ignorant wrote:
1. there are handguns still allowed. Muzzleloaders and antiques etc.. So blanket statments don't work. They're handguns..
I'm not sure I get your point. Blanket statements do work for the most part. I mean sure, I guess you could walk around with a brace of pistols, but here's why people make general statements: Because they're generally true.
Case in point. If I said "You can't get a firearm delivered to your house." Most people would agree that I'm correct. It's not quite true, of course. You can get antique firearms delivered to your house, you can get muzzle loaders delivered to your house, and if you have the appropriate licenses, you can get any gun delivered to your house.
I don't say "Handguns are illegal in the UK except for antiques and muzzleloaders." because for the purposes of the discussion, that's not really relevant. The jewel thieves had modern handguns (that you will agree are illegal in the UK,) and I was trying to demonstrate that such regulations are in fact counter productive. That criminals, by their definition, have little regard for the law and that only law abiding citizens are effected by such, and we can all agree that law abiding citizens aren't the target of such regulations. Instead, what happens, is criminals are emboldened to rob a jewelry store in the middle of the day and trot of with 60 million dollars worth of jewelry.
ignorant wrote:
2. I used to work for a company that was headquartered in the UK. Their main factory was in a rural northern england town. Every farmer over there.. and there's tons of farmers, has an old side by side.
There isn't a huge calling the UK for weapons for self defense. My personal observations lead me to believe that if given the choice.. A massive majority of UK residents wouldn't want a gun for defense. They don't need them.
Your personal observations are noted, however, I believe that the reason people (in the UK) don't own guns for self defense is that in order to own a gun, any gun, in the UK you must have "good and sufficient reason" to do so, and the UK authorities do not recognize self defense as a reason to do so. (nevermind the myriad and absurd additional hoops one must jump through) It's a bit like if they outlawed sports cars except for "good and sufficient reason", of which only on-track racing was one. Then you saying that the populace wasn't interested in driving sports cars to work.
It's not the best analogy, but it does have parallels. I hesitate to leave it as it is, because I've no doubt that you'll latch on to this, a weak analogy (ignoring any other point I've made) and begin to argue semantics with me, as it's clear you're not interested in discussing the topic at hand. Many people would agree that firearms are effectively banned in the UK, and yet you insist on pointing out that there are some very few and rare exceptions to that rule. By your same logic cocaine isn't illegal in the United States, because there are some very specific circumstances under which it may be used, and is therefore not illegal, but instead "heavily regulated".