A: in 1780s America, guns were typically flintlocks and muskets.
And we didn't have email, the internet and digital books. Your point? The gatling gun and the rifled mini ball were the advanced arms of their time and believe me, these same arguments were used in the 1800s...
Homicides and violent crime are what matters, not "gun homicides". People who die and who are attacked but can't defend themselves are what, morally superior if they are not armed? Read John Lott's book and tell me that your handful of cherry picked examples matters...
Oh, BTW Lets see how Australia is doing these days...
By using manipulated stats you are biasing the conclusion. Canada has also been loosening it's firearms laws in recent years. More importantly Australia's violent crime rate is rising as the criminals learn how to work the system. The UK has a very high violent crime rate 5+ times ours because those who fight back get in more trouble than those who just suck it up and take it. The yobs run the show there.
D: just because someone is for reasonable limits on guns doesn't mean they don't know anything. Your arrogance is absurd when some of us think reasonable gun limits and gun rights can be reconciled.
The people in this thread are not trying to reconcile gun rights with anything. They are secure in their belief that certain things are not covered by the scope of the right and more importantly that any of this crap matters. The VT shooter used handguns and killed more people, all of whom where capable of fighting back (as opposed to kindergarteners) than the lunatic in CT but yet they demonize extra killy clips and black rifles. In CO the kid actually killed very few and had a 100 rd drum. Oh, it jammed. Yeah, that's what they do. They suck. The best thing the anti-gunners could do is given them away. They are jam-o-matics. So what is being reconciled here? How am I being arrogant? Because I actually know what I am talking about?
in the US, a concealed carry program that is rigorously administered as well as making manufacturers liable for advertisements and the gun culture they foster would be several ways to achieve these without infringing on a US citizen's right to self defence. We would have to compromise. you're willing to do that, right?
Compromise requires your side give something. All I see is people taking something. Everyone said 10 rounds was acceptable. See what happened in NY? 7 rounds is now the "safe" limit. There is no compromise here. It's all take and no give. If people would actually listen to gun owners, you would know we don't want people to die and that we know how to prevent it. Focus on dangerous people and not on us with no records. But really all people do is focus on plastic boxes and black colored rifles because they want to ban guns and are doing everything and anything to make it happen. Meanwhile lunatics in the subways will continue to kill a few people every month in NYC and the next lunatic school killer will be working on his pipe bombs. Don't believe me?