Gun Control UK Style

Preventing criminals from getting guns doesnt require liscencing. We already prohibit felons from owning guns, no liscencing required.

What you seem to want is a revocation of gun rights, and replacement of such with privledges granted at the whim of the authorities, correct?

 

Licensing is also used for confiscation, and there is no need to reduce lawful gun ownership.

 

Your main point and final objective revealed and dismissed.

 

I acknowlege that I can at least count far better than you

 

In terms of public safety policy, ignoring gun ownership rates isn't credible. We see that with both analysis into crime and suicide.

 

Oh, yes; you're a legend in your own mind....

 

These things will do nothing to reduce mass shootings.

 

Awesome example of an appeal to emotion fallacy.
What else do you have?

 

As many, if not more.

 

Legal firearms ownership devoid of licensing and registration requirements does not negatively impact or otherwise affect public safety.

 

Especially when it comes to counting .... have a nice day

 

What have you got to lose by trying ? One gun per person, a total ban on second hand gun sales, and full registration. It works in Switzerland where thier gun murder rate is far higher than ours but yet a fraction of yours <Rule 3>..... its all good

 

How do you know that it quells gun violence?

 

I think "wife beater" is a rather vague terminology. I don't see a reason why all of them should lose their rights, if we're not talking about the really bad ones.

 

What about Criminal Violence ?
Guns do not cause Violence, or did you not get the memo ?

 

So you have a tiny penis and no Guns.
Go figure.

 

That too. But I'm giving him as much chance as possible.

 

Why ?
His U.K. has it all as far as gun control.

 

If he can't provide evidence that his gun laws work to stop gun deaths, then his argument fails without even wasting time explaining why he should be focused on violent crime in general.

 

Who cares ?
I have had this conversation with headquarters of New Scotland Yard, and their opinion and that of the London Metropolitan Police is that U.K. subjects of the Crown require not Firearms to ensure their personal safety moving about London streets and I agree, I care less about London and Criminal attacks without guns.

 

You think wife beater is vague? Gosh! What wife beating do you find to be unproblematic?

 

Once something is implemented into law, it is notoriously difficult to change it. The total handgun prohibition for the district of columbia was in place for more than thirty years before the united state supreme court ever overturned it for being unconstitutional, despite the decades of evidence that it did absolutely no good in existing.

Is the nation of Switzerland landlocked with what is regarded as being the most corrupt and violent nation in the entire world? If not then there is no comparison to be made.

 

According to many who advocate against it, what constitutes "domestic violence" does not even have to include physical violence in order to qualify. To these advocates even being rude to a spouse or family member should constitute and qualify as domestic violence.

 

Yes, that's the problem. The threshold used to qualify as "domestic violence".
Not to mention the issue of burden of evidence, and the complicated and problematic nature of two people sharing a close and tangled emotional relationship and living together in the same household. A spouse getting physical with their partner is not necessarily the same thing as someone getting physical with a stranger.

 

Correct. One does not even need to prove an incident of so-called "domestic violence" actually occurred, it is nothing more than the word of the accuser against the accused, with no need of proof to be accepted as being the truth. Meaning the phrase "wife beater" is equally subjective and vague, and should not be regarded as grounds of anything.