And yet the terrorists behind the Charlie Hebdo attack did utilize machine guns, despite the strict firearm-related restrictions of the nation of France.
The above, however, does not actually mean that the fundamental right does not cover all firearms that are currently available on the open market. In the recent Caetano ruling by the united state supreme court, and the language used within, they went out of their way to explain that firearms could not be prohibited simply because they are dangerous, or because their configuration is unusual when compared to the firearms that were in existence at the time of the first congress. Instead the prohibition on dangerous and unusual weapons must apply exclusively to weapons that are simultaneously dangerous and unusual in their nature. So while the second amendment may not protect something exotic like a baseball bat with a circular saw blade inserted into the end, the same cannot be said for rifles such as the AR-15, which are currently owned in the millions.
The ability to trace firearms is rendered a moot point when the serial number of a particular firearms is obliterated. Without a serial number to trace, nothing can be done. And on polymer-framed firearms, such as the Glock series of handguns, the serial number is on a small metal plate that is easily removed and discarded, rendering the firearm untraceable to anyone. And yet according to the border guards for the nation of Australia, they're continually having to seize more and more firearms being smuggled into the country. For all the ones that have been successfully seized, how many have not?
And the conviction rates for murder are in the high 90%. This would be even higher as murder suicides are not counted due to dead men not being able to stand trial. Nice try though.....
According to the FBI, a mass shooting is any incident in which a firearm is used, and four or more people are killed in a short period of time. It would take very little ammunition to carry out a successful mass shooting under such a standard.
What of the uniformed police officer who was on duty at the scene? Demonstrate the above. Demonstrate that firearms are the reason police response times are growing longer and longer in the united states.
What about him? He is still alive despite being armed only with a truncheon and going to the defence of members of the public. The man is a hero. Demonstrate that they aren't. The facts of these two cases seem to show that they are.
It's not firearms, it's the very real threat of litigation and is area dependent. A cop is not going to rush out to an active hood shooting where he may actually plug a thug rat unless he has too. If he does, it's virtually guaranteed he will be sued and possibly prosecuted.
In the Umpqua shooting, the shooter forced the victims to lay on the floor and shot them as they were helpless on the floor at point blank range. A box of 20 rounds and two ten round magazines could be easily used to murder 20 people in such a manner. Ammunition restrictions would do nothing. The Aurora shooter's 6000 round ammo purchase weighed about 200 lbs. He wasn't carrying that much ammo anywhere.
Armed only with a truncheon? Pray tell where exactly are you getting your information from? The police officer in question had a firearm, and returned fire against Omar Mateen. It is your claim, therefore it is your obligation to present evidence to support it, rather than demanding that others do your work for you. If you believe that firearms in society are the true reason for police response times increasing, then demonstrate the evidence that supports and confirms your belief. Indeed they do not. You have no evidence to back up your claim, otherwise you would have presented it.
And in Russia terrorists managed to kill over 300 students even though Russia has strict gun control. In fact the EU has more mass shooting deaths than the US.
The FBI. Until 2014/2015 hispanic and caucasian were combined into one group. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/fbi-latino-arrests_n_3492521.html
Why are you supporting gun control when the obvious primary driver of crime is demographics: Non-Whites and non-Christians doing so much violence and so much terror?
You will have to be more specific about which policeman you are talking about. This is the uniformed policeman who took on the London Bridge terrorists, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/05/hero-rookie-officer-took-terrorists-baton-stabbed-face/ Armed police turned up within minutes and shot dead the three terrorists. Also no policeman ''returned fire'' as the terrorists, thankfully, were not armed with firearms.
As you mentioned the Pulse nightclub shooting, it was assumed you were referring to the police officer who was at the scene of that incident, and engaged Omar Mateen in a firefight.
Because whites in the US still have a much higher murder rate than whites in the rest of the developed world. And how do you know non-Christians have higher murder rates? I don't see why the British need to change their gun laws when their murder rate is no different than other European countries. Why change a good thing?
I didn't see any murder rates for whites/latinos or whites alone in your source. Do you happen to have more correct numbers, it would be very helpful if you could show them to me.
The British people have been emasculated by their rulers and Parliament and their statutes for centuries by now. They are incapable of learning how to shoot and defend themselves. So nothing will ever change there, and they will always be an easy target for terrorist criminals.
Pray tell what proposal do you intend to put forth, that would do just that? Most if not all of the firearms these gang members currently hold were acquired through illegal means, be it straw purchases, theft, black market deals, or directly from the police themselves. In the state of California, for example, countless firearms issued to police officers have been lost by individual officers exercising recklessness that would get a private individual arrested, but they are not held accountable for their actions. There are no records to even indicate how many firearms have been lost through such carelessness. http://www.ocregister.com/2016/09/2...ere-their-guns-are-and-the-law-says-thats-ok/ According to the ATF, there are even police officers who are firearm traffickers themselves. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/sd-me-atf-follow-20170504-story.html Again, pray tell what sort of proposal can be put forth for how to go about removing firearms from circulation amongst criminals, without placing new restrictions on legal firearm owners, and treating them as potential suppliers to criminals, simply because they have firearms in their possession? There are an estimated three hundred to five hundred million firearms in private circulation in the united states right now. Background check data released by the FBI indicates that at least forty one thousand more firearms are being bought and added to that amount on a daily basis. Reducing the number of firearms in private circulation is not a viable option, because attempting to remove even one percent of the amount would take a monumental effort, and would ultimately do no good whatsoever.
@Bowerbird guns themselves do need to be controlled, but the people who may own guns must be broadened to include all law abiding citizens and residents who have a clean record. Here in the USA guns themselves are quite regulated already. It is an extremely bureaucratic and legalistic procedure to buy a gun. But each of the 50 states and DC have their own rules about who may own them. This varies from Communistic like in DC, NYC, NYS, Chicago, and Hawaii to complete freedom like in Arizona, Vermont, etc. In my state, you need to pass a criminal background check and wait a few days, be over 21 with a state I/D card of some kind. To carry openly in public is ok as long as the firearm is not chambered. It can be loaded but not chambered. For a concealed firearms permit, you need to take a 4 hour class, no test, have a clean criminal record with no offenses of any kind, and wait 30 days while the State processes the license. It varies everywhere on this planet where we live.
