NationStates Jolt Archive

This is something I've wondered for awhile and this seems to be an excellent mix of people to ask. Also, I'm not very well informed on the specifics of UK gun control policy. I know the basics of they're illegal for private ownership, but I imagine that may not be strictly true or there may be workarounds and exceptions. If anyone can clear that up for me, I'd greatly appreciate it. And , while the UK is the only country I'm aware of that has such controls already in place, if you're from a country that does as well, please let me know.

In the UK, the only individuals allowed to own firearms are farmers who can prove that they need a shotgun for pest control. And that's about it.

Some criminals do have guns - the city in which I live, Manchester, has the second highest violent crime rate in the UK. However, almost all of this violence is conducted in the time-honoured ways of unarmed assault, blunt instruments and edged weapons. Nationally, only 60-70 people are killed with guns every year. Manchester's share is perhaps a dozen. Most are involved in some pretty fishy business.

Yes, I feel no fear of being attacked with a firearm, because I know that the odds are stacked against it. I am far more likely to be stabbed or beaten up in the street, and the chances of this happening are no higher than in any other Western city of its size. Indeed, it is a lot safer than many.

I can see it every day - gun control works, if you go all out for it.

In the UK, the only individuals allowed to own firearms are farmers who can prove that they need a shotgun for pest control. And that's about it.

Some criminals do have guns - the city in which I live, Manchester, has the second highest violent crime rate in the UK. However, almost all of this violence is conducted in the time-honoured ways of unarmed assault, blunt instruments and edged weapons. Nationally, only 60-70 people are killed with guns every year. Manchester's share is perhaps a dozen. Most are involved in some pretty fishy business.

Yes, I feel no fear of being attacked with a firearm, because I know that the odds are stacked against it. I am far more likely to be stabbed or beaten up in the street, and the chances of this happening are no higher than in any other Western city of its size. Indeed, it is a lot safer than many.

I can see it every day - gun control works, if you go all out for it.

You live in Machester too? Wow.

Anyway on topic.

Active Pistols are banned outright. There was a bit of cntrovesy a few years back because Magnum's (iirc) were being bought into the country that were just over the length for it to be a "pistol." Cannot remember what happened about though.

Shotguns are legal if you get a certificate saying you are responsible anough. I think to get it you must prove that you have a reason for wanting one (hunting, pest control, clay pidgeon shotting etc), you must do a basic course in how to use them, be a member of a gun club or something similar. Also it must be kept in a safe place away from children. If you don't have anywhere in your house it will be kept in the Police Station (and the police will check where it is being stored). Also occasionally the Army will go to fairs and set up ranges (I don't know why, possible to help the budget). As far I can remember, these are the only reasons you can have them. Recreational (ie non-work non-competition etc) gun ownership and pistols were severly clamped down on because of the Snowdrop Campaign after the Dunblane tragedy.

This is all from memory, so it would be helpful if you could point out any mistakes.

The only other way to own a gun is to have it deactivated (and you get a certificate of proof that has to be available to show an 'authority figure'), or for it to be a CO2 one etc. However ever few months or say (during slow news periods) the topic that these guns can be reactivated to fire regular ammunition is raised.

For me I have no fear of being shot or having a gun pulled on me when walking about. I have had knives pulled on me. Every single time (but once) the knife was actually illegal. The legal knife was a bread knife ( :? ). I mention simply because it does highlight the poin that criminals don't obey the laws.

I am not nessessarily for gun control because it effectively treats people as either:
A) Dodgy
B) Criminals
c) Stupid

However to have any forms of fire arms, whould come up against a huge public outcry (Posters saying "REMEMBER DUMBLAINE" etc.) so it is unlikely to ever happen.

PS: If it was directled at Brits, posting this at 3:30 GMT was probably not the best idea :)

However to have any forms of fire arms, whould come up against a huge public outcry (Posters saying "REMEMBER DUMBLAINE" etc.) so it is unlikely to ever happen.
Ah, I'm not sentimental at all, my support for existing gun laws rests entirely on the fact that while the hard-core criminal element will always have them, I don't want every little prick with a spraycan and a hoodie to be carrying one too.

PS: If it was directled at Brits, posting this at 3:30 GMT was probably not the best idea :)

Well, I sort of hoped it'd be around for a couple of days. :D

PS: If it was directled at Brits, posting this at 3:30 GMT was probably not the best idea :)
[Shrugs] My dedication to this community knows no bounds. :D

(That, and I have nothing on in the mornings)

Majority of gun deaths are probably criminals killing other criminals, and generally in the world of organised crime rather than common-or-garden crime. Obviously there are some other instances, and these are truly tragic, but in comparison to other countries they are so isolated that its not worrying to me.

I don't want a gun, and I don't want anyone else to have a gun.


Conceptualists: Its surprising (and kinda sad) actually how many brits have answered this, despite the time thing

Majority of gun deaths are probably criminals killing other criminals, and generally in the world of organised crime rather than common-or-garden crime. Obviously there are some other instances, and these are truly tragic, but in comparison to other countries they are so isolated that its not worrying to me.

I don't want a gun, and I don't want anyone else to have a gun.


Conceptualists: Its surprising (and kinda sad) actually how many brits have answered this, despite the time thing
Who the hell do you think you are to say what others may or may not have, based simply on your feelings of moral superiority?

Majority of gun deaths are probably criminals killing other criminals, and generally in the world of organised crime rather than common-or-garden crime. Obviously there are some other instances, and these are truly tragic, but in comparison to other countries they are so isolated that its not worrying to me.

I don't want a gun, and I don't want anyone else to have a gun.

Conceptualists: Its surprising (and kinda sad) actually how many brits have answered this, despite the time thing
Who the hell do you think you are to say what others may or may not have, based simply on your feelings of moral superiority?
Someone whose life might be at risk should others posess those items. That's more than reason enough to push for a ban on them.

Precisely. Allowing more guns would just mean that there would be more guns floating around which would in turn incr my danger from guns. Right now, unless I'm already involved in criminal business I'll probably never see a gun pointed at me.

No, people shouldn't be allowed to have guns.

Majority of gun deaths are probably criminals killing other criminals, and generally in the world of organised crime rather than common-or-garden crime. Obviously there are some other instances, and these are truly tragic, but in comparison to other countries they are so isolated that its not worrying to me.

I don't want a gun, and I don't want anyone else to have a gun.

Conceptualists: Its surprising (and kinda sad) actually how many brits have answered this, despite the time thing
Who the hell do you think you are to say what others may or may not have, based simply on your feelings of moral superiority?
Someone whose life might be at risk should others posess those items. That's more than reason enough to push for a ban on them.
Right, let's ban knives, cars, pencils, baseball bats, fists, and everything else than can be used to harm a person. Anyhow, criminals don't follow bans. Only law abiding citizens bother to follow such bans, criminals will always find a way to acquire them. Anyhow, you can go straight to hell. I'll get whatever I damned well please for my own protection, you haven't the right to dictate to others how they may defend themselves. What, you're afraid that possession of a gun is suddenly going to turn someone into a mad dog killer? You're much more likely to be killed by a bad or drunk driver than you are to be murdered, no matter what weapon is employed. This idiocy of "If it can be even slightly misused, ban it!" is starting to grate on me.

Precisely. Allowing more guns would just mean that there would be more guns floating around which would in turn incr my danger from guns. Right now, unless I'm already involved in criminal business I'll probably never see a gun pointed at me.

No, people shouldn't be allowed to have guns.

Cum Catapultae proscriptae erunt tum doli proscripti catapultas habebunt.

Right, let's ban knives, cars, pencils, baseball bats, fists, and everything else than can be used to harm a person. Anyhow, criminals don't follow bans. Only law abiding citizens bother to follow such bans, criminals will always find a way to acquire them. Anyhow, you can go straight to hell. I'll get whatever I damned well please for my own protection, you haven't the right to dictate to others how they may defend themselves. What, you're afraid that possession of a gun is suddenly going to turn someone into a mad dog killer? You're much more likely to be killed by a bad or drunk driver than you are to be murdered, no matter what weapon is employed. This idiocy of "If it can be even slightly misused, ban it!" is starting to grate on me.

Not that I agree with him, but he's really saying, "lets ban something that can kill a man at 400 paces with almost no training and is just as likely to accidentally kill a loved one in your own home as an assailiant" Have you actually tried to kill someone with a pencil? Its harder than it looks in the movies.

Just try to protect yourself using military equipment such as aircraft, tanks, rocket launchers, etc... I think that you too follow some limits on your choices for protection. Guns bans are just an extension of these same bans that you already follow. I know you don't like the idea of it, I'm not crazy about it either, but you must admit it might save a few hundred lives a year than would not otherwise be lost.

Right, let's ban knives, cars, pencils, baseball bats, fists, and everything else than can be used to harm a person. Anyhow, criminals don't follow bans. Only law abiding citizens bother to follow such bans, criminals will always find a way to acquire them. Anyhow, you can go straight to hell. I'll get whatever I damned well please for my own protection, you haven't the right to dictate to others how they may defend themselves. What, you're afraid that possession of a gun is suddenly going to turn someone into a mad dog killer? You're much more likely to be killed by a bad or drunk driver than you are to be murdered, no matter what weapon is employed. This idiocy of "If it can be even slightly misused, ban it!" is starting to grate on me.

This irrelevant and poor analogy always irritates me. The crucial difference between a baseball bat/pencil/cars/dogs and a gun is that a guns sole purpose is to physically harm, injure or destroy life of one sort or another. Also, the idea of needing a gun for self defence in a country so closely populated as Britain carries less sway than in America- you're NEVER far away from the local police/neighbours/ other good citizens. Simply on a pragmatic level, in Britain guns would do more harm than good.



garden crime


Garden crime :D that made me laugh- like stealing compost and stuff.

Right, let's ban knives, cars, pencils, baseball bats, fists, and everything else than can be used to harm a person. Anyhow, criminals don't follow bans. Only law abiding citizens bother to follow such bans, criminals will always find a way to acquire them. Anyhow, you can go straight to hell. I'll get whatever I damned well please for my own protection, you haven't the right to dictate to others how they may defend themselves. What, you're afraid that possession of a gun is suddenly going to turn someone into a mad dog killer? You're much more likely to be killed by a bad or drunk driver than you are to be murdered, no matter what weapon is employed. This idiocy of "If it can be even slightly misused, ban it!" is starting to grate on me.

This irrelevant and poor analogy always irritates me. The crucial difference between a baseball bat/pencil/cars/dogs and a gun is that a guns sole purpose is to physically harm, injure or destroy life of one sort or another. Also, the idea of needing a gun for self defence in a country so closely populated as Britain carries less sway than in America- you're NEVER far away from the local police/neighbours/ other good citizens. Simply on a pragmatic level, in Britain guns would do more harm than good.

Oh, so what you're saying is that we haven't any rights to self-determination. We're supposed to cry for help and whine like little faggots whenever we're attacked, right? Bend over and let them have their way with us? Fuck that, I'll defend myself. Guns save more lives in the USA every year than are taken by them, many studies have shown that guns are used in self-defense millions of times a year. You people can be pussies if you want to, but that doesn't give you the right to force others to be so spineless.

Not that you are personally spineless, but that seems to be what you're advocating.

Oh, so what you're saying is that we haven't any rights to self-determination. We're supposed to cry for help and whine like little faggots whenever we're attacked, right? Bend over and let them have their way with us? f--- that, I'll defend myself. Guns save more lives in the USA every year than are taken by them, many studies have shown that guns are used in self-defense millions of times a year. You people can be pussies if you want to, but that doesn't give you the right to force others to be so spineless.

Not that you are personally spineless, but that seems to be what you're advocating.

So? defend yourself with a knife or a bat then? You're the one that said that they're equally dangerous as guns and therefore they should be banned as well as guns if guns.

I remeber one of you pro-gun saying that most of the gun related deaths was related to fights between criminals and apperently the same applies to the EU. So why on earth do you need a gun for unless you're a criminal that fears other criminals? Why not simply settle with a knife, a bat or a can of pepper spray for self defence?

And what about everyone elese right not to be afraid and right to feel safe? I wouldn't feel very safe if I knew any nutcase could get a gun. No matter how safe NRA or any other pro-guns says it is.

Oh, so what you're saying is that we haven't any rights to self-determination. We're supposed to cry for help and whine like little faggots whenever we're attacked, right? Bend over and let them have their way with us? f--- that, I'll defend myself. Guns save more lives in the USA every year than are taken by them, many studies have shown that guns are used in self-defense millions of times a year. You people can be pussies if you want to, but that doesn't give you the right to force others to be so spineless.

Not that you are personally spineless, but that seems to be what you're advocating.

1. But we are not actually IN the USA over here :D
2. Studies by whom ? Am betting they are somewhat biased. (and quite probably both sides have been guilty of this). But - 'used in self defence millions of times a year' - surely there should be huuuuge piles of corpses lying around smelling the place up if it was that mich. How many millions precisely ?
3. "whine like little faggots" - *ahem* I think not. What we are meant to do is our civic dutylike grown ups and call the police to let them & due process of law sort it out. The old Bill are fairly decent and not that corrupt for the most part. We trust them and they usually merit that trust. Perhaps that makes us more fortunate than most - it certainly allows us to be more civilised about it.

The alternative UK would be scary - everyone packing a gun to 'defend' themselves - which in short order would turn into playing cowboys in essence: settling every minor dispute in the street or to defend thier name against slights perceived or otherwise - being cut up in traffic - accidently spilling someones pint .... people are *dim* and not many are good shots. So any gunplay in the street is more likely to hit an innocent bysytander than the criminal.

To be honest I wouldn't trust most of my fellow citizens with pointy scissors, let alone a gun. Remember that 50% of the population is of below average intelligence ... and many wear glasses. :shock:

We have plenty of fistfights - especially round about chucking out time at the pub - but the advantage is that these are for the participants and bystanders MUCH less lethal.

Hey, perhaps your way works fine in the USA. I don't think it would work terribly well here in the UK.

Right, let's ban knives, cars, pencils, baseball bats, fists, and everything else than can be used to harm a person. Anyhow, criminals don't follow bans. Only law abiding citizens bother to follow such bans, criminals will always find a way to acquire them. Anyhow, you can go straight to hell. I'll get whatever I damned well please for my own protection, you haven't the right to dictate to others how they may defend themselves. What, you're afraid that possession of a gun is suddenly going to turn someone into a mad dog killer? You're much more likely to be killed by a bad or drunk driver than you are to be murdered, no matter what weapon is employed. This idiocy of "If it can be even slightly misused, ban it!" is starting to grate on me.

This irrelevant and poor analogy always irritates me. The crucial difference between a baseball bat/pencil/cars/dogs and a gun is that a guns sole purpose is to physically harm, injure or destroy life of one sort or another. Also, the idea of needing a gun for self defence in a country so closely populated as Britain carries less sway than in America- you're NEVER far away from the local police/neighbours/ other good citizens. Simply on a pragmatic level, in Britain guns would do more harm than good.

Oh, so what you're saying is that we haven't any rights to self-determination. We're supposed to cry for help and whine like little faggots whenever we're attacked, right? Bend over and let them have their way with us? f--- that, I'll defend myself. Guns save more lives in the USA every year than are taken by them, many studies have shown that guns are used in self-defense millions of times a year. You people can be pussies if you want to, but that doesn't give you the right to force others to be so spineless.

