I love the UK and it's culture. But your quote is why I would never live there.
In the UK you have no need for a gun as there's no threat. As I've said I've never known anyone in 50+yrs get threatened with either a knife or a gun. It does happen. It's just rare and restricted to 1 or 2 bad areas of cities and even then mostly between gangs or drug dealers not ordinary citizens. As an ordinary citizen in the UK in most areas, the chances of you being home invaded are near zero as is the threat of being attacked with a weapon. Murders are rare in the UK as well and usually between people who know each other ie the result of domestic violence / domestic murder suicide or criminal activity. Very few random people are murdered over here and it's usually young women in sexual assaults or again gang related stabbings usaully in very bad neighbourshoods that are out of the way and where the average person would never ever go. I love your freedom to own, just think sometimes the issues you have the freedoms are related. Maybe there's freedom to own and freedom to own and one version is just a little too free for all.
I agree and I'm not against ownership or self defence. However, the statement above whilst illustrating the point about it being in-animate also illustrates the problem in the US, very little control over who has one. I know you good guys like that. However, the criminals like it too. One of the reasons the UK is so safe is because the few guns legally held are all in the hands of people who've been extensively background checked and vetted making incidents involving legally held weapons very rare indeed.
A good example of the difference in safety beween the UK and US in keeping guns amongst the vetted is the UK has had 1 school shooting in 25 years (1996) and none before then.
The US has had 779 since 2000 and nearly another 700 before then making nearly 1,500 in the same time period.
The difference is probably down to vetting and safekeeping requirements.
I think it's a matter of who's the bigger bully, how willing either side is to start a war of sorts, and resources. Take a federally mandated speed limit as an example. The police authorities in the state can choose to not enforce it. The feds don't have the resources to enforce it themselves. The federal government could choose to punish the state in some way or another, which is where the war of sorts could begin. The democrat run states have had a long run of not enforcing immigration law, and even encouraging breaking the laws and protecting the offenders. The new chatter is just extending the same principle to other federal laws or edicts.
Different situation in the UK from the sounds of it as what the UK Government rules applies automatically over any local Government and they have to obey it. Local Government over here cannot make laws. They can only apply powers devolved to them by central Government I'm guessing your state situation is more like our relationship with Wales or Scotland where they have Parliaments with powers to pass laws, albeit again in the UK the amount of power they have is limited. I'm guessing your states have more latitude in what laws they can make.
thepostmillennial.com
