That’s exactly how I feel about it.
No, but it’s a good idea anyway.
There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell you could pull this off. Rich people nowadays already have very good security–you’d need multiple armed and trained people to try to assassinate one. And after one or two billionaires start getting assassinated, the rest would catch on pretty quickly and retreat to their private islands or impenetrable saferooms. You wouldn’t get to ten major figures, much less one hundred. And besides, you’d have the entire community of law enforcement on your back. Just look at the manhunts for John Wilkes Booth or the escaped NY inmates. Anyone who tried would find themselves and their associates hunted down like dogs.
That’s not quite right. A more accurate statement would be “More guns equals more gun violence.”
There is debate about the statistics and I don’t really know what the true facts are but you can find a lot of statements around claiming that the UK has far more violent crime than the USA – just not gun related crime since they banned guns.
I recall reading claims that after guns were banned in England home invasions rose dramatically since criminals felt safer knowing the home owners were unarmed.
It’s a much more murky area than a one liner.
A big part of the problem is that the US and the UK have wildly differing definitions of violent crime, but this does make a certain amount of sense on a conversational level…
US:
Robber (produces gun): Give me your wallet.
Victim: Sure, you bet.
UK:
Robber (produces fist): Give me your wallet.
Victim (produces two fists): Sod off.
Combat ensues.
Sure, the US defines robbery as a violent crime, but the UK’s way of doing things would seem to me to be much more violent.
I really don’t give a flying fig about yours or anyone’s position on US gun control laws, but this comment is utter shite, complete bollocks of the highest order, crap, horseshit and bull pucky.
We have not had wide gun ownership for many generations, if ever, and changes to gun laws in the UK never ever made one criminal believe their risk of being shot by a home owner was reduced - simply because their risk of being shot by a home owner was already nil. We’ve had one case in the UK in the last 30 years, that’s it, and that shooter was sent to prison for what he did.
If home invasions increased, and I actually do not believe that either, then it was for some other reason. In fact home invasions is probably what we would call a burglary, there was a rise in these during the 1990’s but these have since fallen back - you should note that burglaries usually take place when there are no occupants present.
To us a home invasion would be a criminal breaking into an occupied dwelling and confronting the residents - your US definition is likely different.
Now your own NRA and media may have reported this crock, its just how your media is so polarised and so stuck on their own agenda they will distort any news from around the world.
Short answer? No, not a chance.
Even rich people would still need both houses of Congress and 38 state legislatures to repeal or alter the 2nd Amendment. Not going to happen.
But does more gun control equal fewer guns?
If that’s what the control is, sure. However, the only controls that seem to have any staying power are the ones that don’t do that: registration, background checks, waiting periods… if somebody wants to buy a gun and can pass the background check, some time from now, they’ve got a gun. If they can’t pass the background check, they know that, so they probably wouldn’t even try, so they buy a gun illegally and probably get it a lot sooner than somebody who’s following the legal process.
No, that’s basically the same definition we have. Most laymen would call a robbery of an occupied dwelling a home invasion (though it would also encompass forcible entry in order to rape, murder and so on.)
Yes. Yes it does. Now, in a country with something like 1 gun for every person, that won’t happen overnight. People who really want guns will just procure one illegally. However, if it’s illegal to own a gun without a permit and permits are difficult to obtain, every time someone is found in illegal possession of a gun, they would be charged and have all their illegal weapons destroyed. Eventually, this process would end up with fewer guns.
The fact that it would be difficult to enforce does not make it a bad idea. Gun control has worked in many countries very successfully. The sort of monthly mass murder tragedies that the US faces is a once in a decade experience in Canada, for instance.
Actually this is already happening. I’ve read articles where rich people have quietly been buying armored cars (although one cannot tell from the outside), and building panic rooms into their mansions. They send their kids to exclusive camps and schools. Of course for years they have been living in gated communities.
Uh, yes it does make it bad idea. Regardless of its good intentions an unworkable, impractical idea is a bad idea (see Prohibition or the Vietnam War). Whenever people bring up statistics from other countries like the UK or Canada or Japan as proof that gun control works they’re ignoring the fact that these countries & cultures did not have a long, ingrained history of gun ownership like the US does. Gun control will never, ever reduce the number of guns in the US. Not in 20 years, not in 100 years. Nothing will. It’s like asking when will soccer replace American football? Never (if we get illegal immigration under control at least). 
And it’s a completely moot point anyway because guns don’t cause crime. And by the way, we don’t have “monthly mass murder tragedies” in America. :rolleyes:
When powerful and wealthy people feel threatened they take their money and move.
Whoops, as per Mother Jones, there’s only been about 70 mass shootings in the US in the last 30 years or so, or about 2 a year.
To contrast, Canada has had about 5 or about 1 every 6 years.
With regard to the US gun culture, you sound pretty defeatist. A lot of countries just like the US have been able to implement gun control. All it takes is popular will. I think you’ll get there. There’s so many good reasons to limit guns and so few good reasons to maintain the current system. For every study/anecdote about how things are safer with more guns around there are ten that show that countries with fewer guns are safer.
The only argument for weak gun control is for the protection of the populace against a tyrannical government. That’s clearly a ridiculous fear in a modern society. The more Sandy Hooks and Charlestons you have, the more the tide will change.
Also, please note that soccer is rapidly growing in popularity 
If we get there first, we can Galt’s dry-gulch the varmints.
Exactly. And American ‘popular will’ will no more enact sweeping gun control than it will elect a communist party President.
People really need to just get over this. I’ll let you in on a little secret: There are 300+ million people in the US, so I’ll bet there are at least a couple hundred thousand who are racist enough that they agree or at least sympathize with that lunatic shooter’s motives. So what’s keeping them from acting on it? Is it access to weapons? No. What’s stopping them is not having the will or desire to do it! Having racist beliefs or feelings is a long way from committing mass murder. What that guy did is not indicative of being a racist, it’s indicative of being a sociopath. You can write ‘hate crime’ laws all you want, but if you think you’re really eliminating hate that way you’re living in a fairy tale…