The difference with prohibition laws is they're impossible to effectively enforce. Not to mention prohibition laws make crimes out victimless acts. I'm against prohibition laws of all kinds. I don't think they do any real good, and they always do lots of harm. It makes sense to make a crime out of murder because then you can prosecute the murderer and prevent him from killing again. Same with all crimes with actual victims.
It's actually a very valid argument consider the evidence that exists showing that firearm availability doesn't correlate with violent crime rates, indicating, empirically, such a ban would not result in a reduction of risk. As it's been mentioned, owning a banned gun per se is a victimless crime and since enacting such a law won't effect violent crime, it only serves to punish law abiding citizens who have bought, and therefore earned, their assault weapons. If there was a victim involved or the law empirically served a purpose, such as actually reducing the number of deaths from firearms, then it would be a terrible argument, but given the facts, it's probably the most valid argument out there. We should be identifying and targeting the root causes of crime in order to reduce it. Banning things doesn't seem to end crime, just look at how successfully the CSA and War on Drugs have been. It's just a frivolous distraction for the government to waste more of our resources on while they skirt having to find real solutions to our problems.
Apparently we aren't the only ones. Assault-rifle [sic] owners statewide are organizing a mass boycott of Gov. Cuomo's new law mandating they register their weapons, daring officials to “come and take it away,†The Post has learned. Looks like Cuomo has a shit storm developing on his hands & it will come to fruition at election time. Officials estimate at least 1 million semiautomatic rifles are owned in the state, sources said. And come April 15, 2014 - when Cuomo is expected to be running for re-election - they all have to be registered with the State Police. They grossly miscalculated the public's acceptance of their assault on the Second Amendment. What that means for the future in New York remains to be seen. PJ Media » Register This will be happening all across the country as gun owners say bullshit, enough is enough.
Guns are awesome. Especially semiautos with high capacity magazines. Being that they are awesome, and this being america, i should be able to own one if i choose, and have the money to do so. If we were invaded, the entire argument of gun control would be blown out of a gigantic asshole.
quoted for truth. I am pro Open Carry. I also think criteria must be met or standards, mental health evaluation, lots of things.
You should see these fuh'king guns brah. 1 got one on the end of each shoulder their names Right and Left
I wouldn't care if they ban AR-15s ad the like. As long as we can still buy shotguns,hunting rifles, and handguns. Funny though because Senators and other people who want to ban handguns also are the same ones who walk around with armed guards and have there own Concealed Carrying License
in a situation such as the LA riots and multiple people breaking into your home i would much rather have a semi-automatic "assault" rifle, that a big bulky hunting rifle or 12 gauge considering the barrel length and reload times etc.
The issue with your assertion is that, in England, nobody is in possession of very many firearms in the first place; I am not familiar with British law but I am certain there ins't a second amendment equivalent. Therefore, it wouldn't be wise to allow legal weapon sales to civilians. In the United States however, things are different; many civilians have legal guns and use them properly, the criminals are the ones who are creating a large percent of homicides, not the homeowners, not anybody else, generally, people are responsible. It is unnecessary, and unconstitutional to strip civilians' weapons that are legally owned and used. There is obviously a safety concern with denying civilians the right to use a firearm; criminals or anybody willing to obtain a firearm illegally can confidently attack without facing resistance, government definitely included. However, if more people had a firearm, it would discourage crime from happening because of higher probability your victim has a weapon. I understand your view though, more firearms in the hands of presumably irresponsible people likely will increase the amount of gun violence. In my opinion however, the right to defend yourself properly with a firearm is more important then speculating and worrying about what could happen if more people had weapons.
Not to mention the UK gun ban didn't decrease the homicide rate at all. The UK homicide rate actually skyrocketed in the first few years following the ban, and in the years since it's slowly tapered back down, but it's still slightly higher than the homicide rate before the ban. So at best, it's done nothing to stop people getting killed, at worst, it actually contributed to violence.