In the US they use guns. In other places they are going with whatever is the easiest method available to them, which ironically, makes it increasingly difficult to catch them until they have killed.
If civilian authorities have it-then its idiotic for someone to claim other civilians cannot even possess such a weapon in their homes
In some ways that is true but America is so awash with guns that you could not trace the purchases to send a warning - we have seized a lot of illegal guns and are looking to TIGHTEN the acts
you cannot own some of the stuff we can buy by mail. I was once a world class crossbow archer. My bows are made in Australia and in some areas you cannot own one without all sorts of licenses. now these aren't hunting crossbows-you cannot even shoot a hunting arrow out of them. but the hoplophobes in Australia think they are too dangerous. You cannot own a standard infantry rifle in Australia either. My wish is that if there are to be people victimized by violent criminals-its not honest people who have been disarmed by scum bag politicians and loud mouthed gun haters, but rather the gun banners themselves. It would be a most useful form of edification
We would actually have to back into. By using the regulation of guns to dry up the supply of ammo to make it harder for someone to obtain enough rounds to spray down a house with bullets or fire hundreds of rounds.
well given you are on record wanting to ban all guns that is amusing. ammo restrictions only harm competitive and recreational shooters-not criminals.
who cares-that's an idiotic argument. I have no idea how many rounds they bought since they got the guns illegally. Your argument is completely destroyed by your claim you want to ban all guns other than for criminals and government agents. So when we know that is what you want, any efforts by you to pretend what you support is designed to decrease crime is rejected.
My argument isn't destroyed by anything. You "don't care" because you know the answer directly contradicts your bogus assertion that limiting access to ammo would "only harm competitive and recreational shooters-not criminals"--a dishonest assertion that you yourself know is nothing but a bold-faced lie or you wouldn't be so desperately trying to run from being called on your dishonesty.
Here in the U.S. you have myriads of hard core Criminals, Mexican Gangs, Drug Lords etc.... Russian Gangsters etc..... and many assorted Gangs, Asian minority Gangs etc. etc... Non of these Gangs are law abiding, and some of these Gangs have been importing Chinese made Military Arms as well as Heroin from foreign sources, Arming the Criminals with great firepower, So legislating Gun Control and restrictions on the Law Abiding will not impact Criminals or Criminal activity. This is why no right thinking American thinks Gun Control is the answer, because everyone knows that the real problem, Americas Criminals will not be affected by Gun Control. Gun Control does not equal Crime prevention.
given its illegal for felons to possess ammo. ammo bans would only impact the legal environment of those who currently can own ammo legally. You are the one who posts bald faced lies because my point is undeniably true. we should take a poll on whose position is most dishonest-me-a completive shooter who's expertise on constitutional matters and the law is well known or someone who wants to ban guns for reasons that have never been quite explained?
gun restrictionists are often in league with criminals and seek to make their working environments safer. One has to be quite the idiot to actually believe that those who disobey laws against murder or robber are going to actually be deterred by gun laws
*************************** Your arguement auto-destructs based on its lack of merit and Logic. Limits on ammo and firearms will only trouble law abiding citizens as the criminal element will obtain ammo and firearms the same way they obtain Cocaine & Heroin that is also illegal yet easily smuggled into the Country.
Nobody has likely asked criminals politely to just stop committing crimes... gun banners could try that; it would likely have a better chance of working than their bans.
I tell the gun banners they should not rely on men with guns to carry out their nefarious schemes but rather they should be crashing doors in say the South Bronx or Watts to round up illegal guns-or better yet, go to the big gun shows in free states and start grabbing the guns off the tables. That would be worth paying admission just to see what their expected lifespan would be if they tried either thing
Ahhh no. After they tried to make half the world their lackeys, the fox are coming home to roost among the gilded hens... self determined karma
Several members of the public fought back throwing bottles, chairs and anything they could get their hands on. Against terrorists armed with guns this would have had little to no effect. The police responded quickly and all 3 terrorists were shot dead within 8 minutes of the alarm being raised. There was no gun fight between the police and the terrorists. The 3 men managed to kill only 8 people before they were killed. In the Pulse nightclub attack 50 people were killed by one man and the police took 50mins to respond. Guns do not make society safer, they make it far easier to murder people and more difficult for the police to respond. Basically, you need to keep Britain out of your own arguments about gun control as it is demonstrably safer to live in the UK than the US even taking into account these recent attacks. Let me ask, how many Americans died as a result of guns on the same day as the London bridge attack?
Such is not had. It is simply being acknowledged that in certain countries in the united kingdom, a murder is not counted as a murder unless the guilty party is actually convicted.
