I have never been able to understand the rationale of the anti-gunners trying to compare the US and UK in that fashion.
Despite the obvious size difference between the two countries and the GAPING cultural divide where firearms are concerned, I would never want to trade a lower crime rate (which we now see is a fallicy anyway) for the loss of the ability to prevent intrusion into my home.
Another argument the anti-gunners like to make is that, "Oh don't worry about the government trying to take away your hunting weapons" or " It can't happen here". What BS. California is a perfect example. When owners of the SKS rifle, determined to be a favorite of drug-dealers (more BS) and drive-by shooters (even MORE BS), were forced to register their lawfully purchased SKS, the CA state had a list of all those owners. It made it much easier for them to know who to look for when the SKS was eventually banned here. Owners were forced to turn them in for destruction or be in violation of CA state law.
What a travesty and an infrigement of their (our) rights. And are Californians any safer now than they were before the SKS was banned? No. I'm sure Rosie O'Donnel wouldn't agree with me but then I guess it must be nice to be able to afford your own personal security detachment (who by the way are all licensed to carry!).
__________________
The noble soul has reverence for itself
-Neitzsche
|