Not that you are personally spineless, but that seems to be what you're advocating.

I don't see using the perfectly adequate law enforcement methods at my disposal already as 'being spineless'. I suppose it could be different in America, but Britain isn't a warzone where everyone is out to defend themselves. We have some semblance of community spirit and as everyone lives VERY close to each other that protects us. If someone is breaking into my house when I'm out, my neighbour (who virtually lives on top of me) will inform the police. I don't think it's a pussy way to live ones life. And I think it's much safer than giving my neighbour a gun. After all, they could go out and shoot the burglar when in reality it's me breakinginto my house because I've lost my keys. Having a gun puts the owner in the role of judge, jury and executioner.

Also, as for 'bending over like little faggots when we're attacked', I take exception to the need to use a gun. As a little faggot myself, if I'm attacked I'll fight back- enough in self-defence, then inform the relevant authorities. I don't see why the issue has to blown up into a big issue of ones honour, and my country has degenerated to the level where I feel the need to physically injure a criminal rather than let him be arrested.

Whoever says "gun control works" is a spaz. Britain didn't have many shootings before pistols were banned. There just isn't a gun culture here. Switzerland has less gun control than even America and they don't get many more shootings than Britain. Americans kill each other more with knives than we do with guns. It's just a more violent country.

A more accurate test would be to compare areas of America with more and less gun control. Studies like this show that if anything gun control increases crime.

The problem is visibility. Schoolkids getting shot makes headlines but nobody knows who the dozens perhaps hundreds or even thousands of people are who get killed or raped every year and would have been able to put up a fight if they were allowed to carry a firearm.

Besides, people have a right to defend themselves. Unless your granny knows kung fu I don't see how it's moral to deprive her of the only means of resisting attack.

Right, let's ban knives, cars, pencils, baseball bats, fists, and everything else than can be used to harm a person. Anyhow, criminals don't follow bans. Only law abiding citizens bother to follow such bans, criminals will always find a way to acquire them. Anyhow, you can go straight to hell. I'll get whatever I damned well please for my own protection, you haven't the right to dictate to others how they may defend themselves. What, you're afraid that possession of a gun is suddenly going to turn someone into a mad dog killer? You're much more likely to be killed by a bad or drunk driver than you are to be murdered, no matter what weapon is employed. This idiocy of "If it can be even slightly misused, ban it!" is starting to grate on me.

This irrelevant and poor analogy always irritates me. The crucial difference between a baseball bat/pencil/cars/dogs and a gun is that a guns sole purpose is to physically harm, injure or destroy life of one sort or another. Also, the idea of needing a gun for self defence in a country so closely populated as Britain carries less sway than in America- you're NEVER far away from the local police/neighbours/ other good citizens. Simply on a pragmatic level, in Britain guns would do more harm than good.

Oh, so what you're saying is that we haven't any rights to self-determination. We're supposed to cry for help and whine like little faggots whenever we're attacked, right? Bend over and let them have their way with us? f--- that, I'll defend myself. Guns save more lives in the USA every year than are taken by them, many studies have shown that guns are used in self-defense millions of times a year. You people can be pussies if you want to, but that doesn't give you the right to force others to be so spineless.

Not that you are personally spineless, but that seems to be what you're advocating.

I don't see using the perfectly adequate law enforcement methods at my disposal already as 'being spineless'. I suppose it could be different in America, but Britain isn't a warzone where everyone is out to defend themselves. We have some semblance of community spirit and as everyone lives VERY close to each other that protects us. If someone is breaking into my house when I'm out, my neighbour (who virtually lives on top of me) will inform the police. I don't think it's a pussy way to live ones life. And I think it's much safer than giving my neighbour a gun. After all, they could go out and shoot the burglar when in reality it's me breakinginto my house because I've lost my keys. Having a gun puts the owner in the role of judge, jury and executioner.

Also, as for 'bending over like little faggots when we're attacked', I take exception to the need to use a gun. As a little faggot myself, if I'm attacked I'll fight back- enough in self-defence, then inform the relevant authorities. I don't see why the issue has to blown up into a big issue of ones honour, and my country has degenerated to the level where I feel the need to physically injure a criminal rather than let him be arrested.
How comforting to know that he'll be arrested AFTER he kills you. How are you going to do your self defence mojo if they've got guns and knives and all you've got is a limp wristed slap? Maybe if you lived in Brixton instead of Islington you'd be more worried about protecting yourself instead of spewing up this "community spirit" salad talk.

Yes, I feel no fear of being attacked with a firearm, because I know that the odds are stacked against it. I am far more likely to be stabbed or beaten up in the street, and the chances of this happening are no higher than in any other Western city of its size. Indeed, it is a lot safer than many.

Lovely. There are lots of farmers where I live but they don't go around shooting people.

Wow, Vicious Dolphins sure had some great debating skills :roll:

An old post of mine from an earlier debate.



1./ If someone is a peaceful gun owner minding his own business does anybody else have the right to threaten him with a jail sentence? See "right to bear arms".

2./ States without gun control have LESS crime.

3./ Banning guns doesn't mean nobody has guns, it means no LAW ABIDING citizens have guns. The criminals still have the guns only now the "good guys" can't defend themselves.

4./ Guns are necessary to defend your community from evil governments, foreign or domestic.

5./ People have a right to defend themselves. Does your grannie know kung fu? Didn't think so. Then how's she supposed to protect herself from robbers and muggers?

6./ Most "have a go heros" are gun owners. It's typical of govts that they first take away peoples' ability to defend themselves and then criticise citizens for not intervening when they see muggings in progress.

7./ Gun owners have more success when encountering criminals than the average police officer does.

8./ Guns are cool.

It's always "think of the children" when someone wants to restrict liberty. The best gift you can give your children is freedom. The bad guys have guns, you can't change that, it's simply a given. Governments are as incompetent at enforcing firearm bans as they are at doing anything else. Question is, are you and your family safer if YOU have a gun or not? Do you have a right to make this decision for anyone other than yourself?

2./ States without gun control have LESS crime.

Want me to compare UK murder rates with US murder rates? :roll:

5./ People have a right to defend themselves. Does your grannie know kung fu? Didn't think so. Then how's she supposed to protect herself from robbers and muggers?

If the robber thinks Granny's going to have a gun, robber's going to take a gun as well. Who do you think's going to get shot? :roll:

How comforting to know that he'll be arrested AFTER he kills you. How are you going to do your self defence mojo if they've got guns and knives and all you've got is a limp wristed slap? Maybe if you lived in Brixton instead of Islington you'd be more worried about protecting yourself instead of spewing up this "community spirit" salad talk.

Look. First: Do you think criminals go around and kill people for fun? No. Most criminals are only likely to kill you if you try to resist and even if you resist that's not very likely. Seccondly: Most "everyday" criminals, the ones that break into your homes and mugg are not very likely to carry a gun in a gun control country. Why would a criminal spend lots of money on a illegal gun when a knife is sufficient to scare the victim since the victim doesn't carry any weapon? And most people would be able to fight a guy with a knife if they really wanted to. The only criminals that have a reason to carry guns and can afford it are those involved in organized crime and they are not interested in shooting civilians.

So if the majority of the criminals only have knives and other hand to hand weapons, then why would you need a gun? You can defend yourself without a gun, and people have the right to a gun free society if they want to.

This whole issue with gun control is meaningless when you try to compare the UK with the US..two vastly different cultures..American grew up in the Post-colonial period when weapons were used initially for hunting/feeding oneself in a primarily agricultural society..as well as for home defense as weapons were plentiful...also we had seen what happens when only the British Army could have weapons...an oppressive government that was able to control a colonial possession. No longer would we have our people dictated to and controlled by the government to the point we couldn't defend ourselves from that oppressive government an ocean away.. That is why our Founding Fathers put that in the Bill of Rights, to ensure that every citizen would be able to protect himself...from the government or a common criminal.

Our westward expansion mandated the use of weapons and the ability to acquire said weapons...primarily from my people in the southeast, and later on such groups as the Comanche in Texas, the Apache in New Mexico, the Cheyenne and Lakota and Ogalala, Piute, Ute, Nez Perce, and a host of other tribes thruout the West. Not til the early 1900's when the last of Native American resistance was finally consigned to history did the absolute need for weapons diminish.

In the next intervening years...such criminal gangs as the Chinese Tongs entered our country from China, the Yakuza from Japan, the Sicilian Mafia, the Irish gangs..these groups were easily able to acquire weapons both legally and illegally..and quite simply put there were too few police to deal with the situation..and quite frankly Americans are just a little to bit independent to depend entirely on the police, and in many urban areas we minorities simply do not trust the police....or if I stick my neck out to help you convict a criminal are you going to stand by me 24/7 the rest of my life...because I still have to live in this neighborhood, an easy target for his buddies.

There are a host of other factors involved why the type of gun-control that Britain has works and why it simply could not function here in the States...suffice it to say as I did in the beginning.two vastly different approaches to weapons ownership. I would truly like to believe their way could work here in the US but somehow I just think our criminals would go..."Oh yeah..it's a feeding frency now boys...they're defenseless"

How comforting to know that he'll be arrested AFTER he kills you. How are you going to do your self defence mojo if they've got guns and knives and all you've got is a limp wristed slap? Maybe if you lived in Brixton instead of Islington you'd be more worried about protecting yourself instead of spewing up this "community spirit" salad talk.

Look. First: Do you think criminals go around and kill people for fun? No. Most criminals are only likely to kill you if you try to resist and even if you resist that's not very likely. Seccondly: Most "everyday" criminals, the ones that break into your homes and mugg are not very likely to carry a gun in a gun control country. Why would a criminal spend lots of money on a illegal gun when a knife is sufficient to scare the victim since the victim doesn't carry any weapon? And most people would be able to fight a guy with a knife if they really wanted to. The only criminals that have a reason to carry guns and can afford it are those involved in organized crime and they are not interested in shooting civilians.

So if the majority of the criminals only have knives and other hand to hand weapons, then why would you need a gun? You can defend yourself without a gun, and people have the right to a gun free society if they want to.
Your gran can disarm a knife wielding criminal? Wow.

Let's say there's an equal chance you'll kill the criminal and he'll kill you. What effect will that have on deterring the criminal from trying to rob you in the first place?

Nobody's forcing you to carry a gun. You can walk about disarmed and give up without a struggle IF you want. But why should I be forced to?

People have a right to live in a gun free society if they want to? Do people also have a right to live in a Jew free society if they want to? A ridiculous analogy you might think but how is it saying anything different? The majority rules, right? It's worth noting one of Hitlers first aggressions against the Jews was to disarm them.

How comforting to know that he'll be arrested AFTER he kills you. How are you going to do your self defence mojo if they've got guns and knives and all you've got is a limp wristed slap? Maybe if you lived in Brixton instead of Islington you'd be more worried about protecting yourself instead of spewing up this "community spirit" salad talk.

Look. First: Do you think criminals go around and kill people for fun? No. Most criminals are only likely to kill you if you try to resist and even if you resist that's not very likely. Seccondly: Most "everyday" criminals, the ones that break into your homes and mugg are not very likely to carry a gun in a gun control country. Why would a criminal spend lots of money on a illegal gun when a knife is sufficient to scare the victim since the victim doesn't carry any weapon? And most people would be able to fight a guy with a knife if they really wanted to. The only criminals that have a reason to carry guns and can afford it are those involved in organized crime and they are not interested in shooting civilians.

So if the majority of the criminals only have knives and other hand to hand weapons, then why would you need a gun? You can defend yourself without a gun, and people have the right to a gun free society if they want to.
Your gran can disarm a knife wielding criminal? Wow.

Let's say there's an equal chance you'll kill the criminal and he'll kill you. What effect will that have on deterring the criminal from trying to rob you in the first place?

Nobody's forcing you to carry a gun. You can walk about disarmed and give up without a struggle IF you want. But why should I be forced to?

People have a right to live in a gun free society if they want to? Do people also have a right to live in a Jew free society if they want to? A ridiculous analogy you might think but how is it saying anything different? The majority rules, right? It's worth noting one of Hitlers first aggressions against the Jews was to disarm them.

Because a lot of people are stupid and irresponsible. Sure, not everyone is a gun-toting psychopath, but accidents still happen. Guns serve no other purpose than to kill people. That's what they're designed to do.
You can't trust everyone, so in the interest of everyone's safety, it's best not to let people have them.

With guns, any moron can decide to become a criminal and go out and commit an armed robbery. Guns make it too easy.

2./ States without gun control have LESS crime.

Want me to compare UK murder rates with US murder rates? :roll:

5./ People have a right to defend themselves. Does your grannie know kung fu? Didn't think so. Then how's she supposed to protect herself from robbers and muggers?

If the robber thinks Granny's going to have a gun, robber's going to take a gun as well. Who do you think's going to get shot? :roll:
Compare US with Switzerland which has even less gun control. Yours is a completely unscientific comparison because it doesn't take account of other factors.

Maybe the robber won't risk it.

What about the other points?

How comforting to know that he'll be arrested AFTER he kills you. How are you going to do your self defence mojo if they've got guns and knives and all you've got is a limp wristed slap? Maybe if you lived in Brixton instead of Islington you'd be more worried about protecting yourself instead of spewing up this "community spirit" salad talk.

Look. First: Do you think criminals go around and kill people for fun? No. Most criminals are only likely to kill you if you try to resist and even if you resist that's not very likely. Seccondly: Most "everyday" criminals, the ones that break into your homes and mugg are not very likely to carry a gun in a gun control country. Why would a criminal spend lots of money on a illegal gun when a knife is sufficient to scare the victim since the victim doesn't carry any weapon? And most people would be able to fight a guy with a knife if they really wanted to. The only criminals that have a reason to carry guns and can afford it are those involved in organized crime and they are not interested in shooting civilians.

So if the majority of the criminals only have knives and other hand to hand weapons, then why would you need a gun? You can defend yourself without a gun, and people have the right to a gun free society if they want to.
Your gran can disarm a knife wielding criminal? Wow.

Let's say there's an equal chance you'll kill the criminal and he'll kill you. What effect will that have on deterring the criminal from trying to rob you in the first place?

Nobody's forcing you to carry a gun. You can walk about disarmed and give up without a struggle IF you want. But why should I be forced to?

People have a right to live in a gun free society if they want to? Do people also have a right to live in a Jew free society if they want to? A ridiculous analogy you might think but how is it saying anything different? The majority rules, right? It's worth noting one of Hitlers first aggressions against the Jews was to disarm them.

Because a lot of people are stupid and irresponsible. Sure, not everyone is a gun-toting psychopath, but accidents still happen. Guns serve no other purpose than to kill people. That's what they're designed to do.
You can't trust everyone, so in the interest of everyone's safety, it's best not to let people have them.

With guns, any moron can decide to become a criminal and go out and commit an armed robbery. Guns make it too easy.
Guns can protect you from said psychopaths. If you can't trust people why do you give all the guns to one group? (the state). Is it easier or harder to commit armed robbery in an armed society?

Britain had widespread gun ownership until after the Great War.

Gun control was introduced because of all the Tommies coming home.

Where as in the past it had been armed peasants now it would be armed veterens.

The prospect was unacceptable to the elite and so it gun control was introduced and built upon this beginning.

2./ States without gun control have LESS crime.

