If there were never many guns in the first place and violent crime was low, like in the UK and Australia, a gun ban would work. With 400M+ guns in circulation, and massive problems with gangs, drugs, illegal immigration, drug cartels, etc all a gun ban would accomplish is to disarm law abiding citizens and leave them defenseless against hordes of violent thugs. Our Second Amendment and gun culture opened up a Pandora's Box and there's no way to stop it at this point. Our country is really nothing like the UK or Australia in this regard, and laws that worked in those countries might actually make things worse here, Chicago being a perfect example. You have had people from the UK on this forum saying that if they lived in the US they would want the biggest most powerful guns they could get their hands on because our country is very different and they feel like they would probably need them here.
No, I'm telling you what I personally think is a workable compromise. Hunting and self-defense are acceptable uses for guns, and you don't really need auto or semi-auto guns for that (as your own videos show). And as supersonic has mentioned, there are probably gun technology implementations that could be beneficial too. End the money grubbing. Save some lives. You'll still be able to protect your home/property and go hunting.
When you ban guns, only criminals will have them. Member of British parliament shot dead: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b988de-33c4-11e6-ab9d-1da2b0f24f93_story.html
Was she shot to death or stabbed... it's not made clear. Isn't killing of politicians an assassination?
Bit of a cunt move to try and use an awful killing to make a terrible point, especially after it just happened. Still, I'm sure a cursory examination of politicians killed in the US versus the UK will back up how guns saves lives. Oh. Still, that's not the gun's fault. If the UK had US gun laws, Jo would have been saved. And all those that died in the US due to guns? Not enough guns was the problem. The cognitive dissonance on show is incredible.
It's not a terrible point. Psychos will get a hold of weapons regardless of the law. Look at the Paris attacks, Brussels attacks, or the mass shooting in Norway that was far worse than any mass shooting in the US. Now a British politician was killed by a psycho in a country that's supposedly gun free. Take away the guns and only the criminals will have them. Americans have very different values from the British. We believe strongly in the idea that people should have the right to protect themselves. The US only exists in the first place because private gun owners stood up to their British oppressors. It's part of our constitution. It's a fundamental principle on which the US was founded. The British believe in bending over and licking boots. Americans fight back. When we have ISIS inspired psychos murdering innocent people who are just trying to go about their lives, taking away law abiding citizens' ability to protect themselves is the last thing we should be doing. Especially when the police in this case took hours to properly respond and were far more concerned with their own safety than saving anyone from the shooter. I don't believe you can rely on the police for protection. I'm not convinced they care all that much whether you live or die. I'm all for improved background checks. But fuck the people who say we should disarm and basically get rid of the second amendment. The only reason the shooter got as far as he did was because he shot up a twink bar full of effeminate girly men. Try that shit in a redneck bar and you'll be shot dead by 20 people in 2 seconds. It's the American way.
That's about as historically inaccurate as it gets. "Early in the war, Washington wrote that he despaired of “compleating the army by Voluntary Inlistments.” Mindful that volunteers had rushed to enlist when hostilities began, Washington predicted that “after the first emotions are over,” those who were willing to serve from a belief in the “goodness of the cause” would amount to little more than “a drop in the Ocean.” He was correct. As 1776 progressed, many colonies were compelled to entice soldiers with offers of cash bounties, clothing, blankets and extended furloughs or enlistments shorter than the one-year term of service established by Congress." http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/myths-of-the-american-revolution-10941835/#sGZkAaqu6wle5IDA.99
Not really. It all started at Lexington and Concord, where private gun owners rose up against the British. You're the one posting revisionist history.
Key word being "started". If you read the link, the early enthusiasm by the "private gun owners" dropped off significantly after they experienced warfare, and George Washington knew that would likely be the case going forward.