Why do many hard-line Second Amendment supporters sell law enforcement short?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Aren't a lot of these people the same people who want strict, tough LAW AND ORDER and such? Blue Lives Matter, etc.? We are a nation of laws, right?

"If we ban guns, only outlaws will have guns!" Aren't there a lot of people (and I mean a LOT of people) in the US whose taxpayer-funded jobs are literally to fight the outlaws? And don't these people have a lot of guns (and increasingly in many places, more powerful weapons) themselves?!

(By the way, I don't know many supporters of stricter gun control who actually want to ban all guns or even most guns from civilian use. I know even fewer - far fewer, hardly any really- who want to take guns away from law enforcement.  And I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, for what it's worth!)

Someone help me out here!

[TJ in Oregon]

Their view is that law enforcement isn't going to be everywhere and can't be everywhere. They aren't trying to suggest that liberals would take guns away from the cops (although there is a fringe element who would do so and I've had arguments with people about this before), but that before the cops can get there if law abiding citizens are armed the bad guys won't be able to run roughshod over everyone.

[RFayette]

Their view is that law enforcement isn't going to be everywhere and can't be everywhere. They aren't trying to suggest that liberals would take guns away from the cops (although there is a fringe element who would do so and I've had arguments with people about this before), but that before the cops can get there if law abiding citizens are armed the bad guys won't be able to run roughshod over everyone.

[dead0man]

The opposite is more interesting I think.  Those that hate cops are often the same people that are the biggest gun control enthusiasts.  That makes no sense.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Aren't a lot of these people the same people who want strict, tough LAW AND ORDER and such? Blue Lives Matter, etc.? We are a nation of laws, right?

"If we ban guns, only outlaws will have guns!" Aren't there a lot of people (and I mean a LOT of people) in the US whose taxpayer-funded jobs are literally to fight the outlaws? And don't these people have a lot of guns (and increasingly in many places, more powerful weapons) themselves?!

(By the way, I don't know many supporters of stricter gun control who actually want to ban all guns or even most guns from civilian use. I know even fewer - far fewer, hardly any really- who want to take guns away from law enforcement.  And I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, for what it's worth!)

Someone help me out here!

<------------ +1 person

[SWE]

It's not the job of law enforcement to protect people.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Just because something is against the law, doesn't mean that it will disappear. Marijuana is against the law, but I saw a survey once where 85% of American teens reported being able to obtain it. Underage drinking rates are sky-high. If these two items are any indication, I have little faith in gun control measures to keep firearms out of criminals' hands.

     I still support some common sense measures such as background checks, but I am under no illusion that this serves as a panacea.

[darklordoftech]

The opposite is more interesting I think.  Those that hate cops are often the same people that are the biggest gun control enthusiasts.  That makes no sense.

They would probably say, "If people didn't have guns, cops wouldn't feel threatened" or "we want to punish gun dealers, not petty criminals".

[Mr. Reactionary]

When seconds count the police are only minutes away.

Not all of us live in an urban cluster within shouting distance of the police.

[All Along The Watchtower]

PS: The vast majority of gun owners are more likely to shoot an innocent bystander, or get shot themselves, than they are to shoot a perpetrator of a massacre. They also create confusion for law enforcement and make it all the more dangerous and difficult for law enforcement to do their jobs. But some people are Punisher wannabes, so what are you gonna do. *shrug*

PSS: All of this is rather beside the main point: most gun deaths happen in contexts where people know each other anyway - whether it be in an explicitly gang/other criminal context, or domestic violence (particularly men killing their partners), or the child-kills-parent accidentally situation (or not in some cases - see Adam Lanza), or suicide (which men are the main victims of especially in regard to self-inflicted gunshot wounds).

Again, if you use a gun to "protect yourself" in public you're more likely to get yourself or a bystander killed than you are to kill the perpetrator. Let the cops do their jobs; the last thing they need when faced with a killer is some vigilante wannabe f**king everything up.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

PS: The vast majority of gun owners are more likely to shoot an innocent bystander, or get shot themselves, than they are to shoot a perpetrator of a massacre. They also create confusion for law enforcement and make it all the more dangerous and difficult for law enforcement to do their jobs. But some people are Punisher wannabes, so what are you gonna do. *shrug*

PSS: All of this is rather beside the main point: most gun deaths happen in contexts where people know each other anyway - whether it be in an explicitly gang/other criminal context, or domestic violence (particularly men killing their partners), or the child-kills-parent accidentally situation (or not in some cases - see Adam Lanza), or suicide (which men are the main victims of especially in regard to self-inflicted gunshot wounds).

Again, if you use a gun to "protect yourself" in public you're more likely to get yourself or a bystander killed than you are to kill the perpetrator. Let the cops do their jobs; the last thing they need when faced with a killer is some vigilante wannabe f**king everything up.

“All of this is rather beside the main point” indeed. The question is why certain people hold two concepts in their head simultaneously, not the extent to which they are correct or incorrect in doing so. Your style of communication in general tends to come with prepackaged conclusions that defeat the point of asking the question in the first place, or implicitly impugn the character of judgment of those you are allegedly curious about.

[7,052,770]

     Just because something is against the law, doesn't mean that it will disappear. Marijuana is against the law, but I saw a survey once where 85% of American teens reported being able to obtain it. Underage drinking rates are sky-high. If these two items are any indication, I have little faith in gun control measures to keep firearms out of criminals' hands.

     I still support some common sense measures such as background checks, but I am under no illusion that this serves as a panacea.

[DC Al Fine]

PS: The vast majority of gun owners are more likely to shoot an innocent bystander, or get shot themselves, than they are to shoot a perpetrator of a massacre. They also create confusion for law enforcement and make it all the more dangerous and difficult for law enforcement to do their jobs. But some people are Punisher wannabes, so what are you gonna do. *shrug*

PSS: All of this is rather beside the main point: most gun deaths happen in contexts where people know each other anyway - whether it be in an explicitly gang/other criminal context, or domestic violence (particularly men killing their partners), or the child-kills-parent accidentally situation (or not in some cases - see Adam Lanza), or suicide (which men are the main victims of especially in regard to self-inflicted gunshot wounds).

Again, if you use a gun to "protect yourself" in public you're more likely to get yourself or a bystander killed than you are to kill the perpetrator. Let the cops do their jobs; the last thing they need when faced with a killer is some vigilante wannabe f**king everything up.

“All of this is rather beside the main point” indeed. The question is why certain people hold two concepts in their head simultaneously, not the extent to which they are correct or incorrect in doing so. Your style of communication in general tends to come with prepackaged conclusions that defeat the point of asking the question in the first place, or implicitly impugn the character of judgment of those you are allegedly curious about.

Cathcon has it right. Why try to explain a position when you've already begged the question that our position is due to some moral defect?