Want me to compare UK murder rates with US murder rates? :roll:

5./ People have a right to defend themselves. Does your grannie know kung fu? Didn't think so. Then how's she supposed to protect herself from robbers and muggers?

If the robber thinks Granny's going to have a gun, robber's going to take a gun as well. Who do you think's going to get shot? :roll:
Compare US with Switzerland which has even less gun control. Yours is a completely unscientific comparison because it doesn't take account of other factors.

Maybe the robber won't risk it.

What about the other points?

If I remember correctly, Switzerland has one of the worst rates of gun crime around.

Your gran can disarm a knife wielding criminal? Wow.

Let's say there's an equal chance you'll kill the criminal and he'll kill you. What effect will that have on deterring the criminal from trying to rob you in the first place?

Nobody's forcing you to carry a gun. You can walk about disarmed and give up without a struggle IF you want. But why should I be forced to?

People have a right to live in a gun free society if they want to? Do people also have a right to live in a Jew free society if they want to? A ridiculous analogy you might think but how is it saying anything different? The majority rules, right? It's worth noting one of Hitlers first aggressions against the Jews was to disarm them.

No, I don't think my granny would be able to disarm a knife weilding criminal. At least not if she was unarmed. But maybe with a can of pepperspray or something else. And if granny would have a gun, then it would just be more likely for the criminal to bring a gun to equal the odds and since the criminal is most likely desperate for money since he/she most likely don't have any other source of income then robbery and such. He/she won't care too much of the odds, at least not when he/she gets really desperate. There will always be crime no matter how well protected a person is.

You're right, no one is forcing me to carry a gun. But if you carry a gun, then you're forcing me to live in a society with guns.

Err... how can you even compare guns with jews? Jews are people while guns are just.. things, they're just a piece of metal and not something living. A gun doesn't get huirt if you ban it, a car doesn't get hurt if you ban it and a drug doesn't get hurt if you ban it. As long as a country is still a democracy where people can affect the country's decisions then banning is ok.

Now about the Nazis: you said that Hitler disarmed the Jews? So the Jews had firearms? Then why didn't they use them against him? I mean they knew Hitler didn't like Jews, why didn't they fight him? Oh yeah, could it be that even if Hitler was showing his hate of Jews very clearly he still managed to brainwash them enough so that they would feel safe enough to give away their guns without a fight. Now what does this prove?: A politician can fool people into doing their bidding even if they have guns. But later in the war, the Jews actually managed to fight back: in Warsaw, Poland 1943 (?) there was a uprising. Now, you said that the Jews had been disarmed right? That means that they must have managed to steal guns for themselves and then they simply took the guns from the fallen German soldiers. That means that people can put up with resistance even with no guns. In fact, personally I think it's a advantage not to have guns to begin with, because then the oppressive leader might even get a bit suprised when he/she discovers that there's an armed rebel force in the country (like Hitler and the German forces in Warsaw)

Your gran can disarm a knife wielding criminal? Wow.

Let's say there's an equal chance you'll kill the criminal and he'll kill you. What effect will that have on deterring the criminal from trying to rob you in the first place?

Nobody's forcing you to carry a gun. You can walk about disarmed and give up without a struggle IF you want. But why should I be forced to?

People have a right to live in a gun free society if they want to? Do people also have a right to live in a Jew free society if they want to? A ridiculous analogy you might think but how is it saying anything different? The majority rules, right? It's worth noting one of Hitlers first aggressions against the Jews was to disarm them.

No, I don't think my granny would be able to disarm a knife weilding criminal. At least not if she was unarmed. But maybe with a can of pepperspray or something else. And if granny would have a gun, then it would just be more likely for the criminal to bring a gun to equal the odds and since the criminal is most likely desperate for money since he/she most likely don't have any other source of income then robbery and such. He/she won't care too much of the odds, at least not when he/she gets really desperate. There will always be crime no matter how well protected a person is.

You're right, no one is forcing me to carry a gun. But if you carry a gun, then you're forcing me to live in a society with guns.

Err... how can you even compare guns with jews? Jews are people while guns are just.. things, they're just a piece of metal and not something living. A gun doesn't get huirt if you ban it, a car doesn't get hurt if you ban it and a drug doesn't get hurt if you ban it. As long as a country is still a democracy where people can affect the country's decisions then banning is ok.

Now about the Nazis: you said that Hitler disarmed the Jews? So the Jews had firearms? Then why didn't they use them against him? I mean they knew Hitler didn't like Jews, why didn't they fight him? Oh yeah, could it be that even if Hitler was showing his hate of Jews very clearly he still managed to brainwash them enough so that they would feel safe enough to give away their guns without a fight. Now what does this prove?: A politician can fool people into doing their bidding even if they have guns. But later in the war, the Jews actually managed to fight back: in Warsaw, Poland 1943 (?) there was a uprising. Now, you said that the Jews had been disarmed right? That means that they must have managed to steal guns for themselves and then they simply took the guns from the fallen German soldiers. That means that people can put up with resistance even with no guns. In fact, personally I think it's a advantage not to have guns to begin with, because then the oppressive leader might even get a bit suprised when he/she discovers that there's an armed rebel force in the country (like Hitler and the German forces in Warsaw)
This is sickening.

How comforting to know that he'll be arrested AFTER he kills you. How are you going to do your self defence mojo if they've got guns and knives and all you've got is a limp wristed slap? Maybe if you lived in Brixton instead of Islington you'd be more worried about protecting yourself instead of spewing up this "community spirit" salad talk.


Ahem. It might not have escaped your notice but Brixton is the most crime infested place in the country, abnd guess what- its got the highest gun ownership in the country.

Also, a frankly beautiful straw man fallacy. I live in Islington, do I? You think because I have a vaguely liberal, I can't possibly live in an area of high crime? I should listen to you, cos you know best?

So, where abouts DO I live?
As it happens my mother worked in the police force as a counsellor so I have plenty of experience and knowledge about gun crime and its effects. Don't you think the police would have a slightly harder job controlling gang crime if gang members could legally carry weapons?

My slap isn't exactly limp wristed. Years of homophobic abuse mean I've got a pretty good punch. This homophobic abuse by drunken idiots is one of the things that makes me think that maybe gun ownership ISN'T great. I remember when I was 16 a gang of lads attacked me and my friend, he got the crap kicked out of him behind this war, blood everywhere. What if those guys had taken their dads guns out? A group of testosterone fuelled drunk teenage boys is bad enough, but armed? No thanks.


And I don't live in Islington. I wish I did, but I don't.

Canemtopia:

The burglar is at a disadvantage because he does not know the layout of your grannys house. Since he is already a criminal he may well have a firearm.

Your granny with a firearm she is proficient in will be superior to any attacker, who may or may not be armed, who does not know the terrain.

Leaving those least able to defend themselves physically without tools of self defence is a great crime.

By the way you do know that pepper spray is illegal as an offensive weapon?

You already living in a society with guns.

Slavery, pograms and lynchings are acceptable if the majority approves?

Slavery, pograms and lynchings are acceptable if the majority approves?

Can we not have such pathetic analogies used please? The banning of guns is completely different to the legalisation of slavery, peadophilia or whatever. Being banned from owning an offensive weapon specifically designed to mutilate and kill is incomparable to being persecuted for religious belief or ethnic background. To suggest that gun-owners are in the same 'persecuted' league as German Jews in 1939 is frankly distasteful.

As it happens my mother worked in the police force as a counsellor so I have plenty of experience and knowledge about gun crime and its effects. Don't you think the police would have a slightly harder job controlling gang crime if gang members could legally carry weapons?

No. An armed police force and an armed citizenry would make their job much easier.


My slap isn't exactly limp wristed. Years of homophobic abuse mean I've got a pretty good punch. This homophobic abuse by drunken idiots is one of the things that makes me think that maybe gun ownership ISN'T great. I remember when I was 16 a gang of lads attacked me and my friend, he got the crap kicked out of him behind this war, blood everywhere. What if those guys had taken their dads guns out? A group of testosterone fuelled drunk teenage boys is bad enough, but armed? No thanks.

So you would never carry a gun for your own protection if it were legal, and would prefer to remain an easier target?

This is sickening.

Hey, I can say that the dislike is mutual lol :D

I mean, do you really think that the minority should rule society? If so I can always suggest that the next time my country has an election, the party that got the least votes gets to rule. lol! It would be like the dark ages *shudders* (only that they didn't have elections during the dark ages)

But of course, sometimes it's right to follow your line, when both the will of the majority and the minority can live side by side. But unfortunely the gun control case, is not one of those situations. If the majority wants a gun free society, then you can't let people have guns because then it wouldnt' be a gun free society.

How comforting to know that he'll be arrested AFTER he kills you. How are you going to do your self defence mojo if they've got guns and knives and all you've got is a limp wristed slap? Maybe if you lived in Brixton instead of Islington you'd be more worried about protecting yourself instead of spewing up this "community spirit" salad talk.


Ahem. It might not have escaped your notice but Brixton is the most crime infested place in the country, abnd guess what- its got the highest gun ownership in the country.

Also, a frankly beautiful straw man fallacy. I live in Islington, do I? You think because I have a vaguely liberal, I can't possibly live in an area of high crime? I should listen to you, cos you know best?

So, where abouts DO I live?
As it happens my mother worked in the police force as a counsellor so I have plenty of experience and knowledge about gun crime and its effects. Don't you think the police would have a slightly harder job controlling gang crime if gang members could legally carry weapons?

My slap isn't exactly limp wristed. Years of homophobic abuse mean I've got a pretty good punch. This homophobic abuse by drunken idiots is one of the things that makes me think that maybe gun ownership ISN'T great. I remember when I was 16 a gang of lads attacked me and my friend, he got the crap kicked out of him behind this war, blood everywhere. What if those guys had taken their dads guns out? A group of testosterone fuelled drunk teenage boys is bad enough, but armed? No thanks.


And I don't live in Islington. I wish I did, but I don't.
So what you're saying is Brixton has high gun ownership and high crime. Maybe they should ban guns. Oh, hang on a minute......THEY ALREADY DID!!!! Great. So the criminals have guns DESPITE the gun ban, only now the decent folk don't. Calling yourself a liberal is a disgusting modern perversion of a noble concept. Liberals used to mean being in favour of freedom.

The police would find it easier to control gangs if they didn't cause gangs to exist via anti-narcotics laws, another great triumph of our "free" democracy.

If those boys had wanted to kill your friend I'm sure they would have. Now, would they have attacked him if they thought he might have a gun?

And all this is just a distraction. Even if gun ownership did increase violence I'd still be in favour of it. You could save far more lives by banning cars but nobody's suggesting that. The fact is people have a right to bear arms for their own protection.

Can we not have such pathetic analogies used please? The banning of guns is completely different to the legalisation of slavery, peadophilia or whatever. Being banned from owning an offensive weapon specifically designed to mutilate and kill is incomparable to being persecuted for religious belief or ethnic background. To suggest that gun-owners are in the same 'persecuted' league as German Jews in 1939 is frankly distasteful.

Why you suggested that your opinion and the opinion of the majority must be carried out hence the analogy.

The sign of a freeman is the ability to own weapons.

Do you believe that spears, swords, daggers, bows and arrows, staves, martial arts should be banned since they are designed for combat?

The reason why firearms ownership is linked to genocide is because the victims tend to be disarmed and eay to kill. As was the case in Rwanda, the Holocaust, the USSR, the PRC and Armenia to name but a handful.

As it happens my mother worked in the police force as a counsellor so I have plenty of experience and knowledge about gun crime and its effects. Don't you think the police would have a slightly harder job controlling gang crime if gang members could legally carry weapons?

No. An armed police force and an armed citizenry would make their job much easier.

Here we disagree. I think we should make it as difficult as possible for criminals to get their hands on weapons.



My slap isn't exactly limp wristed. Years of homophobic abuse mean I've got a pretty good punch. This homophobic abuse by drunken idiots is one of the things that makes me think that maybe gun ownership ISN'T great. I remember when I was 16 a gang of lads attacked me and my friend, he got the crap kicked out of him behind this war, blood everywhere. What if those guys had taken their dads guns out? A group of testosterone fuelled drunk teenage boys is bad enough, but armed? No thanks.

So you would never carry a gun for your own protection if it were legal, and would prefer to remain an easier target?

No. I don't want to be on this constant treadmill of turning our society into American society, all guns and money. And frankly, I don't want
a) to be mistaken for a criminal because I'm armed
b) to be so drunk or stoned I kill myself/ someone else by mistake
c) to have any kids in my house find a gun and kill themselves/ someone else
d) to have a weapon of mine stolen and used
e) to posess something that is designed to hurt someone else.

This is sickening.

Hey, I can say that the dislike is mutual lol :D

I mean, do you really think that the minority should rule society? If so I can always suggest that the next time my country has an election, the party that got the least votes gets to rule. lol! It would be like the dark ages *shudders* (only that they didn't have elections during the dark ages)

But of course, sometimes it's right to follow your line, when both the will of the majority and the minority can live side by side. But unfortunely the gun control case, is not one of those situations. If the majority wants a gun free society, then you can't let people have guns because then it wouldnt' be a gun free society.
It's the whole concept of a collective decision that's wrong. The individual should rule the individual. What if the majority want a drug or alcohol free society, or a homosexual free society? Individuals have rights that simply aren't up for vote. The right to defend yourself is such. I think I'm more at risk from moral busybodies than gun owners and the thousands of people currently in jail for victimless crimes like smoking pot or owning a gun would agree.

No. I don't want to be on this constant treadmill of turning our society into American society, all guns and money. And frankly, I don't want
a) to be mistaken for a criminal because I'm armed
b) to be so drunk or stoned I kill myself/ someone else by mistake
c) to have any kids in my house find a gun and kill themselves/ someone else
d) to have a weapon of mine stolen and used
e) to posess something that is designed to hurt someone else.

a) a sad sign of the times.
b) so other people must be punished for your own irresponsibility?
c) because you wouldn't teach your children respect for firearms and prefer they learn everything from TV and Hollywood?
d) again punisihing others for your own irresponsibility
e) your fist fight knowledge and experince can be used to hurt someone else, would you give that up?

How comforting to know that he'll be arrested AFTER he kills you. How are you going to do your self defence mojo if they've got guns and knives and all you've got is a limp wristed slap? Maybe if you lived in Brixton instead of Islington you'd be more worried about protecting yourself instead of spewing up this "community spirit" salad talk.


Ahem. It might not have escaped your notice but Brixton is the most crime infested place in the country, abnd guess what- its got the highest gun ownership in the country.

Also, a frankly beautiful straw man fallacy. I live in Islington, do I? You think because I have a vaguely liberal, I can't possibly live in an area of high crime? I should listen to you, cos you know best?

So, where abouts DO I live?
As it happens my mother worked in the police force as a counsellor so I have plenty of experience and knowledge about gun crime and its effects. Don't you think the police would have a slightly harder job controlling gang crime if gang members could legally carry weapons?

My slap isn't exactly limp wristed. Years of homophobic abuse mean I've got a pretty good punch. This homophobic abuse by drunken idiots is one of the things that makes me think that maybe gun ownership ISN'T great. I remember when I was 16 a gang of lads attacked me and my friend, he got the crap kicked out of him behind this war, blood everywhere. What if those guys had taken their dads guns out? A group of testosterone fuelled drunk teenage boys is bad enough, but armed? No thanks.


