Which again I'll restate. If that was really the case then it should be the same thing in our case. Why is southern Texas overrun by the cartels to the extant of Mexico? And its not just outside our borders. Why is Chicago more crime ridden than neighboring states?
As Rama pointed out, gangs and the like favour big cities for multiple reasons. They're not going to be particularly concerned with a town with no real benefit for them.
I don't expect you to respond to everything in a 19 minute video but I do ask that you address his statements on how gun control didn't affect the crime positively. And in this video its shows that if our crime rate was like that of Plano, Texas (a gun filled city) then we would indeed be lower than some of the western countries gun control advocates like to point to.
If I'm not meant to watch a 19 minute video, how am I meant to find the section referring to what you're talking about? The way I see it, there are multiple answers, most coming back to good old statistical analysis.
I'm assuming he gives a source. in which case, it'd be much easier of you simply mentioned that rather than linked to a video: raw data's much more useful. If he gives no source, then the claim's meaningless in the face of the data you've already seen. Just assertion.
If he does give a source, then there are potential issues. It's easy to artificially inflate readings if you try, so if the source is biased it ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. Plus then we get onto technicalities: crime involving firearms may well increase in the wake of gun control because the definition of such a crime would change. Few extra people who tried to keep a gun for bragging rights or ego or whatever, that'd be counted among crime involving firearms. Further, shootings involving firearms doesn't mean a higher death rate: it'd likely be one-on-one instances, maybe between gangs, rather than mass shootings: I'd still count that as reduced harm. And then there's the matter of long-term impact. Plus, on the topic of misrepresenting, our crime did reach a peak after gun control: but quite a lot of years after the legislation was enacted, so there's no causative factor, and it went away just as suddenly. Still, it'd be easy to phrase that in an accusative fashion.
As for comparing to one town out of thousands, that's hardly meaningful.
As you pointed out earlier a lot of these instances go unreported.
Actually it was the opposite: typically people overreport the times they've used guns in self-defence, purely because it's such a politically charged issue (for example).
I was talking about the queen's personal detail. I highly doubt they are only armed with sticks even though they live in a gun free zone.
I wasn't talking about them. We have something similar here with the tomb of the unknown soldier. I was talking about your equivalent to our secret service. As to your comment about idiots with guns, they run few and far between.
Guards of the Prime Minister would likely be a better analogy. Hardly comparable though: they're trained, well armed, little to no possibility of abusing the system, and the setting is completely different to your typical home invasion. Someone running along the grounds of Buckingham Palace or down Downing Street would be noticed long before they get into the building, and would be stopped just as quickly.
And, fun fact, historically (up to 1991) Downing Street was open to the public, and had a total of one police officer standing guard. That's the equivalent of being to walk up to the front door of the White House passing just one guard. The security was simple: there's no keyhole on the outside, someone had to open it from within. The sheer unwieldiness of sneaking inside would deter most people: you wouldn't need a gun to stop someone taking half an hour to break through a door or window. There are guards now since a 1991 attack by the IRA (probably the most dangerous terrorist threat the UK's faced) just to be careful, but even now the doors go unguarded on weekends, with just a few extra sitting inside. And for reference as to how effective this was, we've had a total of one PM assassinated, two centuries ago.
Regardless, it's notably a completely different situation. Training, certainty, relevance, an actual use for long range arms...
With lenient sentences, early parol, and the fact that in most cases they drop the charges on illegal possession of a firearm for lighter sentences you can pretty say that we are asking them politely to give up their guns.
Which is a result of less stringent laws on owning guns. Hardly comparable. Also, source?
Keep and bear them at your home. This is just following from your logic, if you want to compare guns to cars.
I'm not. There's no reason to put such a restriction on good law abiding citizens.
Why couldn't I make the same argument about cars?
True but we've seen what damage a mob can do.
Which is my point exactly.
Even if you weigh 200 lb., bench press, and are a black belt you can be beaten by a grandmother with a .38.
Only if you're a certain distance away. Close range, like most home invasions would be, could go either way.
So you rather have granny beaten to death?
You'd rather have her shot? Besides, older people might struggle with guns, particularly if their hands shake or their eyes aren't perfect (both likely). Home invader? Scrabble to find glasses, find gun, pray you can aim... Not a great equaliser when the burglar would still likely have an advantage.
But your police aren't armed.
Most aren't, some are, they're just not needed for every little situation here because every small-time crook wouldn't be able to wave a gun around.
That's not the makeup of our crimes with guns. Most of our crimes are gang related so a musket would do rather nicely. Plus lone muggings can be done with with a flintlock as well. And the irony is you made my point in your own sentence. Everyone was armed. Even if you're right it wasn't long before we had repeating firearms and in fact we had them even before the founding fathers though they weren't in mass production, though the founding fathers were aware and fans of the technology.
No irony, just quoting you. So, would you support legislation to limit the Second Amendment to refer to the weapons of the time it was written, if they're just as effective?
Name me one confiscation that didn't start with registration.
Name me one confiscation/registration that didn't start with guns being legally available. Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy for a reason.
Their job is to uphold the constitution as their oath stipulates.
And to obey the orders of the President and their superior officers. Same oath.
If such orders are constitutional. "To defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic".
And if it gets to the point where the government is enough of a threat that you need to take up arms against them, how hard do you think it'd be for them to add another amendment?