I am new here but have read some of your threads with interest. As you I am thinking whether there even is a workable solution.
Several points you made don't compute with me, however.
Can you please elaborate on
# we both know perfectly well that if Cocaine and meth can make it across the border then grenades can as well. They are banned and mobsters and cartels know perfectly well that all hell will break lose if they use them. Hence they won't..the ban works perfectly well.
# so according to your logic why don't we then allow ordinary citizens to build their own pipe bombs and what have you, after all criminals can build them easily as well. Your logic flies against common sense and facts. You try to build your entire web of argument on the thesis that ordinary citizens should have the right to be at least as heavily armed as criminals yet at the same time you acknowledge that criminals have arsenals at their disposals that others don't. Probably because you know that challenging the status quo would be impossible in this particular regard on self built bombs. But logically according to your argument it should follow that everyone should be able to "self defend" with home made explosive devices.
#why is the term assault rifle a stupid term? It's well defined and a broadly accepted term even by the NRA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
# Obama could not go further because of Republican opposition in the house(s) . I think we all know that.
#There is a reason that New York has become a much safer city that most large American cities. You argue as if you have proof that there is zero correlation between this fact and legislation re guns introduced in NY. Please provide proof if you in fact alluded to that. I have not heard of such.
Canada has a massive weapons stock and still banned many types of guns and gun violence dropped. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership per capita in the world and yet one of the lowest crime rates with gun involvement because of its strict gun laws.
Perhaps the right way to handle this problem is not restriction of ownership but restrictions on the types of ammunition, gun appliances, ways they are acquired, carrying of firearms, and the carrying of firearms. I honestly don't know the answer and so do you not know the answer. I just wanted to understand several holes and contradictions in your base argument.
Several points you made don't compute with me, however.
Can you please elaborate on
# we both know perfectly well that if Cocaine and meth can make it across the border then grenades can as well. They are banned and mobsters and cartels know perfectly well that all hell will break lose if they use them. Hence they won't..the ban works perfectly well.
# so according to your logic why don't we then allow ordinary citizens to build their own pipe bombs and what have you, after all criminals can build them easily as well. Your logic flies against common sense and facts. You try to build your entire web of argument on the thesis that ordinary citizens should have the right to be at least as heavily armed as criminals yet at the same time you acknowledge that criminals have arsenals at their disposals that others don't. Probably because you know that challenging the status quo would be impossible in this particular regard on self built bombs. But logically according to your argument it should follow that everyone should be able to "self defend" with home made explosive devices.
#why is the term assault rifle a stupid term? It's well defined and a broadly accepted term even by the NRA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
# Obama could not go further because of Republican opposition in the house(s) . I think we all know that.
#There is a reason that New York has become a much safer city that most large American cities. You argue as if you have proof that there is zero correlation between this fact and legislation re guns introduced in NY. Please provide proof if you in fact alluded to that. I have not heard of such.
Canada has a massive weapons stock and still banned many types of guns and gun violence dropped. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership per capita in the world and yet one of the lowest crime rates with gun involvement because of its strict gun laws.
Perhaps the right way to handle this problem is not restriction of ownership but restrictions on the types of ammunition, gun appliances, ways they are acquired, carrying of firearms, and the carrying of firearms. I honestly don't know the answer and so do you not know the answer. I just wanted to understand several holes and contradictions in your base argument.