And I don't live in Islington. I wish I did, but I don't.
So what you're saying is Brixton has high gun ownership and high crime. Maybe they should ban guns. Oh, hang on a minute......THEY ALREADY DID!!!! Great. So the criminals have guns DESPITE the gun ban, only now the decent folk don't. Calling yourself a liberal is a disgusting modern perversion of a noble concept. Liberals used to mean being in favour of freedom.

Pfft, I believe in freedom for anyone to do anything they like to their own bodies/ the bodies of consensual adults. Guns tend to impinge on others rights. Such as the right to life. I am happy to ban someones right to carry a weapon if it preserves someone elses right to life.

[
The police would find it easier to control gangs if they didn't cause gangs to exist via anti-narcotics laws, another great triumph of our "free" democracy.

Damn right. This would lower crime far more effectivly than allowing others to carry guns.


If those boys had wanted to kill your friend I'm sure they would have. Now, would they have attacked him if they thought he might have a gun?

They kicked him for say- 5 minutes, then came to their senses and ran away. If they had a gun and spent five minutes attacking, it would have been far more messy. It takes a fair while to kick someone to death, but a single moment of madness with a gun could kill.

[
And all this is just a distraction. Even if gun ownership did increase violence I'd still be in favour of it. You could save far more lives by banning cars but nobody's suggesting that. The fact is people have a right to bear arms for their own protection.

I disagree. And use America as an example.

This is sickening.

Hey, I can say that the dislike is mutual lol :D

I mean, do you really think that the minority should rule society? If so I can always suggest that the next time my country has an election, the party that got the least votes gets to rule. lol! It would be like the dark ages *shudders* (only that they didn't have elections during the dark ages)

But of course, sometimes it's right to follow your line, when both the will of the majority and the minority can live side by side. But unfortunely the gun control case, is not one of those situations. If the majority wants a gun free society, then you can't let people have guns because then it wouldnt' be a gun free society.
It's the whole concept of a collective decision that's wrong. The individual should rule the individual. What if the majority want a drug or alcohol free society, or a homosexual free society? Individuals have rights that simply aren't up for vote. The right to defend yourself is such. I think I'm more at risk from moral busybodies than gun owners and the thousands of people currently in jail for victimless crimes like smoking pot or owning a gun would agree.

Shall we go look at those gun crime statistics again? :roll:

It's the whole concept of a collective decision that's wrong. The individual should rule the individual.
Not over here it isn't. You are forgetting that you are dealing with a different culture. I respect the right of Arabs and Central Asians to have unregistered assault rifles as part of their national dress, and I think that people should respect the right of the British to keep guns banned. Things work differently in different places. You are basically saying that the American libertarian ideal is applicable everywhere. In many places I remind you, it is held in near-universal contempt.

I am happy NOT to ban guns if that preserves someone's right to life. I am sick to death of your compassionate fascism.

No. I don't want to be on this constant treadmill of turning our society into American society, all guns and money. And frankly, I don't want
a) to be mistaken for a criminal because I'm armed
b) to be so drunk or stoned I kill myself/ someone else by mistake
c) to have any kids in my house find a gun and kill themselves/ someone else
d) to have a weapon of mine stolen and used
e) to posess something that is designed to hurt someone else.

a) a sad sign of the times.
b) so other people must be punished for your own irresponsibility?
c) because you wouldn't teach your children respect for firearms and prefer they learn everything from TV and Hollywood?
d) again punisihing others for your own irresponsibility
e) your fist fight knowledge and experince can be used to hurt someone else, would you give that up?

a)Yeah. And we live in these times, we gotta deal with it.
b) No, I'm saying why I wouldn't carry a weapon.
c) I'll teach my kids that all violence is wrong. And no matter how much respect they have, kids are kids, and like to piss about. I don't have a gun in my house, so I climb trees and skim stones.
d) I'm responsible for someone stealing my property?
e) I wish I could give it up.

It's the whole concept of a collective decision that's wrong. The individual should rule the individual.
Not over here it isn't. You are forgetting that you are dealing with a different culture. I respect the right of Arabs and Central Asians to have unregistered assault rifles as part of their national dress, and I think that people should respect the right of the British to keep guns banned. Things work differently in different places. You are basically saying that the American libertarian ideal is applicable everywhere. In many places I remind you, it is held in near-universal contempt.
Noooooooo. Arabs don't have rights. British don't have rights. It is HUMANS who have rights. My rights do not depend on the permission of my neighbours. Do you think arabs have a right to stone adultresses to death? More collectivist fascist demokkkracy.

I am happy NOT to ban guns if that preserves someone's right to life. I am sick to death of your compassionate fascism.

Well, here's another thing we disagree on- I think guns kill more people than they save in civil society, and you disagree.

If you teach your kids all violence is wrong you leave them at the mercy of the first bully who wants their lunch money. Defencive violence is completely praiseworthy.

Noooooooo. Arabs don't have rights. British don't have rights. It is HUMANS who have rights.

But you apply your right as an American to own a gun to Britain. The British do not see it as their right to own a gun, just as they do not see it as their right to steal or abuse children. Gun Ownership is not a universal human right.

How comforting to know that he'll be arrested AFTER he kills you. How are you going to do your self defence mojo if they've got guns and knives and all you've got is a limp wristed slap? Maybe if you lived in Brixton instead of Islington you'd be more worried about protecting yourself instead of spewing up this "community spirit" salad talk.

I live in Brixton. Worst thing that ever happened to me was I was mugged at knife point. I called the police, I identified mugshots, picked the guy out in an ID parade and he went to jail. (I will conceed however that I was lucky in this case)

Second worst thing to happen to me was someone stole a pot plant from my garden. The police didn't catch that thief.

I'm not in favour of arming the police either.

It's the whole concept of a collective decision that's wrong. The individual should rule the individual.
Not over here it isn't. You are forgetting that you are dealing with a different culture. I respect the right of Arabs and Central Asians to have unregistered assault rifles as part of their national dress, and I think that people should respect the right of the British to keep guns banned. Things work differently in different places. You are basically saying that the American libertarian ideal is applicable everywhere. In many places I remind you, it is held in near-universal contempt.
Noooooooo. Arabs don't have rights. British don't have rights. It is HUMANS who have rights. My rights do not depend on the permission of my neighbours. Do you think arabs have a right to stone adultresses to death? More collectivist fascist demokkkracy.
And this is the point where you lose your argument. Because the individual is not supreme in all cultures, and all cultures should be respected.

I am happy NOT to ban guns if that preserves someone's right to life. I am sick to death of your compassionate fascism.

Well, here's another thing we disagree on- I think guns kill more people than they save in civil society, and you disagree.
I don't care either way. I'm not really interested in how many people are killed in "society". I'm mainly interested in me and my family and I think I'll be safer if my neighbours and I are allowed to carry firearms IF we want.

If you teach your kids all violence is wrong you leave them at the mercy of the first bully who wants their lunch money. Defencive violence is completely praiseworthy.

Yes, but if my child was attacked by a school bully I'd say use reasonable force. I wouldn't say 'take a gun to the bastard'.

If you teach your kids all violence is wrong you leave them at the mercy of the first bully who wants their lunch money. Defencive violence is completely praiseworthy.

Oh, so schoolchildren should carry guns to protect themselves from school bullies? :lol:
You truly have lost whatever slight grip on reality you once had.

It's the whole concept of a collective decision that's wrong. The individual should rule the individual.
Not over here it isn't. You are forgetting that you are dealing with a different culture. I respect the right of Arabs and Central Asians to have unregistered assault rifles as part of their national dress, and I think that people should respect the right of the British to keep guns banned. Things work differently in different places. You are basically saying that the American libertarian ideal is applicable everywhere. In many places I remind you, it is held in near-universal contempt.
Noooooooo. Arabs don't have rights. British don't have rights. It is HUMANS who have rights. My rights do not depend on the permission of my neighbours. Do you think arabs have a right to stone adultresses to death? More collectivist fascist demokkkracy.
And this is the point where you lose your argument. Because the individual is not supreme in all cultures, and all cultures should be respected.
Like the Aztecs sacrificing virgins to the sun god? Or the Americans sacrificing Iraqi children to demokkkracy? This is sickening too. You're all sick.

If you teach your kids all violence is wrong you leave them at the mercy of the first bully who wants their lunch money. Defencive violence is completely praiseworthy.

Yes, but if my child was attacked by a school bully I'd say use reasonable force. I wouldn't say 'take a gun to the bastard'.
And what is reasonable force if you're about to be raped or murdered? Shooting them, I'd say.

I am happy NOT to ban guns if that preserves someone's right to life. I am sick to death of your compassionate fascism.

Well, here's another thing we disagree on- I think guns kill more people than they save in civil society, and you disagree.
I don't care either way. I'm not really interested in how many people are killed in "society". I'm mainly interested in me and my family and I think I'll be safer if my neighbours and I are allowed to carry firearms IF we want.

Which shows the difference between the American Dream and British Traditions. We live together in Britain in very close quarters. We DO care about our society.

If you teach your kids all violence is wrong you leave them at the mercy of the first bully who wants their lunch money. Defencive violence is completely praiseworthy.

Oh, so schoolchildren should carry guns to protect themselves from school bullies? :lol:
You truly have lost whatever slight grip on reality you once had.
No. I was disputing the claim "all violence is wrong", the root source of all this nonsense.

If you teach your kids all violence is wrong you leave them at the mercy of the first bully who wants their lunch money. Defencive violence is completely praiseworthy.

Yes, but if my child was attacked by a school bully I'd say use reasonable force. I wouldn't say 'take a gun to the bastard'.
And what is reasonable force if you're about to be raped or murdered? Shooting them, I'd say.

And so people can be trusted to only use their weapon when their life is in danger? Because that's what happens in America, is it?

I am happy NOT to ban guns if that preserves someone's right to life. I am sick to death of your compassionate fascism.

Well, here's another thing we disagree on- I think guns kill more people than they save in civil society, and you disagree.
I don't care either way. I'm not really interested in how many people are killed in "society". I'm mainly interested in me and my family and I think I'll be safer if my neighbours and I are allowed to carry firearms IF we want.

Which shows the difference between the American Dream and British Traditions. We live together in Britain in very close quarters. We DO care about our society.
I am British you tit. And I care about my family more than I care about "society" in the abstract. If you don't then I feel sorry for you.

If you teach your kids all violence is wrong you leave them at the mercy of the first bully who wants their lunch money. Defencive violence is completely praiseworthy.

Yes, but if my child was attacked by a school bully I'd say use reasonable force. I wouldn't say 'take a gun to the bastard'.
And what is reasonable force if you're about to be raped or murdered? Shooting them, I'd say.

And so people can be trusted to only use their weapon when their life is in danger? Because that's what happens in America, is it?
That's not even what happens in Britain.

MP calls Radio 4 listeners 'bastards' over vigilante vote
By Vincent Graff Media Editor
02 January 2004

It was trailed as a "unique chance to rewrite the law of the land". Listeners to BBC Radio 4's Today programme were asked to suggest a piece of legislation to improve life in Britain, with the promise that an MP would then attempt to get it onto the statute books.

But yesterday, 26,000 votes later, the winning proposal was denounced as a "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable blood-stained piece of legislation" - by Stephen Pound, the very MP whose job it is to try to push it through Parliament.

Mr Pound's reaction was provoked by the news that the winner of Today's "Listeners' Law" poll was a plan to allow homeowners "to use any means to defend their home from intruders" - a prospect that could see householders free to kill burglars, without question.

"The people have spoken," the Labour MP replied to the programme, "... the bastards."

Having recovered his composure, Mr Pound told The Independent: "We are going to have to re-evaluate the listenership of Radio 4. I would have expected this result if there had been a poll in The Sun. Do we really want a law that says you can slaughter anyone who climbs in your window?"

Journalists on Today are thought to have been taken aback by the choice of their listeners. Observers had assumed that the winning suggestion might be a little more light-hearted - and a little less illiberal.

Indeed, there were suspicions the vote may have been hijacked by supporters of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer who was jailed for shooting a burglar. The winning proposal enjoyed a late surge in support in the final 24 hours of the poll, a jump attributed by the BBC to the fact that telephone votes - which were more firmly in favour of the anti-burglar proposal - were added at the last minute.

Today's long-running Personality of the Year poll was scrapped in 1997, after persistent attempts by political parties to fix it.

Mr Pound will go through the motions of presenting the Bill to Parliament but hoped he would fail. He said it was "the sort of idea somebody comes up with in a bar on a Saturday night between 'string 'em all up' and 'send 'em all all home'".

If you teach your kids all violence is wrong you leave them at the mercy of the first bully who wants their lunch money. Defencive violence is completely praiseworthy.

Yes, but if my child was attacked by a school bully I'd say use reasonable force. I wouldn't say 'take a gun to the bastard'.
And what is reasonable force if you're about to be raped or murdered? Shooting them, I'd say.

And so people can be trusted to only use their weapon when their life is in danger? Because that's what happens in America, is it?
That's not even what happens in Britain.

I rest my case, your honour.

This is sickening.

Hey, I can say that the dislike is mutual lol :D

I mean, do you really think that the minority should rule society? If so I can always suggest that the next time my country has an election, the party that got the least votes gets to rule. lol! It would be like the dark ages *shudders* (only that they didn't have elections during the dark ages)

But of course, sometimes it's right to follow your line, when both the will of the majority and the minority can live side by side. But unfortunely the gun control case, is not one of those situations. If the majority wants a gun free society, then you can't let people have guns because then it wouldnt' be a gun free society.
It's the whole concept of a collective decision that's wrong. The individual should rule the individual. What if the majority want a drug or alcohol free society, or a homosexual free society? Individuals have rights that simply aren't up for vote. The right to defend yourself is such. I think I'm more at risk from moral busybodies than gun owners and the thousands of people currently in jail for victimless crimes like smoking pot or owning a gun would agree.

But by forcing a "free" individualist society on every nation, then people wouldn't have any real choice now would they? What if people wants a Socialist society? That would be impossible in a world where everyone is "free" since there either wouldn't be any goverment or it would be too weak to do anything... People should have the right to be "oppressed" if they want to (if it's done in a controlled democratic way of course) Humans are social creatures by nature, you know?

MP calls Radio 4 listeners 'bastards' over vigilante vote
By Vincent Graff Media Editor
02 January 2004

It was trailed as a "unique chance to rewrite the law of the land". Listeners to BBC Radio 4's Today programme were asked to suggest a piece of legislation to improve life in Britain, with the promise that an MP would then attempt to get it onto the statute books.

But yesterday, 26,000 votes later, the winning proposal was denounced as a "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable blood-stained piece of legislation" - by Stephen Pound, the very MP whose job it is to try to push it through Parliament.

Mr Pound's reaction was provoked by the news that the winner of Today's "Listeners' Law" poll was a plan to allow homeowners "to use any means to defend their home from intruders" - a prospect that could see householders free to kill burglars, without question.

"The people have spoken," the Labour MP replied to the programme, "... the bastards."

Having recovered his composure, Mr Pound told The Independent: "We are going to have to re-evaluate the listenership of Radio 4. I would have expected this result if there had been a poll in The Sun. Do we really want a law that says you can slaughter anyone who climbs in your window?"

Journalists on Today are thought to have been taken aback by the choice of their listeners. Observers had assumed that the winning suggestion might be a little more light-hearted - and a little less illiberal.

