there's plenty of countries with much more stringent firearms laws who are awash in far worse crime rates, the gun-free paradise that is the United Kingdom is a prime example of that.
To be slightly more specific, our murder and attempted murder rates are much lower, rates of recorded rape about the same but our law is much broader than the US one, our other violent crime rates (robbery, assault etc) significantly higher but we also include things like common assault, unlawful wounding, ABH/GBH, serious sexual assaults, use of weapons in commission of other crimes, threats to kill, manslaughter and a number of other crimes as "violent" whereas the main authority for US violent crime statistics ignores these or their equivalents.
Yes, but no.
The UK is underreporting their crimes or downplaying the severity to make it look better for themselves.
That's all from the first page of a simple google search, and I weeded out the most likely biased ones from GOA ("Gunowners of America," ) and the like. Now, granted, most of those have to do with under reported sex crimes but the point is, the UK is underreporting violent crime to try and cover up the fact that your country is slowly sliding into the same hole that you sanctimoniously point to the USA as being in.
To say nothing of the fact that your country has taken draconian levels of spying on its citizenry and has certanily taken a turn towards the Orwellian. I cannot understand how or why the British subjects put up with that.
Certainly, though, the UK is not the crime free paradise that the starry-eyed Americans who trumpet it as a success for gun control and crime control often tell us it is, nor is it nearly as sunny as you seem to believe it to be.
Doesn't Canada have a higher instance of firearm ownership? Also not sure I. Following the arbitrary reasoning behind comparison one country's crime rate and gun laws to ours but not another.
God no, America's got 'em beat. However, America's Hat has plenty of guns.. They simply don't have the same culture of violence that America has.
The only issue is that even the fonding fathers would have to admit two things, guns got way deadlier than they ever could have imagined, and the people's ability to fight an industrialized military with small arms never even occurred to them since this was all written well before the first machine let alone the first machine gun.
Freedom of Speech is the most important of the Amendments of the BoR, forming the cornerstone of beliefs upon which we were founded. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is #2 because it gauruntees the 1st Amendment and prevents the creation of a government no longer of the people and for the people by insuring that no standing army can garrison the people.
Furthermore, as written the 2nd Amendment protects civilian ownership of crew served ordinance, which would basically be cannons at that point. They didn't draw a distinction as to what weapon, nor did it matter. The intention was to allow civilian ownership of arms equal to what a professional soldier would have to enable a citizen-soldier militia (and that's not the National Guard).
The generally applied, and reasonable, argument to that is free speech doesn't apply to any electronic communications since even the concepts of something like the Internet, cell phones, email, etc would've been so far beyond the comprehension of the founders. Basically, by that standard, freedom of speech applies only to manually turned printing presses and words written with quill pens since that's all they had.
As to the effect of small arms against a standing army... I'd offer up Iraq as a wonderful example of what a motivated group of common civilians can do against the (arguably) most technically advanced and powerful military in the world with some rifles and improvised explosions. Most of our most recent Iraq experience wasn't fought against tanks, an air force, or a navy.. It was pissed off citizen-soliders with common issue small arms, and America's victory was phyrric at best.
The most absurd thing to me is that we can buy non-handgin at Walmart and leave with it the same day, and there is no reason for that. You can't even access all the money you put into your bank account on a new check before they clear it in case it bounces, but we just hand out guns.
The Brady Bill had a two day waiting period, however this was not ever intended as a "cool off" period, nor have "cool off" periods ever been shown to reduce any crime.
The two day period was mandated to allow the criminal background check to be processed in lieu of an instant background check system. Once the Feds got the NICS (National Instant Check System) up and running, which was part of the original Brady Bill, the waiting period sunsetted. It was no longer needed, what would be done in 2 days was now completed in 2 minutes (well, more like 10m).
Matter of fact, should the NICS system be offline for any reason, you cannot walk out with your weapon. That two day window goes back into effect for the duration of that sale, giving the Feds time to run the check and respond to the FFL to either allow or deny the sale.
BTW, Federally speaking, all commerical gun sales (or transfers across state lines) are held to the same rules. It's no different if its a handgun, longgun, or shotgun. There may be exceptions for black powder, I honestly don't know much about that. However, fwiw, the modern black powder rifle ain't your Pennsylvania longrifle anymore, either. They're high tech, quick to reload, and more powerful than ever.