next door is acting in a terrorizing or dangerous manner, then the authorities should be called to help.

If they can't help, then there are other legal measures that may be taken, up to and including lobbying for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

I'm with the 46 states that have adopted the "Castle Doctrine".

Forty-six U.S. states have adopted the castle doctrine, stating that a person has no duty to retreat when his/her home is attacked. Twenty-two states have removed the duty to retreat requirement from other locations as well.[1] "Stand Your Ground", "Line in the Sand" or "No Duty to Retreat" laws thus state that a person has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which he/she has a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. Under such laws, there is no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be.[2] Other restrictions may still exist; such as when in public, a person must be carrying firearms in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

[stone space]

21. The 3 Muslims who Craig Hicks terrorized over time felt afraid.

If these neighbors feel terrorized by the mere presence of guns in possession of the owner next door then they are suffering from an irrational fear and should seek help.

Were their fears irrational?

Would psychological counseling have helped them feel better about Hicks repeatedly showing up at their doorstep armed?

Hicks was allowed to terrorize these 3 Muslims because such terrorism is considered as a constitutional rite by some.

Does it matter to you at all the (justified or unjustified in your own mind) fears these 3 Muslims lived with from day to day?

In this forum, folks are already blaming the 3 Muslims who were eventually murdered by Hicks after an extensive history of terrorism for their own murders, because they didn't have gunz.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. That wasn't mere ownership, that was active, criminal menacing.

You know there is a difference but you're relying on the false association fallacy and you know it, i.e. deliberately not telling the truth.

Hicks was allowed to terrorize

Even if we lived in the fantasy land in your mind (blech!) Hicks would have menaced them with a knife, a baseball bat, a Molotov cocktail, a crowbar, a sword, an axe, his fists, etc.

In your sturm and drang you're trying to pretend guns are the only way people are killed. The act isn't fooling anyone.

[NYC_SKP]

23. You weren't there, I wasn't there. Also, the plural of "gun" is "guns", not "gunz".

I never could understand how misspelling words is expected to make an argument stronger.



In any event, I'm not an expert on the Hicks thing and don't intend to become one, but it sounds like he was a dick and with or without a gun would have been a danger to society.

Such people will always be around, new gun laws wouldn't have prevented this.

Perhaps you have a different opinion. Feel free to describe a law that would have prevented this.

[stone space]

24. They did talk to friends and family.

You weren't there, I wasn't there.

That his gunz caused them to live in fear is not really in question here. The victims expressed their fears to others.

What seems to be in question is whether or not their fears were reasonable, and whether they needed psychological counseling to deal with their unfounded fears.

I would contend that their fears were perfectly reasonable and rational.

[NYC_SKP]

25. Is there a particular law which, if in place, would have prevented this tragedy?

It sounds to me from your description that they should have looked to law enforcement for help.

If that didn't work it would have been better to move or to arm themselves than to just wait to be victimized.

What would you have done in their situation?

[NYC_SKP]

14. I'm going to hold my breath someone from the secret clubhouse-o-fun chimes in.

OK, I lied, not holding my breath.

They got nothin', and they're not likely to post anything here.

[Optical.Catalyst]

17. Decisively budding crimes?

If the police were to react to 'decisively to budding crimes' it would require 'profiling'. Now in a civil society, we do not allow police 'profiling'.

[Man from Pickens]

27. nobody argues it because it's patently ridiculous

Police have no obligation whatsoever to protect you from crime. Their only actual legal obligation is to take a report.

And believe you me, you wouldn't want to live in a society that had a police officer closer to you at all times than a gun in the bedroom. That society would be a literal, actual prison.

[NaturalHigh]

28. I've noted before that the same people who hate guns...

and don't want anyone to own them also hate the police. I'm not quite sure what they think we're supposed to do if attacked. Just suffer through it and die, I guess. I've yet to find a banner that will answer the question.