Indeed, there were suspicions the vote may have been hijacked by supporters of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer who was jailed for shooting a burglar. The winning proposal enjoyed a late surge in support in the final 24 hours of the poll, a jump attributed by the BBC to the fact that telephone votes - which were more firmly in favour of the anti-burglar proposal - were added at the last minute.

Today's long-running Personality of the Year poll was scrapped in 1997, after persistent attempts by political parties to fix it.

Mr Pound will go through the motions of presenting the Bill to Parliament but hoped he would fail. He said it was "the sort of idea somebody comes up with in a bar on a Saturday night between 'string 'em all up' and 'send 'em all all home'".


Why don't you just shoot him? :P

I see his point. Firstly, the 'bastards' thing was a quote from someone else. Secondly- any means necessary? You're suggesting legalising napalm? Incediary bombs? Zyklon B? And you can already use reasonable force. So anything more than reasonable force- ie unreasonable force- is purely spite, as it is more than is needed to stop the criminal.

Like the Aztecs sacrificing virgins to the sun god? Or the Americans sacrificing Iraqi children to demokkkracy? This is sickening too. You're all sick.
Mind toning it down a bit? Thanks.

I dispute your implicit assertion that the individual must always be elevated above the rest of society. I see a necessary trade-off between the wishes of the individual and the needs of society. In the case of firearms ownership, society should come before the individual. In this society a least. Elsewhere, I understand and accept that people do things differently.

This is sickening.

Hey, I can say that the dislike is mutual lol :D

I mean, do you really think that the minority should rule society? If so I can always suggest that the next time my country has an election, the party that got the least votes gets to rule. lol! It would be like the dark ages *shudders* (only that they didn't have elections during the dark ages)

But of course, sometimes it's right to follow your line, when both the will of the majority and the minority can live side by side. But unfortunely the gun control case, is not one of those situations. If the majority wants a gun free society, then you can't let people have guns because then it wouldnt' be a gun free society.
It's the whole concept of a collective decision that's wrong. The individual should rule the individual. What if the majority want a drug or alcohol free society, or a homosexual free society? Individuals have rights that simply aren't up for vote. The right to defend yourself is such. I think I'm more at risk from moral busybodies than gun owners and the thousands of people currently in jail for victimless crimes like smoking pot or owning a gun would agree.

But by forcing a "free" individualist society on every nation, then people wouldn't have any real choice now would they? What if people wants a Socialist society? That would be impossible in a world where everyone is "free" since there either wouldn't be any goverment or it would be too weak to do anything... People should have the right to be "oppressed" if they want to (if it's done in a controlled democratic way of course) Humans are social creatures by nature, you know?
uuuuuuugggggggghhhhhhhhhh. Nobody's stopping you and others pool your resources into a commune. Nobody's stopping you giving your money to people too lazy to work. Of course, it's obvious you don't have the resources which is why you want to steal mine by force. "The humanitarian with the guillotine".

Thankfully wacko gun-nuts are in a tiny minorty in Britain.
Most people would rather a Dunblane never happens again.

Like the Aztecs sacrificing virgins to the sun god? Or the Americans sacrificing Iraqi children to demokkkracy? This is sickening too. You're all sick.
Mind toning it down a bit? Thanks.

I dispute your implicit assertion that the individual must always be elevated above the rest of society. I see a necessary trade-off between the wishes of the individual and the needs of society. In the case of firearms ownership, society should come before the individual. In this society a least. Elsewhere, I understand and accept that people do things differently.
So I should grin and bear it if I get raped or murdered because you won't let me have a gun. "Hey, you took one for the team. Good for you." This is the excuse for all tyranny.

So I should grin and bear it if I get raped or murdered because you won't let me have a gun. "Hey, you took one for the team. Good for you." This is the excuse for all tyranny.
It's all about balance. If everyone was armed in this country, thousands of people would die every year, most of them innocent.

So I should grin and bear it if I get raped or murdered because you won't let me have a gun. "Hey, you took one for the team. Good for you." This is the excuse for all tyranny.
It's all about balance. If everyone was armed in this country, thousands of people would die every year, most of them innocent.
So let's ban cars and cigarettes. They kill far more. Thousands is a ridiculous and unfounded number.

So I should grin and bear it if I get raped or murdered because you won't let me have a gun. "Hey, you took one for the team. Good for you." This is the excuse for all tyranny.
It's all about balance. If everyone was armed in this country, thousands of people would die every year, most of them innocent.
So let's ban cars and cigarettes. They kill far more. Thousands is a ridiculous and unfounded number.

Guns serve no other purpose than to kill. So why make them legal? They have no use in a civilised society.

So let's ban cars and cigarettes. They kill far more. Thousands is a ridiculous and unfounded number.
Not at all. Look at the US: 280m people and 11,500 gun deaths per year.

The UK has 60m people and only 60-70 gun deaths per year. Can you really imagine that number remaining static? If we had a similar per-capita rate, we would have up to two and a half thousand gun deaths annually. A hefty price to pay for the feeling that your pen*s has gained an extra inch.

So I should grin and bear it if I get raped or murdered because you won't let me have a gun. "Hey, you took one for the team. Good for you." This is the excuse for all tyranny.
It's all about balance. If everyone was armed in this country, thousands of people would die every year, most of them innocent.
So let's ban cars and cigarettes. They kill far more. Thousands is a ridiculous and unfounded number.

Guns serve no other purpose than to kill. So why make them legal? They have no use in a civilised society.
Cigarettes serve even less purpose than guns. No society is made entirely of civilised individuals. Not all killing is wrong, sometimes (self defence) it is positively the moral thing to do.

So let's ban cars and cigarettes. They kill far more. Thousands is a ridiculous and unfounded number.
Not at all. Look at the US: 280m people and 11,500 gun deaths per year.

The UK has 60m people and only 60-70 gun deaths per year. Can you really imagine that number remaining static? If we had a similar per-capita rate, we would have up to two and a half thousand gun deaths annually. A hefty price to pay for the feeling that your pen*s has gained an extra inch.
Once again I say Americans kill each other more with knives than Brits. It's a more violent culture generally. My pen*s is long enough already :lol:

Not all killing is wrong, sometimes (self defence) it is positively the moral thing to do.

Based upon which moral code?

So I should grin and bear it if I get raped or murdered because you won't let me have a gun. "Hey, you took one for the team. Good for you." This is the excuse for all tyranny.
It's all about balance. If everyone was armed in this country, thousands of people would die every year, most of them innocent.
So let's ban cars and cigarettes. They kill far more. Thousands is a ridiculous and unfounded number.

Guns serve no other purpose than to kill. So why make them legal? They have no use in a civilised society.
Cigarettes serve even less purpose than guns. No society is made entirely of civilised individuals. Not all killing is wrong, sometimes (self defence) it is positively the moral thing to do.

And yet having a cigarette outside isn't harming anyone but yourself.
A gun in the wrong hands could harm a lot of people.

So I should grin and bear it if I get raped or murdered because you won't let me have a gun. "Hey, you took one for the team. Good for you." This is the excuse for all tyranny.
It's all about balance. If everyone was armed in this country, thousands of people would die every year, most of them innocent.
So let's ban cars and cigarettes. They kill far more. Thousands is a ridiculous and unfounded number.

Guns serve no other purpose than to kill. So why make them legal? They have no use in a civilised society.
Cigarettes serve even less purpose than guns. No society is made entirely of civilised individuals. Not all killing is wrong, sometimes (self defence) it is positively the moral thing to do.

And yet having a cigarette outside isn't harming anyone but yourself.
A gun in the wrong hands could harm a lot of people.
A gun in the right hands could save a lot of people.

Not all killing is wrong, sometimes (self defence) it is positively the moral thing to do.

Based upon which moral code?
All of them except pacifism.

uuuuuuugggggggghhhhhhhhhh. Nobody's stopping you and others pool your resources into a commune. Nobody's stopping you giving your money to people too lazy to work. Of course, it's obvious you don't have the resources which is why you want to steal mine by force. "The humanitarian with the guillotine".

But I don't want to give my money directly to poor people since I don't know who really needs them. The goverment types have papers on everyone, so they would know their ecconomys better then I would.

Also I my opinion, the goverment don't steal. The goverment only collects the cost of services which the majority has decided is needed. And yes, the individual has a choice: Accept it, protest against it or move to another country. Also, there are some things that needs the whole societies attention, like the enviorment for example. Even if some indiviuals don't think this is an important issue and they turn blind to facts, it doesn't mean that the problem shouldn't be dealt with. If the planet earth is destroyed humanity will have nowhere to live and then humanity is fu****. I think in important issues like that the will of a few individuals can't weight more the need of the majority.

Actually my parents are quite wealthy. So no, your argument that I'm poor and want to steal your stuff is invalid. Also I don't even want a socialist society... at least not a full one. I would rather have a capitalist society with socialist elements.

It is quite obvious that you have no morality at all and you're a very cruel person that kicks kittens and spit old people in the face because they're so worthless. :roll:

No, really. I don't understand your way of thinking. How can you support a society which kicks you down at the bottom just because you've got a bad start in life? And the reason why they get a bad start in life is usually because richer people try to push them down or because they work hard, but everyone else works even harder... In my oppinion everyone who tries their best to contribute to society should be rewared (and can prove it of course). Also, there are rich men's children that sit down all day and don't contribute a thing to society, why don't you complain about them as well?

You seem to think that if a individual becomes part of a group, that person ceases to be a individual and just becomes a group member?

So I should grin and bear it if I get raped or murdered because you won't let me have a gun. "Hey, you took one for the team. Good for you." This is the excuse for all tyranny.
It's all about balance. If everyone was armed in this country, thousands of people would die every year, most of them innocent.
So let's ban cars and cigarettes. They kill far more. Thousands is a ridiculous and unfounded number.

Guns serve no other purpose than to kill. So why make them legal? They have no use in a civilised society.
Cigarettes serve even less purpose than guns. No society is made entirely of civilised individuals. Not all killing is wrong, sometimes (self defence) it is positively the moral thing to do.

And yet having a cigarette outside isn't harming anyone but yourself.
A gun in the wrong hands could harm a lot of people.
A gun in the right hands could save a lot of people.

Exactly. Which is why only special armed police units have guns.

Exactly. Which is why only special armed police units have guns.

I agree :D

Would definetly trust a cop better then a civilian with a gun.

Not all killing is wrong, sometimes (self defence) it is positively the moral thing to do.

Based upon which moral code?

One, and one alone.

Kill or be killed.

The old saying: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" could have been used here. However, a firearm is a tool created for the facilitation of this action. Any Joe Bloggs can pick up a gun and shoot someone. By removing firearms, we limit the methods for people to commit murder.

Tight Gun Controls Reduce Gun Crime. If they didn't, the control rules weren't tight enough. The basic premise behind gun controls is that firearms become impossible to acquire, hence reducing use of those weapons. There's no dispute to that fact. Without their precious handguns, yes, some criminals may resort to other types of crime, but in the end of the day, knives rarely miss their target and hit an innocent bystander, you're less likely to pick up a 2x4 with a nail in it and successfully hit the unaware guy at the other end of the room, you can't punch someone without the target being in a position to punch you back, it takes years of dedicated practice to become proficient with a sword and multiple attacks with any other sort of weapon take precision to pull off.

The ability to defend yourself isn't in question. However, if the reasonable amount of force is assumed to be slightly greater than the threat, and if the threat is incapable of using guns, your average citizen won't need them either.

And now I'm just going to be extremely condescending. Don't take it personally.

*Shrugs*

Fact: We want to reduce the number of deaths in (or even out of) society.
Fact: Guns make murder easier.
Obvious solution: ... work it out.

Fact: Where there is a demand there is a supply.

Gun control works about as well as drug control.

Fact: Where there is a demand there is a supply.

Gun control works about as well as drug control.

Except, evidently, in England.

So let's ban cars and cigarettes. They kill far more. Thousands is a ridiculous and unfounded number.
Not at all. Look at the US: 280m people and 11,500 gun deaths per year.

The UK has 60m people and only 60-70 gun deaths per year. Can you really imagine that number remaining static? If we had a similar per-capita rate, we would have up to two and a half thousand gun deaths annually. A hefty price to pay for the feeling that your pen*s has gained an extra inch.

:D Will you be my friend, TG? You make me funny inside.

Sorry that i'm not from the UK, but i liked this issue and thought i would comment. It seems to me that it is one's right to own a weapon, wether it be for good or bad purposes. Its not right to ban things just because they serve no purpose that you might call good. The argument of then saying "Well lets ban cars and cigarettes" is a good one, although flawed more or less. I just think that you need to let people be able to do what they want, although there do need to be some laws of controls, maybe getting permits, and no automatic weapons and such to keep people at least a bit safe, but if a criminal really wants a gun, whats to stop them from getting it? There are alot of times when guns save lives rather then take them, so i would say that maybe banning pistols is kinda extreme. I mean if you do that, then whats to stop the government from stopping you from putting down diazanon to kill ants, or arsenic to kill rats? Those can kill people too... How bout banning forks because those can be used as a weapon... maybe it would be good to stop people from eating fastfood because thats not good for you, not nutritious enough. (those last two are a bit extreme, but i think you get my point). You really just need to let people roam free. The government is only to provide defense, saftey, and organization, not to tell people what they can and can't do.

Nationally, only 60-70 people are killed with guns every year. Manchester's share is perhaps a dozen. Most are involved in some pretty fishy business.

Sorry, i havent read all the topic and stopped as soon as i read this. This is my first forum post, so you know i had a good reason to break my silence.

Anywho... 60-70 people a year?!? Thats a joke, that statistic is TOTALLY ficitonal. The number is MUCH- MUCH higher than this. I live in London and grew-up in Harlesden, this is one of the gun-crime hotspots in the UK. I would say more than 60 people are killed by guns here a year, never mind the rest of the UK. Gun-crime honestly doesnt even make the local newspapers anymore, it just isnt news! There is also a special police sector called "Operation Tridant" who specialise in London with black gangs and their gun-crime.

Just had to say that 60 was such a random and highly incorrect figure.

Will go back and read the rest of the topic now :D

As it happens my mother worked in the police force as a counsellor so I have plenty of experience and knowledge about gun crime and its effects. Don't you think the police would have a slightly harder job controlling gang crime if gang members could legally carry weapons?

No. An armed police force and an armed citizenry would make their job much easier.

Here we disagree. I think we should make it as difficult as possible for criminals to get their hands on weapons.



My slap isn't exactly limp wristed. Years of homophobic abuse mean I've got a pretty good punch. This homophobic abuse by drunken idiots is one of the things that makes me think that maybe gun ownership ISN'T great. I remember when I was 16 a gang of lads attacked me and my friend, he got the crap kicked out of him behind this war, blood everywhere. What if those guys had taken their dads guns out? A group of testosterone fuelled drunk teenage boys is bad enough, but armed? No thanks.

So you would never carry a gun for your own protection if it were legal, and would prefer to remain an easier target?

