Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBJW
David- First off an "assault weapon" by definition capable of full automatic fire. Semi-autos are not therefore the dreaded assault weapon. I hunt with a semi-auto rifle, collect them (as well as blades), and use one to protect livestock. I do not care if you think they are necessary or not. You don't have to own one if you don't want to. If you lived in England you probably would have been all for the "assault sword" ban.
bbjw
|
Its interesting you cite the 'sword ban' in the UK, as it clearly WAS an example of 'bad lawmaking'.
If we look at the figures (roughly) which led to the ban, if memory serves, we are talking about up to 60 000 incidents per year involving attacks with bladed weapons (worse case figures) in England and Wales.
However we are talking about approximately 5 or 6 actual
deaths per year from attacks with the banned 'Samurai' class of reproduction swords.
That compares with many, many hundreds of deaths from 'stabbings' amongst which the preferred weapons are cheap chinese kitchen carving knives.
Statistically, more people are killed in the UK every year by: Boiled sweets, peanuts or wearing unsafe slippers.
Now for purposes of this discussion, the reason why the UK sword ban is an interesting example of lawmaking is that it is a headline grabbing attempt by a government to address a real problem with a ridiculous token law.
And introducing 'a little' gun control in the US is like the 'sword' ban here.
Like throwing a deckchair off of the Titanic.
So what do governments do?
Ours sees a problem with knife crime, and a public expectation of 'tough new laws to combat it' so is scared into banning something which will make no difference whatsoever.
Can I ask you, how many guns do you own?
If your government actually did decide to 'take the bull by the horns' and bring in large limits on gun ownership, and say for example they passed a law by which you were only allowed to own a side by side shotgun, for purposes of killing animals on your land, would you be prepared to turn in your other guns and accept government compensation? (which is effectively what was done in the UK).
Second part of the question is of course, even IF (which I serious doubt will ever happen) they did do that, and everyone legally owning guns did turn them in. How the hell would any administration tackle the millions of illegal weapons?
From an outsiders POV it sadly looks like any gun control with any chance of actually being passed into law in the States is just going to be at best a coat of paint on the golden gate?
Its obvious how strongly you feel about your 'right' to own guns, and clearly at least a sizeable minority of Americans agree with you. But by the same token, your experience of guns is going to be totally different from many other Americans. But surely nobody can argue that the US does have a huge problem with guns being used in violent crime, so from a pro-gun POV, how would you tackle it?
Regards
Gene