Great. Then the relatively physically weak, the infirm, the elderly, the women, will be at the mercy of the strong.
A short look at mass shootings in Western Europe in the lat few decades, which are both more numerous and more deadly, suggests that intermediate restrictions won't do any good at best. History prior to that tells what government can easily do to disarmed untermensch.
I'll take an occasional mass shooting over everyone being at the constant mercy of thugs.
For that matter, sort of echoing the others who have commented prior to my starting this comment, such an attempt in the US would instantly spark a nasty civil war killing orders of magnitude more people.
> Then the relatively physically weak, the infirm, the elderly, the women, will be at the mercy of the strong.
Fortunately guns aren't the only weapons. Guns are more contentious than most because it gives a single individual the power to kill many others.
> A short look at mass shootings in Western Europe, which are both more numerous and more deadly, suggests that intermediate restrictions at best won't do any good.
More numerous and more deadly than, what? The UK hasn't had a mass shooting in several years. It certainly wasn't more deadly than the handful the US has had between then and now.
> For that matter, echoing the others who have commented prior to my starting this comment, such an attempt would instantly spark a nasty civil war killing orders of magnitude more people.
This just further proves that the very people who have guns are dangerous individuals who cannot be trusted with guns.
Guns are the only effective weapons that "the infirm, the elderly, the women" can use.
The U.K. != Western Europe, and I include the massacres prior to "several years" ago; you have to since these incidents are fortunately rare. Wikipedia has done a very good job of chronicling them, although you have to look at half a dozen entries because they're broken down by things like where it happened.
"This just further proves that the very people who have guns are dangerous individuals who cannot be trusted with guns."
Well, you're welcome to try to act on your prejudices (unConstitutional ones, I might add). Those of us who've read our 20th Century history know what such actions mean, and the only practical response.
It's not magic: Given a large, random sample of self-identified 'men' and 'women', pitting them against each other in one-to-one unarmed combat, the men will win an overwhelming majority of the time.
I enjoy working with women who are trained in self-defense - I have a female friend who has a devastatingly strong and quick round kick to the jaw. However, as with most people, most women aren't.
This is a great organization mobilizing around this topic (although their website is sorta crap): http://www.2asisters.org/
There's "misogyny", and then there's gross ignorance of human physiology. Unless you deny that compared to men, women have substantially less muscle mass and therefore in combat are severely disadvantaged, "relatively" less "strong", when denied a weapon that doesn't depend on that?
Which all things being equal, if you care about effectiveness, is limited to a firearm.
A short look at mass shootings in Western Europe in the lat few decades, which are both more numerous and more deadly, suggests that intermediate restrictions won't do any good at best. History prior to that tells what government can easily do to disarmed untermensch.
I'll take an occasional mass shooting over everyone being at the constant mercy of thugs.
For that matter, sort of echoing the others who have commented prior to my starting this comment, such an attempt in the US would instantly spark a nasty civil war killing orders of magnitude more people.