Originally Posted by MP0WER
That's not entirely true. There are plenty of weapons smuggled into the country along with drugs and people.
The fact is it's very difficult to legislate prevention. By and large laws are made and the way they are enforced is by prosecution. Skip this mickey-mouse court crap and prosecute offenders to the fullest degree of the law.
True enough, I should have added a 4th bullet point (no pun intended).
Of course, it must be pointed out that plenty of weapons and drugs are smuggled into Canada too (probably a big demand going north considering the more restrictive laws)
Despite that, the fact remains the body count is far less. Just because there is a leak at the perimieter doesnt mean it's not effective to limit supply into general circulation via other, initially legal, means.
Originally Posted by MP0WER
So why aren't they legislating against the highest body count weapon; the hand gun? Why go after a weapon that is responsible for less than 1% of firearm homicides? No one seems to want to touch this question. My guess is that's because there can only be two reasons the government wants to rid the private sector of semi-automatic rifles with 30 round mags. (AR15s and AK47s)
1) In order to give half the population a false sense of security in hopes they feel safe.
2) In order to get the weapon platform that would be most effective for the private sector should we have to defend ourselves against an armed force.
I can't think of another logical reason but i'm open to theories.
Well, I havent heard any logical justification for the rifle-oriented approach to restrictions, when handguns do harm more. Obviously I'm not privy to gov discussions behind closed doors.
I'm familiar with the theory that such a focus is part of the conspiracy to keep Joe Citizen less able to defend himself. However, the same type of people asserting that, are also quick to point out the Giffords shooting, Virginia Tech, and the Newtown shooting, were all done with handguns, not rifles. If I wanted to convince others that by taking my rifle, they gov is leaving me weaker than if they took my handgun, I wouldnt be pointing out how 1 person can effectively use handguns to kill dozens of people in a short time...
A logical explanation that I HAVE heard for the magazine restriction (independantly of whether it's a rifle or hand gun mag), is that in the Giffords shooting, he used a Glock 19 with a 30-round mag. Including 1 in the chamber, he got off 31 shots, and it was when he fumbled while ejecting the mag and trying to reload that he was tackled and stopped. These 31 rounds hit 19, killing 6. The supposition is that had he been limited to a 7 round mag, then he would have hit 7 max, not 19, and the fatality count could have been less. No guarantee of that of course, those 7 shots could have killed 7 instead of 6, and certainly there's no guarantee that he still would have fumbled the switch of a smaller, lighter mag as badly, creating an oppotunity to be tackled. But still, the theory is not totally devoid of logic, at least in that instance.