Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinAir
Your last point, regarding developed countries: How about OVERALL rates of violence?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html
The UK is sucking when it comes to violent crime. Apologists for the UK GOV will make all the excuses they want, but the data is still the same. I could certainly argue that control would have zero effect on overall levels of violent crime. What effect did the previous AWB have on gun violence? If the Anti-2A logic is to be taken at face value, then Chicago and NYC should be a safety utopia, yet the opposite is true. Why? Are the laws not enforced well enough?
Finally, do you believe that 2A is for hunting purposes? |
I don't know how it would affect overall levels of violent crime. In the UK most people switched to knives. If that happened here, then I'm guessing the number of mass killings with semi automatic weapons would decrease.
I do not believe government gun purchasing/confiscation is a high priority in the NY or Chicago areas. Most of the LEOs are IMO busy trying to stay in front of the high priority crimes.
That being said, many of these mass shooters have used guns that were purchased legally by themselves or someone they knew. They aren't going to high crime areas to buy the throwaways that are used there. This lends credence to the thought process that extremely tough gun control laws would lead to less of these mass killings.
I believe the 2nd amendment was written to keep an armed and free populous in the US. I think they were right with banning the M2 for civilian use, but I fear that the planned end state for some of these politicians is an America where all guns but flintlocks are outlawed. Today it's bushmaster, tomorrow it's glock because "any semi-auto can be used to help a mass shooter."
I don't think any new legislation will stop enough of these shootings to warrant me losing my weapons, but I do think it would have some effect.