OK Mr. Toad, let's go through this one more time - a side by side comparison of Britain (and Bermuda, and France, and Germany and... lots of other countries) versus the US, and look at some of the things that you have spoken about that should be banned in addition to guns, if we're to maintain consistency.
1) Cars. In previous threads, you have put it to me that as far more people die in road accidents than are shot, if guns are to be banned then cars should be too. But as we both know, in the modern age we are dependent on transport to sustain a thriving economy. If we did not have roads and cars, lorries, vans etc., we would be driven back to the middle ages. Indeed, given the size of the population, life would be unsustainable without road transport.
2) Alcohol. I have given some reasons why alcohol is not banned. The US example in the years 1926-1933 shows what happens if alcohol is banned. The problem is driven underground, and alcohol supply becomes controlled by organised crime. Not only that, but a huge swathe of the economy (restaurants, pubs, hotels) would be affected. With France just ~20 miles off the Kent coast, there would be fleets of small craft importing it. I'm sure the police could be bought off to look the other way when the boat comes in. In short, it wouldn't work. Alcohol IS banned in strict muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, but even the saudis realised that the foreign workers who live in compounds off limits to the indigenous population had to be allowed alcohol. In Qatar, with its large (75%) expat population, they realised there was no way of maintaining an alcohol ban, so now the expats who live there can get a liquor licence and a well stocked sideboard of booze.
3) Guns. It is obvious from the volume of threads on this board about guns that shooting is enormously popular in the US, whether at beer cans or at game birds or larger animals. And as you know, the shooting of game birds like pheasant is an established activity here in Blighty. BUT... guns never had so central a role in Britain as they did in the US. The lines on the map were established long before guns were invented. Battles like Bosworth Field, Naseby and Cropredy Bridge were fought with pikes, not guns. So we never ended up with a "gun culture" as you have in the US. Clearly, a gun ban in the US is never going to happen. It would be unworkable. Your NRA is firmly established and lines the pockets of politicians with millions of $. But here in Britain??? We have no NRA. There is bugger all interest in handguns. That John Lott book Lazs wanted me to read sold on eBay for a mere £2. That should tell you something about the level of interest in guns here. So yes, a ban on guns works here - because it's what most people want, whether you choose to believe it or not.
You're fond of quoting your NRA claptrap which suggests that as downtrodden "subjects", we were unable to prevent the government taking away guns - 1920 and all that. And it's bollocks. As I've said before, the government that passed the 1920 Firearms Act was reelected two years later!!. The act may have "sailed through parliament", as your NRA puts it, but that's the way the vast majority wanted it. There was no protest. Another two years on and Britain had its first Labour government, representing the workers - the "downtrodden" masses. And guess what? They did not repeal the Firearms Act. Funny that...
So as you can see, we are doing what we can. The availability of Cars, Alcohol and Guns all result in thousands of deaths - that much is true. Neither the US or the UK could ban cars or alcohol. And the US could never ban guns, although assault weapons were banned. But here in Britain, a gun ban IS workable. No "gun culture" has ever developed.
So I don't see anything wrong with our status quo. What you're saying is that if we ban guns, we must also ban alcohol and cars, or else it's hypocritical. Well hey, I wasn't Prime Minister when guns were banned, so don't blame me. Your logic seems to originate from the Ripsnortian school of thought that says that either all laws must work perfectly, or there should be no laws at all.
Now if you post back, do try to keep it on topic. DO NOT bring up an aside, and then cite my answer as "not germane to the discussion". YOU were the one who spouted at length about alcohol usage in Britain - this is a thread about Canada.
And... one more time - the 1997 legislation was not a "ban". Guns were already as rare as hens' teeth before that or, as Dowding put it "Gun ownership before the ban, sod all, gun ownership after the ban, sod all".