No. I don't want to be on this constant treadmill of turning our society into American society, all guns and money. And frankly, I don't want
a) to be mistaken for a criminal because I'm armed As long as you have your permit with you you won't be construed as an individual, most states do not have concealed gun carry permits but simply permits to own, hence my rifles (two of them) and my one pistol are secured at my home
b) to be so drunk or stoned I kill myself/ someone else by mistake seems to me that is a personal choice you are making, in other words you are saying you'd be so immature or irresponsible to get drunk or stoned with an unsecured weapon in your home, sounds like you shouldn't buy the weapon if you get drunk or stoned
c) to have any kids in my house find a gun and kill themselves/ someone elseif they are secured and you have the key, how are they going to get at your weapons?
d) to have a weapon of mine stolen and used again if your weapon is secured, how is it stolen?, or if someone is attempting to steal your weapon, why not use it to defend yourself and your home?
e) to posess something that is designed to hurt someone else.

Also I my opinion, the goverment don't steal. The goverment only collects the cost of services which the majority has decided is needed.
You've obviously not read up on your history.

I mean, ideally the gov't (in regardless of economic system) is supposed to be trustworthy and fiscally responsible with your money.
Unfortunately we live in this dreary thing known as reality, and have to deal with its bastard child, human nature.

As long as we have people running the gov't, someone will be skimming a bit off the top.

This is a funny one and I don’t know exactly where I stand. I used to work with an old guy who had three hand guns, belonged to a shooting club and had done for forty years. He never committed any crime yet because of the action of other was deprived of his one pleasure in life. On the other hand he was of the opinion that his gun stayed at home but he had no reason (in the UK) to have ammunition there as he only ever shot at gun clubs, not a view shared by others.
Since law abiding citizen were no longer allowed to own guns (broad generalisation) gun crime has not decreased, in fact it has increased. The dunblain incident was tragic but it was as much to do with the existing laws not being properly applied than any problems with the existing laws. The legislation that followed was a typical two-faced Tony knee jerk vote winning reaction.
There was a gent on TV who pointed out that the most common murder weapon in the UK was a kitchen knife. His daughter had been murdered with one so he wanted all kitchen knives to be round ended and without points. He had other suggestions about their design that had been developed with chiefs. None of this was ever looked at, why? Because it would cost money and would not bring in more than a few votes for two faced Tony.
If you think any of the gun controls we have in the UK are to protect you and me, your mistaken. They gained votes for some one. Gun crime has never been a significant problem in the UK, people are killed in far greater numbers by negligent employers every year, more children die in six months from preventable diseases than did at Dunblain, more children are killed by their parents every year since records began than at Dunblain etc etc.
So after that rant to sum up. Gun control=votes for politicians.
We could have responsible gun ownership in the UK (and did) if the laws were properly constructed and applied. Wouldn’t want one myself but would like to think I could be trusted with one if I wanted, I can drive a car after all.

The conservatives brought in the the first handgun ban in 1997; which was for high calibres.

Labour brought in their own handgun ban a few months after this banning everything.

Fact: Where there is a demand there is a supply.

Gun control works about as well as drug control.

Except, evidently, in England.
There's very little demand, so the point remains valid.

Exactly. Which is why only special armed police units have guns.

I agree :D

Would definetly trust a cop better then a civilian with a gun.
A cursory glance at history will tell you whether governments are more responsible with guns than citizens are.

uuuuuuugggggggghhhhhhhhhh. Nobody's stopping you and others pool your resources into a commune. Nobody's stopping you giving your money to people too lazy to work. Of course, it's obvious you don't have the resources which is why you want to steal mine by force. "The humanitarian with the guillotine".

But I don't want to give my money directly to poor people since I don't know who really needs them. The goverment types have papers on everyone, so they would know their ecconomys better then I would.

Also I my opinion, the goverment don't steal. The goverment only collects the cost of services which the majority has decided is needed. And yes, the individual has a choice: Accept it, protest against it or move to another country. Also, there are some things that needs the whole societies attention, like the enviorment for example. Even if some indiviuals don't think this is an important issue and they turn blind to facts, it doesn't mean that the problem shouldn't be dealt with. If the planet earth is destroyed humanity will have nowhere to live and then humanity is fu****. I think in important issues like that the will of a few individuals can't weight more the need of the majority.

Actually my parents are quite wealthy. So no, your argument that I'm poor and want to steal your stuff is invalid. Also I don't even want a socialist society... at least not a full one. I would rather have a capitalist society with socialist elements.

It is quite obvious that you have no morality at all and you're a very cruel person that kicks kittens and spit old people in the face because they're so worthless. :roll:

No, really. I don't understand your way of thinking. How can you support a society which kicks you down at the bottom just because you've got a bad start in life? And the reason why they get a bad start in life is usually because richer people try to push them down or because they work hard, but everyone else works even harder... In my oppinion everyone who tries their best to contribute to society should be rewared (and can prove it of course). Also, there are rich men's children that sit down all day and don't contribute a thing to society, why don't you complain about them as well?

You seem to think that if a individual becomes part of a group, that person ceases to be a individual and just becomes a group member?
Do you think the govt distributes funds in anything like an efficient manner? Would you tell the German Jews to protest or move if they didn't like Hitler's policies or would you in this case recognise this as a sick joke? Tax is armed robbery. If you think it isn't, try not paying. You think you're more moral than me just because you're willing to use overwhelming violence to "help" people?

How is doing nothing kicking someone? Your "rewards" to some come at the expense of others. No man is a means to another man's ends. I think you put your individual/group remark the wrong way round.

Do you think the govt distributes funds in anything like an efficient manner? Would you tell the German Jews to protest or move if they didn't like Hitler's policies or would you in this case recognise this as a sick joke? Tax is armed robbery. If you think it isn't, try not paying. You think you're more moral than me just because you're willing to use overwhelming violence to "help" people?

How is doing nothing kicking someone? Your "rewards" to some come at the expense of others. No man is a means to another man's ends. I think you put your individual/group remark the wrong way round.

If you don't like the way the goverment distributes the funds, then you vote for someone else or show that you're unhappy by protesting. Hitler got to power by cheating. He broke the rules of democracy and in the end he paid for it. A goverment that is corrupt and undemocratic will get punished, either by getting invaded by a forgeign power or by getting overthrown by it's people.

The problem with the so called "free" society is that there will always be people that takes power over other people, but the only problem is that you can't vote these people away... They only get power because they're simply stronger then you. If you have a neutral elemet (the police force and the state) you can force these people from power if you discover that they're cooks. If you have competition, then you'll need judges right? So no one cheats? Well the goverment are those judges.

And how can doing nothing be kicking? Well, by not giving poor people money you will be indirectly responsable for their faith. You see that they're starving, and by not doing anything you're doing something! You're deciding that they are not worth the effort to keep them alive and well. And if anyone of them die or get sick, you're partly responseble. The same of course goes for the goverment, if they don't provide good enough healthcare, they're partly resonseble. Of course, there are exceptions: if a person drinks, smokes or shoot himself, then it's his own fault. But as long as they're doing everything in their power to keep themselves healthy, to work as hard as possible it's not their fault if they hit rock button. Then it's the harsh competative society of the capitalist state. That's why I support a partly socialist society. Why should people starve and live in the gutter, when there's enough money for everyone to go around. Of course, the poor shouldn't live a life of luxury, but they shouldn't live on the streets either.

I've got a tip for you. If you want to live a truly free life, then move out into the wilderness. There everyone will leave you alone and you will be able to live by your own rules.

I believe that the UK needs to strengthen its gun laws. Criminals, especially the hardcore ones, are always going to get guns, no matter what you do or where you live. However, what is dangerous is the fact that so many 'ordinary' people have one. To protect the people around them and to protect them, laws need to be made tighter - such as harsh prison sentences, in order to stop an innocent person from dying and to stop an 'innocent' person from killing.

And how can doing nothing be kicking? Well, by not giving poor people money you will be indirectly responsable for their faith. You see that they're starving, and by not doing anything you're doing something! You're deciding that they are not worth the effort to keep them alive and well. And if anyone of them die or get sick, you're partly responseble. The same of course goes for the goverment, if they don't provide good enough healthcare, they're partly resonseble. Of course, there are exceptions: if a person drinks, smokes or shoot himself, then it's his own fault. But as long as they're doing everything in their power to keep themselves healthy, to work as hard as possible it's not their fault if they hit rock button. Then it's the harsh competative society of the capitalist state. That's why I support a partly socialist society. Why should people starve and live in the gutter, when there's enough money for everyone to go around. Of course, the poor shouldn't live a life of luxury, but they shouldn't live on the streets either.

I'm not saying people shouldn't help each other, I'm saying they shouldn't be forced to. It is unnecessary and immoral. It's sad that you think compassion has to be legislated. If people didn't want to help the poor why would they vote to force themselves to?

People are responsible for their own fate. How can you say I'm responsible if other people don't work or get ill?

I believe that the UK needs to strengthen its gun laws. Criminals, especially the hardcore ones, are always going to get guns, no matter what you do or where you live. However, what is dangerous is the fact that so many 'ordinary' people have one. To protect the people around them and to protect them, laws need to be made tighter - such as harsh prison sentences, in order to stop an innocent person from dying and to stop an 'innocent' person from killing.
Yes. It's the innocent, they're the real danger. :roll:

I'm not saying people shouldn't help each other, I'm saying they shouldn't be forced to. It is unnecessary and immoral. It's sad that you think compassion has to be legislated. If people didn't want to help the poor why would they vote to force themselves to?

People are responsible for their own fate. How can you say I'm responsible if other people don't work or get ill?

Because you are a member of society, like it or not. Being a member of society has obligations and responsibilities, Ayn Rand's terrible hack novel notwithstanding.

The justification behind greater gun control is not that it will prevent guns getting into the hands of criminals: it's that it will greatly reduce the number of guns getting into the hands of criminals. Your hard-core gangster might still have them, but -- and I feel this is crucial -- your Buckfast-swilling ned in the Burberry cap will not.

Number of gangsters I encounter on a regular basis: 0
Number of neds I encounter on a regular basis: significantly higher than 0

Therefore, since I neither want to have to shoot neds, or be shot at by them, I support strict gun laws. Those who feel unfulfilled without a bulge in their jeans can always campaign to try to change the law, and the best of British luck to you with that.

DP

DP
Wait a sec..being a member of society means I don't have the right to be secure in my own person or home?...What you're doing is saying you don't trust "average Joe" to be responsible so therefore everyone must pay for that narrow vision.

And since we know that criminal elements will still be able to obtain guns, even this you have admitted too. You are therefore perfectly willing to allow me to be a victim of the person who still gets to have a gun....the criminal. Sorry..you can have that type of society that penalizes an innocent man/woman from providing protection for themselves.

Wait a sec..being a member of society means I don't have the right to be secure in my own person or home?...What you're doing is saying you don't trust "average Joe" to be responsible so therefore everyone must pay for that narrow vision.

And since we know that criminal elements will still be able to obtain guns, even this you have admitted too. You are therefore perfectly willing to allow me to be a victim of the person who still gets to have a gun....the criminal. Sorry..you can have that type of society that penalizes an innocent man/woman from providing protection for themselves.

Being a member of society means that you have to behave in a responsible fashion. Prior to the post-Dunblane gun legislation, the largest source of illegal guns in the UK were those stolen from the homes of their legal, but sadly irresponsible, owners, who had failed to put their guns in proper gun lockers or otherwise secure them out of harm's way. Guns were such an attractive target for criminals that simply owning a gun locker was often a reason for burglars to target your house. A stolen gun was more valuable, smaller and carried a lot more cred than a stolen VCR.

Granted, it was the criminals who broke the law by stealing the guns, but since gun ownership had no positive benefits (apart, perhaps, from giving the gun owner an unjustified sense of importance) and several negative ones (encouraged crime, resulted in larger numbers of criminals with guns), there was no advantage to society in letting people own dangerous weapons to no good purpose. Fewer guns = fewer criminals with guns = all of us are less likely to be shot, either by criminals, or by family members, or by wannabe vigilantes working their balding, tubby way through a mid-life crisis. This is why the murder rate in the UK is roughly one-quarter the murder rate in the USA: murder is that much harder over here. I see no reason to make it easy.

Probably because Britain lacked the gun culture of the USA, many people here who might have become gun-nuts over there were able to channel their obsessions in different and less dangerous directions: trainspotting, perhaps, or obsessing about their cars. So the number of people who felt that their life was incomplete without a broom-handle Mauser or whatever was gratifyingly small. Because this tiny number a) was an unwitting source of guns to the criminal fraternity, and b) had a tendency to creep the rest of us out, strict gun legislation received and continues to enjoy broad public support here. So a tiny number of people were pissed off, in order that the vast majority could feel (and be) safer. That's democracy for you -- even though we had our own gun lobby, with a shooting range and gun club inside the House of Commons and support from the royals. Mind you, their most vocal royal supporter was the Duke of Edinburgh: more of a liability than anything else.

i say abolish gun control laws, we all have the right to keep and bare arms, criminals have guns anyway, so if you dont have one whose fault is it for not bareing arms ?
the government has tried to crack down on it, keep it away from criminals and such, but those people probably wouldnt commit all the crimes if they knew they would probably get shot.

Wait a sec..being a member of society means I don't have the right to be secure in my own person or home?...What you're doing is saying you don't trust "average Joe" to be responsible so therefore everyone must pay for that narrow vision.

And since we know that criminal elements will still be able to obtain guns, even this you have admitted too. You are therefore perfectly willing to allow me to be a victim of the person who still gets to have a gun....the criminal. Sorry..you can have that type of society that penalizes an innocent man/woman from providing protection for themselves.

Being a member of society means that you have to behave in a responsible fashion. Prior to the post-Dunblane gun legislation, the largest source of illegal guns in the UK were those stolen from the homes of their legal, but sadly irresponsible, owners, who had failed to put their guns in proper gun lockers or otherwise secure them out of harm's way. Guns were such an attractive target for criminals that simply owning a gun locker was often a reason for burglars to target your house. A stolen gun was more valuable, smaller and carried a lot more cred than a stolen VCR.

Granted, it was the criminals who broke the law by stealing the guns, but since gun ownership had no positive benefits (apart, perhaps, from giving the gun owner an unjustified sense of importance) and several negative ones (encouraged crime, resulted in larger numbers of criminals with guns), there was no advantage to society in letting people own dangerous weapons to no good purpose. Fewer guns = fewer criminals with guns = all of us are less likely to be shot, either by criminals, or by family members, or by wannabe vigilantes working their balding, tubby way through a mid-life crisis. This is why the murder rate in the UK is roughly one-quarter the murder rate in the USA: murder is that much harder over here. I see no reason to make it easy.

Probably because Britain lacked the gun culture of the USA, many people here who might have become gun-nuts over there were able to channel their obsessions in different and less dangerous directions: trainspotting, perhaps, or obsessing about their cars. So the number of people who felt that their life was incomplete without a broom-handle Mauser or whatever was gratifyingly small. Because this tiny number a) was an unwitting source of guns to the criminal fraternity, and b) had a tendency to creep the rest of us out, strict gun legislation received and continues to enjoy broad public support here. So a tiny number of people were pissed off, in order that the vast majority could feel (and be) safer. That's democracy for you -- even though we had our own gun lobby, with a shooting range and gun club inside the House of Commons and support from the royals. Mind you, their most vocal royal supporter was the Duke of Edinburgh: more of a liability than anything else.

But again..you're penalizing everyone, not just those who are actually irresponsible...I'm completely responsible with my weapons, and have taught my sons equal respect for weapons..you're saying because my neighbor MIGHT not be responsible..I....the responsible one should be penalized?

