Try and keep up and also stop cutting posts. Ddyad wrote "The police in the UK did not need to carry submachine guns until they disarmed their law abiding population." The law abiding population were never carrying in the first place so Ddyad's post is nonsense. Funny that you and your tag team keep trying to defend his post and then try and change what was being discussed
Your response is nonsense. A population can be armed, yet unable to carry guns in public. Thus, the fact they never carried guns in the first place means -nothing- in respect to his post about disarming them. Why can no individual legally purchase and own a modern handgun in the UK?
In a rational society anyone seen shooting anyone would be spinning to avoid being shot in the back of the head. IOW, Gun Bans Kill Children.
Truth, the failed UK gun ban is part of your public record. Are you saying that the UK press is just Fake News - they made it up?
https://www.concealedcarry.com/news...-95-of-the-time-at-active-shooter-events-fbi/ With pictures for you
No, just that its already illegal and in many cases at least one felony. You're not talking about law abiding gun owners if you're talking people who pack when drinking/drunk/intoxicated
Real world to the UK: The Three Monkey Defense doesn't work. THE GUARDIAN, London gun crime rises as shootings nearly double, By Sandra Laville, Last modified on Friday 8 January 2016, 21.47 EST. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/03/london-gun-crime-shootings-rise
You are confusing "rights" with availability and you are straying away from "human right". Now you are introducing "natural right" and you think it will wash. It won't.
Good research. Ty for sharing it. Armed citizens are by far the most effective check on violent crime.
Natural right is the original term. "human right" was an attempt to piggyback off the same concepts without having to say "but God gave them to me". They are essentially the same: Rights you have by virtue of being human. Defending yourself, using and creating tools that become available, these are rights. I understand you don't agree but the fact remains.
First of all "War on Drugs" is a made-up, sensationalist expression with no meaning. Secondly, stopping self-inflicted misery takes a back seat to the crime of murder. If I want to discuss drug abuse I'll find the appropriate thread. Do we agree that any sort of criminal activity can only be effectively challenged with a plan and sufficient funding? You see where I am going, right?
It sounds like you're suggesting attempts to restrict guns would be more successful than our attempts to restrict drugs have been, but you don't want to explain how or why that would be the case...
You can dice them up if you want but the term "right" can only be used when interpreting God's will or judicial matters of law. I honestly hope you are not really relying upon God's wishes when you say "human/natural rights" but that is how you come across. And if that really is your fundamental motivation then we have nothing more to discuss.
Read the entire article then make specific gripes about the data from the data. The FBI links are all at the end. Argue with them. The 2nd paragraph means they don't track it specifically and list it, you have to use the numbers yourself. As this article painstakingly walks you through. Argue with the math and the raw data which is available, not me.
You understand the 2nd amendment contemplates a pre-existing right it does not create a right? This is basic american law. I'm speaking from the perspective of an american lawyer, because that's what I am. Therefore I embrace the philosophy of same, which includes natural rights. If you don't like it, you'd better entirely abolish the constitution and start afresh
Speak for yourself, and you are still projecting. I noticed you haven't corrected the notion that I was against carrying.
