| the2real4mafol said: They probably spend in the wrong areas so can't be very effective. I'm sure corruption plays it's part. Also, i wonder how accurately Watch dogs will portray the crime problems, that game is set in Chicago. Also my problem with the 2nd amendment is that the US constitution was written at a time when guns fired one bullet only and then took a minute to reload. People could get very easily if the shooters missed. Guns now can hold potentially 100's of bullets and many are automatic. They are also far more deadly now and if you miss one bullet, another will very quickly. Guns are also far more common now than back in the 18th century. The 2nd amendment couldn't consider any of this because the founding fathers obviously couldn't tell that technology would advance so much. Unfortunately now it is a problem but because of how the US constitution works, there is no easy fix like there was in the UK or Australia. |
Not to nitpick, but I'd like to see if any of these guns with 100's of bullets outside mounted turrets and designs so insane no one mass produces them. Aren't you sure that you are talking out of your Resident Evil and Call of Duty experience? Anyways in the 17th century there already were Flintlock pistols with multiple barrels, not to mention your reloading times are unrealistic - even large, cumbersome muskets could be easily reloaded in less than half a minute, and pistols on less than that. The fact they could misfire on unexperienced hands was more of an issue. And their smoke and the cheap lead used on the bullets was quite toxic, so yeah.
Personally I think the evolution of cartidges and their stopping power is the real deal you should focus on. The manufacturing of hollow point bullets and expanding rounds as a whole should be globally banned, really. I mean, as long as you aren't hit on the wrong place, you are very likely going to survive an standard engagement (two to four rounds) of the most common calibers. Other kinds of projectiles, not so much.