And just who made you determine that owning a gun was unjustified importance?..I have not only enjoyed firing my weapons..but one on occassion stopped a home burglary of my home and a sexual assault in another...one of those situations..the sexual assault..the dirtbag had a knife up against the girl's (14yrs old) chest while he was on top of her..I came behind him..gave him an ultimatum...drop the knife or I would put a bullet in his skull (I happen to be an expert marksman with both a 9mm and .45 cal pistol)..the thug had incredible intelligence in that he decided that dropping the weapon=increased survivability.

I'm not saying people shouldn't help each other, I'm saying they shouldn't be forced to. It is unnecessary and immoral. It's sad that you think compassion has to be legislated. If people didn't want to help the poor why would they vote to force themselves to?

People are responsible for their own fate. How can you say I'm responsible if other people don't work or get ill?

Because you are a member of society, like it or not. Being a member of society has obligations and responsibilities, Ayn Rand's terrible hack novel notwithstanding.

The justification behind greater gun control is not that it will prevent guns getting into the hands of criminals: it's that it will greatly reduce the number of guns getting into the hands of criminals. Your hard-core gangster might still have them, but -- and I feel this is crucial -- your Buckfast-swilling ned in the Burberry cap will not.

Number of gangsters I encounter on a regular basis: 0
Number of neds I encounter on a regular basis: significantly higher than 0

Therefore, since I neither want to have to shoot neds, or be shot at by them, I support strict gun laws. Those who feel unfulfilled without a bulge in their jeans can always campaign to try to change the law, and the best of British luck to you with that.
If I don't attack anyone or steal anything I consider my legal duties towards society to be met. I can't stand Ayn Rand, rather I agree with Lysander Spooner's conception of duty....

"Man, no doubt, owes many other moral duties to his fellow men; such as to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, care for the sick, protect the defenceless, assist the weak, and enlighten the ignorant. But these are simply moral duties, of which each man must be his own judge, in each particular case, as to whether, and how, and how far, he can, or will, perform them. But of his legal duty – that is, of his duty to live honestly towards his fellow men – his fellow men not only may judge, but, for their own protection, must judge. And, if need be, they may rightfully compel him to perform it. They may do this, acting singly, or in concert. They may do it on the instant, as the necessity arises, or deliberately and systematically, if they prefer to do so, and the exigency will admit of it."

I feel the reason we're having a hard time communicating is that my sterotypical gun owner is a law abiding citizen who only uses it for defence, sport or as part of their job (a farmer, say). Your stereotypical gun owner is a hardcore criminal. Most gun owners are peaceful citizens. The vast majority of "good samaritans" or "have-a-go heros" in the US are gun owners. But you want to disarm these people because they *might* one day become criminals.

Well, if you want to lock people up who might become criminals there are groups other than gun owners you should start on. Teenagers from ghetto houses for a start. If, like me, you believe someone is innocent until they commit a crime you will not do this.

I deny that guns have no positive uses. There are sport, pest control, self defence, law enforcement, deterrence against crime, deterrence against totalitarian govt and military defence.

And neds are cowards at heart. If they thought you might have a gun they wouldn't bother you.

But again..you're penalizing everyone, not just those who are actually irresponsible...I'm completely responsible with my weapons, and have taught my sons equal respect for weapons..you're saying because my neighbor MIGHT not be responsible..I....the responsible one should be penalized?

And just who made you determine that owning a gun was unjustified importance?..I have not only enjoyed firing my weapons..but one on occassion stopped a home burglary of my home and a sexual assault in another...one of those situations..the sexual assault..the dirtbag had a knife up against the girl's (14yrs old) chest while he was on top of her..I came behind him..gave him an ultimatum...drop the knife or I would put a bullet in his skull (I happen to be an expert marksman with both a 9mm and .45 cal pistol)..the thug had incredible intelligence in that he decided that dropping the weapon=increased survivability.

What I'm saying is that, in the UK, strict gun legislation has broad socilal support. It is the nature of democracy, of society, that on occasion the interests and entertainments of a minority suffer because of the attitude or interests of the majority. In the UK, there is an overwhelming majority in favour of very strict gun legislation. So we have very strict gun legislation. Would you rather that the wishes of a tiny minority rode roughshod over the will of the people?

Ban the guns. let's go back to old fist fighting.

But again..you're penalizing everyone, not just those who are actually irresponsible...I'm completely responsible with my weapons, and have taught my sons equal respect for weapons..you're saying because my neighbor MIGHT not be responsible..I....the responsible one should be penalized?

And just who made you determine that owning a gun was unjustified importance?..I have not only enjoyed firing my weapons..but one on occassion stopped a home burglary of my home and a sexual assault in another...one of those situations..the sexual assault..the dirtbag had a knife up against the girl's (14yrs old) chest while he was on top of her..I came behind him..gave him an ultimatum...drop the knife or I would put a bullet in his skull (I happen to be an expert marksman with both a 9mm and .45 cal pistol)..the thug had incredible intelligence in that he decided that dropping the weapon=increased survivability.

What I'm saying is that, in the UK, strict gun legislation has broad socilal support. It is the nature of democracy, of society, that on occasion the interests and entertainments of a minority suffer because of the attitude or interests of the majority. In the UK, there is an overwhelming majority in favour of very strict gun legislation. So we have very strict gun legislation. Would you rather that the wishes of a tiny minority rode roughshod over the will of the people?
Hitler enjoyed wide support. Should the Jews be allowed to live against the wishes of the will of the people?

But again..you're penalizing everyone, not just those who are actually irresponsible...I'm completely responsible with my weapons, and have taught my sons equal respect for weapons..you're saying because my neighbor MIGHT not be responsible..I....the responsible one should be penalized?

And just who made you determine that owning a gun was unjustified importance?..I have not only enjoyed firing my weapons..but one on occassion stopped a home burglary of my home and a sexual assault in another...one of those situations..the sexual assault..the dirtbag had a knife up against the girl's (14yrs old) chest while he was on top of her..I came behind him..gave him an ultimatum...drop the knife or I would put a bullet in his skull (I happen to be an expert marksman with both a 9mm and .45 cal pistol)..the thug had incredible intelligence in that he decided that dropping the weapon=increased survivability.

What I'm saying is that, in the UK, strict gun legislation has broad socilal support. It is the nature of democracy, of society, that on occasion the interests and entertainments of a minority suffer because of the attitude or interests of the majority. In the UK, there is an overwhelming majority in favour of very strict gun legislation. So we have very strict gun legislation. Would you rather that the wishes of a tiny minority rode roughshod over the will of the people?

This isn't some minor fancy...this is about protecting not only myself but my home and or family....not just taking it out to a range and popping off a few rounds.

We Americans had already experienced what lack of proper means of self-defense lead too....British troops quaraterd in homes involuntarily...and an oppressive government being able to control a society based on the fact they had the better weapons..course..this was over 200 yrs ago..but in our mindset...never again will we allow for the government to able to determine how I defend myself...be it against a government or a common criminal.

I wish you in the UK the best Clappi..I truly do..if the situation works for you and yours...outstanding..but in my society..it's just not desired, nor practical..criminals will still get guns..whether it's from my home or from a ship docking at the port. I choose to deny Criminals the oppurtunity to make me a defenseless target.

I feel the reason we're having a hard time communicating is that my sterotypical gun owner is a law abiding citizen who only uses it for defence, sport or as part of their job (a farmer, say). Your stereotypical gun owner is a hardcore criminal. Most gun owners are peaceful citizens. The vast majority of "good samaritans" or "have-a-go heros" in the US are gun owners. But you want to disarm these people because they *might* one day become criminals.

No, my idea of a stereotypical gun owner is either a) a farmer, who has several good reasons to own a shotgun and possibly a rifle, or b) a slightly inadequate person who wants to own a handgun because it makes him feel all funny inside. There is also c), a thug, who has a whole series of bad reasons to own a handgun or shotgun, and who often steals them from either a) or b). I think a) should be allowed to keep their shotguns and rifles, as long as they keep them securely locked up in a police-inspected locker, as they do at present. I think b) should get out more, and no matter what I think c) is always going to be a problem. I just don't see the benefit in making things easy for c), though.

Well, if you want to lock people up who might become criminals there are groups other than gun owners you should start on. Teenagers from ghetto houses for a start. If, like me, you believe someone is innocent until they commit a crime you will not do this.

I don't want to lock up people who might become criminals. I don't want to have lots of handguns floating round society so that every petty criminal can get one.

I deny that guns have no positive uses. There are sport, pest control, self defence, law enforcement, deterrence against crime, deterrence against totalitarian govt and military defence.

In the UK, guns for pest control, law enforcement and military defence are in the hands of those who deal with such matters (and most UK police don't carry guns, or WANT to carry guns). Sport: well, there are air rifles. There are shooting clubs. There are plently of other sports, too. Self defence: learn karate. Giving people a lethal, ranged weapon for "self defence" is, in UK terms at least, a little OTT. And since the USA's murder rate is four times that of the UK, I'm not impressed by the USA's statistics on this one. As for "deterrence against totalitarian govt", well, I can't really see the nation's farmers and some overweight, balding loners doing much against the Army. [/quote]

And neds are cowards at heart. If they thought you might have a gun they wouldn't bother you.

I am well aware of the lack of moral fibre in our nation's ned population. But -- if they had guns -- I wouldn't put it past them to try to shoot people in the back. Neds are an annoyance, and only dangerous if encountered in groups of more than 10. Neds with guns would be a different story. I prefer to keep guns out of the hands of disaffected and violent teenagers; something I believe the USA struggles with a bit.

Hitler enjoyed wide support. Should the Jews be allowed to live against the wishes of the will of the people?

Right... because making it difficult for your average Joe to own a gun is exactly the same thing as a genocidal dictator who came to power by a coup d'etat.. I could equally say, "child pornography is enjoyed by a small number of people. Who are you to say that it should be banned?" We could play such stupid games for hours.

No UK citizen is endangered, or even seriously inconvenienced, by not owning a gun. In fact, the low number of guns in our country is one of the reasons it's a much safer place to live than the USA. We could abandon all that, and allow an extra 3,000 people to be killed each year, just so a tiny minority can feel good about themselves; but I -- and the vast bulk of my fellow-Brits -- prefer not to. Thanks all the same.

I don't want to lock up people who might become criminals. I don't want to have lots of handguns floating round society so that every petty criminal can get one.

You want to lock up people who are peacefully owning firearms on the off chance they might commit a crime. How else were you planning on enforcing your firearm ban?

I wish you in the UK the best Clappi..I truly do..if the situation works for you and yours...outstanding..but in my society..it's just not desired, nor practical..criminals will still get guns..whether it's from my home or from a ship docking at the port. I choose to deny Criminals the oppurtunity to make me a defenseless target.

That's fine. Have as many guns in your society as you want to. We'll do the same over here.

Hitler enjoyed wide support. Should the Jews be allowed to live against the wishes of the will of the people?
Right... because making it difficult for your average Joe to own a gun is exactly the same thing as a genocidal dictator who came to power by a coup d'etat.. I could equally say, "child pornography is enjoyed by a small number of people. Who are you to say that it should be banned?" We could play such stupid games for hours.

The principle is the same, the majority, or the govt acting in it's name, enforces it's will on the minority. That system is called fascism. Child pornography has identifiable victims, as does murder. But banning guns because someone might use them to murder would be analogous to banning children (or video cameras) in case someone used them to make porn.

I wish you in the UK the best Clappi..I truly do..if the situation works for you and yours...outstanding..but in my society..it's just not desired, nor practical..criminals will still get guns..whether it's from my home or from a ship docking at the port. I choose to deny Criminals the oppurtunity to make me a defenseless target.

That's fine. Have as many guns in your society as you want to. We'll do the same over here.
But we don't, because if I want a gun you and the other busybodies will put me in jail. We don't have as many guns as we want, we have as many guns as YOU want.

I don't want to lock up people who might become criminals. I don't want to have lots of handguns floating round society so that every petty criminal can get one.

You want to lock up people who are peacefully owning firearms on the off chance they might commit a crime. How else were you planning on enforcing your firearm ban?

No, there's no reason to lock anybody up if they hand over or otherwise responsibly deal with their gun. The laws have already been passed. Anyone who continues to own a gun without meeting the strict requirements of the act is breaking the law. Possession of such an unlicensed gun, like possession of an unlicensed car, is the crime. In most cases I'd favour confiscation and a fine over imprisonment anyway -- but that would be up to the judge.

I wish you in the UK the best Clappi..I truly do..if the situation works for you and yours...outstanding..but in my society..it's just not desired, nor practical..criminals will still get guns..whether it's from my home or from a ship docking at the port. I choose to deny Criminals the oppurtunity to make me a defenseless target.

That's fine. Have as many guns in your society as you want to. We'll do the same over here.
But we don't, because if I want a gun you and the other busybodies will put me in jail. We don't have as many guns as we want, we have as many guns as YOU want.

OK, by WE, I was, perhaps egotistically, speaking for the British people as a whole, who have consistently and enthusiastically shown their support for stringent gun laws. If you are in the minority, then you can campaign to change people's minds. I believe I already wished you luck on that before.

Oh, and by the way: if you think this is fascism, then man, you have a lot to learn about fascism.

I'm not saying people shouldn't help each other, I'm saying they shouldn't be forced to. It is unnecessary and immoral. It's sad that you think compassion has to be legislated. If people didn't want to help the poor why would they vote to force themselves to?

People are responsible for their own fate. How can you say I'm responsible if other people don't work or get ill?

Well one good reason is that most people are, to put it lightly: lazy. Allot more people will give money to the poor if they don't have to put any effort into it (by just paying taxes)

Another good reason is that they only ones with enough money to really make a difference to the poor are rich people and they tend to vote on Right wing parties.

Also in a extremly individualistic society people tend to lose their sense of connection with other people and become pretty cynical and cold.

You see as you might have already have guessed: I have the belief that all humans beings have the right to housing, food and basic health care. Both are different ways of viewing reality. So what says that you are more "right" then I am?

The principle is the same, the majority, or the govt acting in it's name, enforces it's will on the minority. That system is called fascism. Child pornography has identifiable victims, as does murder. But banning guns because someone might use them to murder would be analogous to banning children (or video cameras) in case someone used them to make porn.

The same thing happens in more "liberal" societies as well. If you're poor you have the choice of either take whatever shit job you're offered and take pretty much any treatment or you can starve. That's not a choice, that's a treat. "Work with us or feel our wrath!" And of this because the majority is comfortable with this kind of society. The "liberal" Society limits the individuals' choices as well as the so called "facist" one.

Like I said before: sometimes two choices can't co-exist and guns vs gun-control are one of them. If anyone can buy guns, then there's no gun control and if there's gun control anybody can't buy guns... The best way and most democratic way of solving such a problem is by taking the majority's side. But like I said before, if both sides can live side by side, then they should.

Well one good reason is that most people are, to put it lightly: lazy. Allot more people will give money to the poor if they don't have to put any effort into it (by just paying taxes)
So in short you DO think compassion has to be legislated. Without govt screwing up the economy there'd be less need for charity. People have always voluntarily donated when necessary. 19th century America for example. Paying taxes requires all the work you do until 'bout mid April in America or beginning of May in UK. Quite a lot of effort I'd say. Most tax money goes to the rich (corporate welfare, military industrial complex, govt contracts as well as the rich's share of health, education etc which they use proportionally more than the poor)

The best way to help a poor person is give him a job, something that's very hard to do in our current taxation/regulation climate.

