Guns (here in the U.S.A.)

Post Reply New Topic

Some thoughts about guns:

As a general rule, rural people tend to be pro-gun, whereas city people (especially people in densely populated cities like NYC) tend to be anti-gun.

Rural people need guns because it is logistically much harder for the police to maintain public safety out in rural areas than to do so in a densely packed city.

On the other hand, city people tend to be anti-gun because, if everyone in the city had a gun, there would be a much greater danger of out-of-control armed mob violence. To most of us, it feels safer to let the police have a monopoly on guns; we just need to make sure the police don't abuse that power (which, alas, they too often do, but we don't feel that the solution is to give everyone else guns).

Hence it makes sense to have very tight gun regulation in large cities, but less gun regulation out in rural areas.

Also: Here in the U.S.A., gun rights are commonly seen as a "right-wing" thing, but they are really a rural thing, not a "right wing" thing per se. Bernie Sanders, though left-wing, tends to support gun rights because he comes from Vermont, which is mostly rural. Gun rights are "right wing" only because, in most states, rural people tend to be right wing.

Makes sense. In this vase, people who want tighter gun control should try to arrange more police officers etc. to rural areas first, right?

You’d hav to have a police state with a cop every 50 feet or less. To outweigh the defensive use of guns. You’d need a cop for ever 2-3 people. Since we can’t carry cops in our pocket, and it’s economical not possible to hire and pay for most rhennation to be cops. Do you want to live with so many cops every bored looking for trouble?
Could we trust them all? There’s not enough good people to do it. Supreme Court ruled cops don’t have to protect us. So they can refuse to come help you. They don’t have to rush into a school shooting. They are not here to protect us. They are here to ticket us and arrest us if we break laws for the government. They serve the government it the people. Quite a lot they are above us. They call us civilians, they are f*****g civilians, they aren’t in the military, but they act like they are, dress like they are, so whatever they want. They have the blue code which is they don’t rate or turn on each other, so if one of them violates us mesn civilians they others are suppose to cover it up for them
This guy I watched was a cop and then moved and later tried to be a cop again, and said the interview was all about will you protect and cover for other cops is no no thanks.bs when he did it 20 years earlier it was about obeying the law being honest etc. are they and good cop if they cover for a bad cop? No. Is a soldier good if he covers for another who killed bunch of civilians? Maybe I just have too high a moral compass.
Anyways it wouldn’t work and you and I wouldn’t want a police state we already have too much of one currently.
With any lucky the Supreme Court will smack down every violation illgeal gun control laws his year, it’s why New York and Cal tried to avoid it getting to the sc. but they going hear it. And it’s tilted pro gun. And there’s few other cases in the work going to sc.
it’s time the court do their job and uphold the constitution.

The cops HAVE to help you. That’s their job.

What are you referring to here?

Anyhow, your reply to me has messed-up formatting such that the entire message, including stuff written by you, appears to be a quote from me.


That's interesting, very different from NYC. This must vary from one city to another, then. Last I heard, the police unions around here were very much in favor of gun control.


I don't think it would be a non-issue here in NYC.


I think this is an issue that should be left up to individual states. The Second Amendment has traditionally been interpreted, by judges and legal scholars, as a collective right of each state (to have a "well-regulated militia"), not an individual right of each person.


If so he has changed. Admittedly I haven't kept up with everything he has been saying lately, but he used to be at least somewhat pro-gun.

Indeed, in sparsely populated areas it's just not feasible to have a cop on every third street corner. But this IS feasible in a densely populated area like NYC.

We just need drug law reform, legal prostitution, etc., so the cops can focus on protecting each neighborhood instead of raiding people's homes.

Interesting. I would hazard a guess that your city isn't very densely populated?

Guns and Weed's , hand in hand..

I agree with your opinions here, Mona. The urban way of life is very different than a rural way of life. They're not the same. I live in a rural area. My area is not protected by a police force. It's protected by the county sheriff in a county that is nearly 7,000 square miles. There are many areas in that county where, if someone called 911 and was being attacked, it could be 30 minutes or longer for any response. Within the last ten years in a nearby county, a retired couple was brutally murdered with the wife pleading on 911 to send help as her husband was being murdered before her eyes and before the murderer then turned on her. Help didn't arrive until they were both dead. In many rural areas, properties are far enough apart where there are no neighbors within earshot, no one to hear cries or screams for help. You're very much on your own. Nearly all of the the citizens in rural areas of the U.S. are law abiding as are urban citizens. Rural citizens understandably have strong support for being able to attempt to protect themselves when no one is around to help rather than being completely defenseless against a criminal/criminals who scoff at laws.

And yet the don’t have any legally responsibility to do so and can’t be held accountable for not helping us. According the the court and laws.

It’s not their job the ones that do it do it out of kindness.

Texas has big urban cities full of pro gun people

Police unions and chiefs are polticians and not police officers.

The criminals already have guns and tons of them in nyc, letting more people besides the wealthy and politicians have carry permits would make it safer not worse.

Supreme Court which is the end of end for what is what has ruled over and over its an individual right, the militia isn’t connected or controlled by any government, it’s nit a government organization it’s not the national guard it’s every baked body person in the nation, in order for them to from every person has he be able to won guns so they can from a militia when the time comes. That’s why the 2nd amendment is written as it is for the militia to exist the right if the people to bear arms must not be infringed. States can’t violate thwt anymore then Mississippi can pass a law not allowing black people t vote. All the bill of rights are guaranteed to ever last citizen of the United States. They are all equal so no states can’t choose to treat their citizens as non us citizens and deny them their rights. States can only do what’s allowed to them under th constitution and the bill of rights is a list to things any government in the USA can’t do. Some states go even further in what the government can’t to.

So if what you think is true individual states could just throw out the bill of rights, no free speech, no voting, no due process , warrantless searches, unfair punishment, just do whatever they want. Anarchy of the rich, no thanks.

Two city police departments, sheriff department and the state police are based in my area. And it still takes 10-20 mins for them to respond, some times never come never tell you they aren’t coming. I’d rather shoot the bad person and call the police to report it then have them show up mins later or hours later to process my murder scene. Know why they ask you for description of the person? It’s cause more then likely you’ll be dead when they arrive and the description will help them try to find the person since dead people can’t talk

But in some cases that cops are never there. The mayor and administrators of many large cities direct the action of the police. If for political correctness, the cops are portrayed as evil and the cities administration buy into that perception, then the cops will be required to take a very soft approach to crime.

Some cities for example San Francisco have directed the police to turn a blind eye to many types of crime. So in some large cities the cops do not patrol or respond in certain neighborhoods. They see crimes occurring and turn a blind eye to it. In many cases the cities administrators live in gated communities with guards with guns posted to protect the occupants. They don't feel the effects of crime.

One of the biggest problems in gun violence is that the existing laws are not being enforced. If convicted felons or individuals with severe psychological problems can find it easy to get their hands on guns, it makes no sense to impose more restrictive gun laws. Those laws are already on the books but criminals and individuals with severe psychological disorders are able to easily bypass the arms of the law.

I agree with this. A proverbial slap on the wrist or a light sentence for violent crimes involving firearms is clearly little to no deterrent at all.

A thought to ponder: What if penalties were so severe that people considering perpetrating violent crime with a firearm would know that if caught, their life would ruined. They would spend the quality years of their life incarcerated, period. No parole. Zero tolerance. Don't you think things would be different?

It might but then again it might not. I know in one country they have very strict laws about driving while drunk. Automatically they take away your license for 2 years. No ifs, and or buts. No exceptions. As a result most individuals do not drive after they drink.