Back from celebrating my father's 84th birthday, a good time was had by all.
Now then.
Originally posted by beet1e
Actually, there is.
[/b]
No there isn't. Although Moore should probably have taken your approach in BFC. When Moore found that Canada had as many or more guns per capita as the US he admitted that, clearly, the number of available firearms WASN'T a key factor in the homicide rate/100,000 people. It had to be something else. And there are other national examples, like Switzerland, Israel or even Norway and Finland which have higher ownership rates than Switzerland. All have high gun ownershop and low homicide.
So, you see... even Moore can't support the erroneous contention that you blindly parrot. Nor can anyone else. Best give this one up Beet; the Canada/US comparison alone defeats you.
But our lawmakers of 1920 were wise enough to see the folly of a guns free for all. And given that we've never had more than 100 gun homicides in any calendar year, I think they got it right. [/b]
Here's another place where you either don't understand your own history or choose to ignore it.
I'll repost something for you that may clear it up, but the basics are that in the 1920's gun control laws were implemented in response to a perceived threat to your ruling class from the Bolsheviks.
At a Cabinet meeting on January 17, 1919, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff raised the threat of "Red Revolution and blood and war at home and abroad." He suggested that the government make sure of its arms.
The next month, the Prime Minister was asking which parts of the army would remain loyal. The Cabinet discussed arming university men, stockbrokers, and trusted clerks to fight any revolution.[57] The Minister of Transport, Sir Eric Geddes, predicted "a revolutionary outbreak in Glasgow, Liverpool or London in the early spring, when a definite attempt may be made to seize the reins of government." "It is not inconceivable," Geddes warned, "that a dramatic and successful coup d'etat in some large center of population might win the support of the unthinking mass of labour."
Using the Irish gun licensing system as a model, the Cabinet made plans to disarm enemies of the state and to prepare arms for distribution "to friends of the Government."[58]
So I suggest you forget trying to portray the Firearms Act as any sort of of wise foresight by your government to prevent criminal homicide. It was all about disarming the "unthinking mass of labour". Which merely reinforce Laz's point about endemic upper class elitism, something that instantly raises American hackles. And a happy Fourth of July to you too!
HOWEVER, the Firearms Act of the 1920's still considered "personal defense" a valid reason to own a handgun.
Thus the Firearms Act of 1920 sailed through Parliament. Britons who had formerly enjoyed a right to arms were now allowed to possess pistols and rifles only if they proved they had "good reason" for receiving a police permit.[60] Shotguns and airguns, which were perceived as "sporting" weapons, remained exempt from British government control....
...Wanting to possess a firearm for self-defense was considered a "good reason" for being granted a firearms certificate.
Again, your erroneous contention that the Firearms Act is some sort of wise move to prevent anyone from getting a handgun is just wrong. Until late in the century, when the intent of the law was corrupted (by folks like you, IMO), wanting a handgun for self-defense was considered a legitimate reason.
So, you'd best give up that insupportable point as well.
"Automobiles" are more legitimate than firearms because they have an obvious purpose, and without them our current lifestyles would become impossible, and also because they are not designed for killing.
[/b]
I've got a great idea for a Cable TV special! We'll invite the families of children killed by firearms and those of children killed by automobiles. There will be far, far, far more in the "auto" group.
I'll be there in a strong "shark cage" filming as you explain to the crowd that the firearms deaths are truly a great tradgedy and "something must be done" because firearms are designed for killing. Then, you can explain that the automobile deaths are sad, but nothing needs be done because autos are NOT designed for killing and we need them to live as we desire to live.
You can top it off by pointing out that although alcohol plays a major role in both types of deaths, we don't need to ban it either because, well, you personally enjoy it and it wasn't designed for killing either.
I think I'll make millions from selling the scenes of the crowd ripping you limb from limb. I'll split 50/50 with your estate, of course.
