Because a few nutjobs can easily go on a killing rampage.
Typical socialist / leftist / rainbow coalition logic: If somebody, somewhere, does something bad, than all others should either voluntarily give up their rights, and if not, have those rights infringed upon, or completely removed.
Their juvenile, irrational and emotional "thinking" has become a cancer in our society today.
As for disarming the population solving mass shootings? Perhaps you English should look at what happened in Norway, over 70 people killed. Need I remind you that he didn't use an automatic assault rifle.
Point is this: A: Banning guns, or restricting them, would NOT prevent mass shootings. B: There will always be people around who want to see the world burn. C: Anyone who is motivated enough will get their hands on the weapons they need to commit the crime.
It is apparent that you English don't like this. How ironic, isn't it? that a country (and a people) who came up with much of these laws (and rights) +250 years later would have made a complete U-turn promoting surveillance and control, only giving lip service to responsibility, rights, and freedom.
Lastly, people have the right
(and the obligation
) to protect and defend themselves.
Originally Posted by GeorgeK
There's a difference between having the right to defend yourself and the right to bear a semi-automatic assault rifle...
It has aldready been explained as to why the population should be allowed to carry them, the 2nd amendment has beeen brought up as well. Seems as if though the attention span is lacking.
Here you go: http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthrea...253499&page=22