Originally Posted by tonton
It will take time. How many crimes are committed today with AKs?
No idea. But what about weapons that are similar?
Did the criminals 'just give them up'? No, but time removed them from circulation.
First, I don't know if that's actually true. But assuming it is for a moment, HOW did they "get removed from circulation?" It didn't happen because law-abiding citizens couldn't buy them anymore.
But that's not what you're interested in. You have no interest in the solution that would clearly make people safer in the long run.
Ahh, there it is...the ad hominem argument. Of course I have interest in a solution. The problem is two-fold:
1) We've already violated the 2nd Amendment with our restrictions on bearing arms. The amendment doesn't say the government can even regulate firearms. It says, "shall not infringe.
" Now clearly, that is written in context of forming a militia as needed at the time...but to pass more stringent laws like we're discussing, the 2nd Amendment would have to be repealed/replaced. Good luck with that.
2) Passing those strict gun possession laws alone doesn't do anything to take them off the streets. It simply disarms law abiding citizens and presumably prevents straw purchases/thefts, etc. If you're going to really have tough laws, you have to prevent manufacture of the weapons. Again, good luck.
You forget that guns used to be unregulated in Australia. If your premise were true, then the criminals who didn't give up their guns would be running rampant there.
I don't know much about that. Has crime decreased? What does "unregulated" mean and does that actually apply to what we have here?