More training on the part of police officers perhaps, as they are in need of such in order to do their job. But private citizens are truly responsible for every round they discharge. They cannot merely claim they were in fear for their life and that is the end of it, they must actually prove their claim to be true, and the facts must perfectly line up with their account of the situation, or they face criminal prosecution. Private citizens fire far fewer rounds, and have greater accuracy in defensive situations. Police officers, on the contrary, will discharge eighty five founds of ammunition in public, and hit a suspect once.
You seem to forget that we're all for training. We're against mandatory training and how those types of laws could be used against lawful ownership. Focus on the mandatory part and not the training part.
If it makes citizens more effective with their weapon, which everyone agrees has the potential to be a deadly object if used incorrectly, why not mandatory training?
We've explained this dozens of times. The government isn't given the power by the Constitution to make it mandatory, and we're not going to give the government the power to create obstacles to ownership.
well I have some news for you and the rest of the gun banning left-I suspect we are going to get two pro gun justices on the USSC-maybe three Thank God
There are times when it is necessary for good people to kill. That is why the right to bear arms is esconced in the Constitution. - - - Updated - - - Only if you live in the inner city. Suburbs have almost no gun violence.
You said: ... which clearly implies that the article is by the Telegraph. As it was not in fact by the Telegraph, the correct wording should have been "how about this opinion piece published in the Personal View section of the Telegraph". I'm not saying the Guardian is a pro, or anti, gun source. That's not the point. The point is, you ignored several statements in the article which contradicted your assertion. And by doing so, ironically confirmed rather than refuted a capacity - of which you'd just been accused - to cherry-pick.
Because it has been proven in the united states, at least once already, for a continuous period of more than thirty years, that such a mandate would be used to prohibit firearms ownership, by defunding the program and ensuring that no one would be able to acquire the mandatory training. It was done with handgun permits in the district of columbia, it would most certainly be done in the rest of the country. - - - Updated - - - Except for the fact that it was proven as being the truth.
That's not prior restraint. First of all threatening someone's life is not a freedom. My freedom to move my arm stops at your mouth. Owning a gun isn't endangering anyone. Second, how is your example is anywhere near related to what I just said?
Perhaps defunding was the incorrect term. Rather the district of columbia prohibited allowing handguns to be legally registered, thus serving as a defacto prohibition by insuring that absolutely no one would be able to comply with the requirement. This is the legislation that enacted the requirement that only registered firearms could be legally owned within the district. http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Security/citizensecurity/washington/documents/Edward.pdf The only reason the text is not being presented directly is due to formatting issues that makes copying and pasting prohibitively difficult. However the portion of question is on the third page or the citation, stating clearly that the legislation prohibited the purchase, sale, transfer, and with one exception, possession of handguns by district of columbia residents other than law enforcement officers and the military. The sole exception with respect to handgun ownership was with regard to private residents who had legally registered in accordance to the registration law implemented eight years prior, and they had to be registered a second time within a sixty day period after the control act was enacted into law. It goes on further to state that after this sixty day period of time expired, no more registrations of handguns would be accepted. It even states that handguns would be unregisterable after the effective date. Furthermore the actual legislation itself is found here in photocopy format, the section in question found on page nine and ten. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015081144357;view=1up;seq=13 Sec. 202. Unregisterable firearms. No registration certificate shall be issued for any of the following types of firearms: (a) Sawed-off shotgun (b) Machine gun (c) Short barreled rifle; (d) Pistol not validly registered to the current registrant in the District prior to the effective date of this act; and (e) Pistol not possessed by the current registrant in conformity with the regulations in effect immediately prior to the effective date of this act.
LOL! Now erskine, you know very well The Guardian is anti-gun and pro- gun ban. Why pretend that you don't know that? The quote is unambiguous. And proves my point: gun crime surged after guns were banned? Gun control is irrational nonsense. Thanks for admitting that "by the Telegraph" was not in my post. I appreciate that frank honest admission.
Any Supreme Court Justice that would make a comment like that about a Presidential election needs to go anyhow.
The CEOs of all the major ammo makers should buy her a nice house in New Zealand. Sith Lord Darth Vader Ginsburg.
I suggest you re-read my post, and the one before that. You're imagining things. I didn't say anything at all about the Guardian's position - one way or the other. No, it doesn't prove your point. I included several quotes from the article which contradict your point. Including this: The number of fatalities resulting from offences involving firearms in 2013-14; one fewer than the previous year and the lowest figure since 1980. LOL. When did I say you used the words "by the Telegraph"? I didn't. I said your post implied that it was by the Telegraph.
Oh blah blah blah, Humbug, you are British, so pee off Mate, Gun Control is stupid. Most Brits are wonderful peace loving and Patriots, Great Soldiers etc...... Gun Control does not build character or make you either a Criminal or Law Abiding, Old British saying, That which is bred in the bone does not rapidly depart from the flesh. If you are a good person, it is who you are intrinsically, even post hypnotic suggestion cannot actually change the type of person you fundamentally and really are. Gun control is flawed.
Fact: the UK gun control including the gun ban has failed to stop criminals from getting guns, and gun crime has soared in spite of the gun ban - from the start. Even the gun ban cheerleaders at the Guardian admit the obvious - why can't you? “Police warned yesterday that guns had become "almost a fashion accessory" among young drugs criminals on the streets of Manchester…” “The Guardian,” 1/14/00.
