You got the point I was trying to make, but used it to argue the opposite to me
Not really opposite, just showing the same premise is for both.
IF there are still people with vehicles that are running down people, then vehicles need to be eliminated to the public and the public will have to rely on a ride with a trained official government taxi driver.
Only the proper authorities should provide safe trips for all.
That would greatly eliminate the cases of nuts using a vehicle inappropriately and keep us safer.
That is essentially what some want the government to do with our guns.
Restrict them to only trained official government officers to provide your safety.
What I am trying to get at is that citizens can do
MUCH to provide themselves with their own safety, right then and there on the spot, and not have to sit and wait for a proper authority figure to show up.
As in the case with the shooter at the TEXAS church.
It was a citizen that ended the church shooter while the proper authority figures were still trying to get there.
And that citizen wasn't even in the church.
He was two houses away from the church and came running with his gun to help.
If that citizen had been inside the church when the shooter showed up, more people would still be alive.
Even better if 10 or 20 of the citizens in the church had been packing.
No authority figure was necessary to end the carnage.
Why?
Because of CITIZENS that have pride and courage when it comes to the protection of themselves and their neighbors.
You don't need to be an authority figure to do that.
Just a good ol' citizen.
I think we agree that partial gun control doesn't work, city ordinances don't work when criminals can cross states borders and legally buy a gun 30 miles away.
Not only that, but you can make a 'gun' easily.
When I was young we used to make what was called a 'potato cannon'.
Just a pipe with firecracker powder (gunpowder).
Stick a spud or anything with a rounded shape in, light the gunpowder and BOOM, that spud would shoot across the pasture.
Wasn't as accurate as a factory made gun,
But if your target was within 20-30 feet, you had a good chance of hitting of it.
You use this to argue for less gun control, I use it to argue for draconian and gun control at national level. The gun control is the UK and Australia works because of its universal nature, and it removes a supply of guns to criminals.
It also removes the supply of guns to courageous citizens to protect themselves.
Just recently another incident happened in TEXAS where an intruder entered a home with a married couple and their 3 children sleeping.
The intruder had a knife and stabbed the husband.
The intruder then started towards the children's bedrooms and the husband was able to then grab his gun and kill the intruder.
If an intruder comes into your home with any sort of weapon with him (or no weapon at all), a gun will greatly improve their safety.
But since your country doesn't allow you to have one, then you are going to have to figure out another way to protect your family from some nut that comes at you with a knife, or a ball bat, or a suicide bomb strapped to him, etc.
Having a gun will protect you from much much more than just other folks with guns.
Gun control in Chicago doesn't work because its local in a country with 300,000,00 guns in circulation, and will not remove a supply of guns to criminals.
Criminals don't just use guns to do their dirty work.
Your countries problem was not that some criminals had guns, but that you did not have enough citizens with guns to curb the carnage to begin with.