Another good reason is that they only ones with enough money to really make a difference to the poor are rich people and they tend to vote on Right wing parties.
The first part is not true. The second part is irrelevant. Most so-called right wing parties spend almost or as much tax money as left wing ones (republicans, tories etc)

Also in a extremly individualistic society people tend to lose their sense of connection with other people and become pretty cynical and cold.

Untrue. One of the most remarked upon things of 19th century America was the community spirit (see e.g. Alexis de Toqueville's "Democracy in America"). By putting welfare in the hands of families, communities and churches you enhance these institutions. By putting it in the hands of the state you destroy them, as has been the case throughout the western world.

You see as you might have already have guessed: I have the belief that all humans beings have the right to housing, food and basic health care. Both are different ways of viewing reality. So what says that you are more "right" then I am?

My gun. Oh, sh*t........ :lol:

The principle is the same, the majority, or the govt acting in it's name, enforces it's will on the minority. That system is called fascism. Child pornography has identifiable victims, as does murder. But banning guns because someone might use them to murder would be analogous to banning children (or video cameras) in case someone used them to make porn.

The same thing happens in more "liberal" societies as well. If you're poor you have the choice of either take whatever shit job you're offered and take pretty much any treatment or you can starve. That's not a choice, that's a treat. "Work with us or feel our wrath!" And of this because the majority is comfortable with this kind of society. The "liberal" Society limits the individuals' choices as well as the so called "facist" one.

Like I said before: sometimes two choices can't co-exist and guns vs gun-control are one of them. If anyone can buy guns, then there's no gun control and if there's gun control anybody can't buy guns... The best way and most democratic way of solving such a problem is by taking the majority's side. But like I said before, if both sides can live side by side, then they should.

Well one good reason is that most people are, to put it lightly: lazy. Allot more people will give money to the poor if they don't have to put any effort into it (by just paying taxes)
So in short you DO think compassion has to be legislated. Without govt screwing up the economy there'd be less need for charity. People have always voluntarily donated when necessary. 19th century America for example. Paying taxes requires all the work you do until 'bout mid April in America or beginning of May in UK. Quite a lot of effort I'd say. Most tax money goes to the rich (corporate welfare, military industrial complex, govt contracts as well as the rich's share of health, education etc which they use proportionally more than the poor)

The best way to help a poor person is give him a job, something that's very hard to do in our current taxation/regulation climate.

Another good reason is that they only ones with enough money to really make a difference to the poor are rich people and they tend to vote on Right wing parties.
The first part is not true. The second part is irrelevant. Most so-called right wing parties spend almost or as much tax money as left wing ones (republicans, tories etc)

Also in a extremly individualistic society people tend to lose their sense of connection with other people and become pretty cynical and cold.

Untrue. One of the most remarked upon things of 19th century America was the community spirit (see e.g. Alexis de Toqueville's "Democracy in America"). By putting welfare in the hands of families, communities and churches you enhance these institutions. By putting it in the hands of the state you destroy them, as has been the case throughout the western world.

You see as you might have already have guessed: I have the belief that all humans beings have the right to housing, food and basic health care. Both are different ways of viewing reality. So what says that you are more "right" then I am?

My gun. Oh, sh*t........ :lol:

The principle is the same, the majority, or the govt acting in it's name, enforces it's will on the minority. That system is called fascism. Child pornography has identifiable victims, as does murder. But banning guns because someone might use them to murder would be analogous to banning children (or video cameras) in case someone used them to make porn.

The same thing happens in more "liberal" societies as well. If you're poor you have the choice of either take whatever shit job you're offered and take pretty much any treatment or you can starve. That's not a choice, that's a treat. "Work with us or feel our wrath!" And of this because the majority is comfortable with this kind of society. The "liberal" Society limits the individuals' choices as well as the so called "facist" one.

Like I said before: sometimes two choices can't co-exist and guns vs gun-control are one of them. If anyone can buy guns, then there's no gun control and if there's gun control anybody can't buy guns... The best way and most democratic way of solving such a problem is by taking the majority's side. But like I said before, if both sides can live side by side, then they should.
Your analogy is flawed. I can't have a gun because someone is actively preventing me. If I can't eat without taking a job it's not because somebody's forcing me to any more than they are forcing me not to flap my arms and fly. You might feel terribly put out that you have to work in order to eat but if you don't work for your food why should someone else work for your food? That's an unavoidable reality.

Why should the majority be able to tell me what I can and can't do if I don't attack or rob anyone?

And, for whoever said I don't understand fascism (man).

"An extreme form of nationalism that played on fears of communism and rejected *individual freedom, liberal individualism*, democracy, and *limitations on the state.*"
www.nelson.com/nelson/polisci/glossary.html
Subjecting peaceful individuals to the arbitrary whim of the state=fascism.

Why should the majority be able to tell me what I can and can't do if I don't attack or rob anyone?

And, for whoever said I don't understand fascism (man).

"An extreme form of nationalism that played on fears of communism and rejected *individual freedom, liberal individualism*, democracy, and *limitations on the state.*"
www.nelson.com/nelson/polisci/glossary.html
Subjecting peaceful individuals to the arbitrary whim of the state=fascism.

OK, you have a dictionary definition of fascism. Now what makes you think that only letting people own firearms if they have a good reason to is the same as "subjecting peaceful individuals to the arbitrary whim of the state"?

Think about speed limits. We are restricted by law to how fast we can drive, no matter what our personal preferences might be. Is this fascism? No, of course not. If driving a car at 120mph only risked the life of the driver, then I'd be all for it. But it doesn't. Driving at high speed puts everybody at increased risk. Widespread gun ownership does precisely the same thing. Yelling "fascism" every time you are mildly inconvenienced by a law makes me think you don't really understand what "subjecting peaceful individuals to the arbitrary whim of the state" actually means.

Your analogy is flawed. I can't have a gun because someone is actively preventing me. If I can't eat without taking a job it's not because somebody's forcing me to any more than they are forcing me not to flap my arms and fly. You might feel terribly put out that you have to work in order to eat but if you don't work for your food why should someone else work for your food? That's an unavoidable reality.

Why should the majority be able to tell me what I can and can't do if I don't attack or rob anyone?

And, for whoever said I don't understand fascism (man).

"An extreme form of nationalism that played on fears of communism and rejected *individual freedom, liberal individualism*, democracy, and *limitations on the state.*"
www.nelson.com/nelson/polisci/glossary.html
Subjecting peaceful individuals to the arbitrary whim of the state=fascism.

Look. Society is not equal. Some are born with poor parents, and some are born with rich parents. If I'm born into a poor family, why should I suffer because my parents are lazy/have not been able to get a job. So why should I work my ass off just so I can go to a proper school just because of my parents managed to screw up their life? Since I didn't exactly choose my parents. If society would be as equal as possible in a competative society where everyone have different abilities, then everyone should start with the same amount of money and getting money from your parents should not be allowed (notice, I said: START with the same amount of money) Now a liberal society is not equal and every doesn't have the same chance of "reaching the big bucks" Of course, there are those who are simply too lazy to work, you're right about that. But personally I don't care about them, if they want to live at the bottom of society, then that's fine by me. They will never feel the joy of being important or being rich. They lose even if they would get social welfare.

Yes, someone is actively stopping you from getting a gun. And that "person" are the criminals. If there were no criminals and everyone was friendly I wouldn't have anything against guns as such, but now there are criminals and you have no idea whom to trust with the exception of the police of course. And before you start complaining that the police can't really be trusted either, consider this: how many crimes are commited by the police and how many crimes are commited by civilians?

So in short you DO think compassion has to be legislated. Without govt screwing up the economy there'd be less need for charity. People have always voluntarily donated when necessary. 19th century America for example. Paying taxes requires all the work you do until 'bout mid April in America or beginning of May in UK. Quite a lot of effort I'd say. Most tax money goes to the rich (corporate welfare, military industrial complex, govt contracts as well as the rich's share of health, education etc which they use proportionally more than the poor)

The best way to help a poor person is give him a job, something that's very hard to do in our current taxation/regulation climate.


My gun. Oh, sh*t........ :lol:

Errr... I think everyone in the country benefits from the military industry, since the military help to keep out forgein threats out from the country. Of course, we could make it volontary to pay money to defence, but then you would have to wear a sign which says: "Don't defend me, I don't pay any tax to the military" lol :D

19th centuary America is a bit different from the society now. During that age most people lived in close knit villages and now we live in gigantic citys where you don't know everyone. Also, it's impossible to keep any data or statistics over the welfare being distributed if you have such a system, which makes it impossible to prove that this system works... And yes of course the best way to reduce poverty is to give them jobs, but that doesn't mean we should remove welfare, since there's always people that litterally can't work for one reason or another.

Pfft! A gun! That's nothing! :wink: I'm going to do the National guards training in my country and if I decied to join then I'll be allowed to have one of these babys at home: http://securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1400/1444.htm :D

So in short you DO think compassion has to be legislated. Without govt screwing up the economy there'd be less need for charity. People have always voluntarily donated when necessary. 19th century America for example. Paying taxes requires all the work you do until 'bout mid April in America or beginning of May in UK. Quite a lot of effort I'd say. Most tax money goes to the rich (corporate welfare, military industrial complex, govt contracts as well as the rich's share of health, education etc which they use proportionally more than the poor)

The best way to help a poor person is give him a job, something that's very hard to do in our current taxation/regulation climate.


My gun. Oh, sh*t........ :lol:

Errr... I think everyone in the country benefits from the military industry, since the military help to keep out forgein threats out from the country. Of course, we could make it volontary to pay money to defence, but then you would have to wear a sign which says: "Don't defend me, I don't pay any tax to the military" lol :D

19th centuary America is a bit different from the society now. During that age most people lived in close knit villages and now we live in gigantic citys where you don't know everyone. Also, it's impossible to keep any data or statistics over the welfare being distributed if you have such a system, which makes it impossible to prove that this system works... And yes of course the best way to reduce poverty is to give them jobs, but that doesn't mean we should remove welfare, since there's always people that litterally can't work for one reason or another.

Pfft! A gun! That's nothing! :wink: I'm going to do the National guards training in my country and if I decied to join then I'll be allowed to have one of these babys at home: http://securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1400/1444.htm :D

So in short you DO think compassion has to be legislated. Without govt screwing up the economy there'd be less need for charity. People have always voluntarily donated when necessary. 19th century America for example. Paying taxes requires all the work you do until 'bout mid April in America or beginning of May in UK. Quite a lot of effort I'd say. Most tax money goes to the rich (corporate welfare, military industrial complex, govt contracts as well as the rich's share of health, education etc which they use proportionally more than the poor)

The best way to help a poor person is give him a job, something that's very hard to do in our current taxation/regulation climate.


My gun. Oh, sh*t........ :lol:

Errr... I think everyone in the country benefits from the military industry, since the military help to keep out forgein threats out from the country. Of course, we could make it volontary to pay money to defence, but then you would have to wear a sign which says: "Don't defend me, I don't pay any tax to the military" lol :D

19th centuary America is a bit different from the society now. During that age most people lived in close knit villages and now we live in gigantic citys where you don't know everyone. Also, it's impossible to keep any data or statistics over the welfare being distributed if you have such a system, which makes it impossible to prove that this system works... And yes of course the best way to reduce poverty is to give them jobs, but that doesn't mean we should remove welfare, since there's always people that litterally can't work for one reason or another.

Pfft! A gun! That's nothing! :wink: I'm going to do the National guards training in my country and if I decied to join then I'll be allowed to have one of these babys at home: http://securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1400/1444.htm :D

So in short you DO think compassion has to be legislated. Without govt screwing up the economy there'd be less need for charity. People have always voluntarily donated when necessary. 19th century America for example. Paying taxes requires all the work you do until 'bout mid April in America or beginning of May in UK. Quite a lot of effort I'd say. Most tax money goes to the rich (corporate welfare, military industrial complex, govt contracts as well as the rich's share of health, education etc which they use proportionally more than the poor)

The best way to help a poor person is give him a job, something that's very hard to do in our current taxation/regulation climate.


My gun. Oh, sh*t........ :lol:

Errr... I think everyone in the country benefits from the military industry, since the military help to keep out forgein threats out from the country. Of course, we could make it volontary to pay money to defence, but then you would have to wear a sign which says: "Don't defend me, I don't pay any tax to the military" lol :D

19th centuary America is a bit different from the society now. During that age most people lived in close knit villages and now we live in gigantic citys where you don't know everyone. Also, it's impossible to keep any data or statistics over the welfare being distributed if you have such a system, which makes it impossible to prove that this system works... And yes of course the best way to reduce poverty is to give them jobs, but that doesn't mean we should remove welfare, since there's always people that litterally can't work for one reason or another.

Pfft! A gun! That's nothing! :wink: I'm going to do the National guards training in my country and if I decied to join then I'll be allowed to have one of these babys at home: http://securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1400/1444.htm :D

A few, scattered comments based on a variety of earlier contributions (sorry, this is going to be erratic):

Berkylvania - I guess this shows that Americans don't have the monopoly on mouth-frothing on the issue of gun control.

Libertarianism - interesting ideal, could work in small societies, mostly very fine principles but with a couple of points that really stick in people's craw. In reality we're nowhere near ready for it. Sound like any other type of ideology? I'll give you the first few letters: C, O, M, M, U...

Gun control in the States - sounds to me like Dean had the right idea. leave it to the states or cities themselves to decide. The outback and huntin' an' a-fishin' states (eg Texas, Vermont) may do well out of liberal gun policy (by liberal I mean relaxed). New York should perhaps adopt the British approach. Then again, I don't know how workable this is as I'm not at all clear on the devolution of powere in the US. Apologies for any woeful misunderstanding I've displayed.

Fascism - note the 'nationalism' part of the quote. Clappi, Tactical Grace and others have not invoked nationalism or even patriotism at any point. Fascism is irrelevant here.

Libertovania - actually, I think a lot of your comments, particularly early on, were not refuted by pro-gun control posters. Crime, as far as I can see, is almost independent of gun laws. I agree with you (and not Tactical Grace) on the cultural element. However, we run the risk of cultural imperialism here. Thorny.

Human rights are defined by society. In nature, we have no rights.

One individual's liberties naturally impinge on another's. That's why we have government. I believe it is our responsibility as citizens to ensure it is held to account. And it is government's responsibility to us to serve us well.

The Radio 4 phone in - it's sad that people still support a gun-toting nut who shot a guy in the back as he fled. Tony Martin did nothing morally wrong till he pulled the trigger. Then he went too far. Here's a problem: we can't trust people to stop when emotions take control.

Will relaxing gun controls in Britain do anything positive, beyond affirming a symbolic, widely disputed 'right'? I believe not. That is why I support gun controls here. However, I'm not convinced we have the right controls and would be glad to see the current laws fully scrutinised.

Apologies agin for the lack of coherence, this has been something of a stream of consciousness.

Yes. It's the innocent, they're the real danger. :roll:

What I mean is that they didn't really mean to set off the gun, which is why I put innocent in quote marks. Basically, they are not hardened criminals and they only have a gun to show off but things go wrong and they end up shooting someone. By tightenting gun laws it would prevent this.

Yes. It's the innocent, they're the real danger. :roll:

What I mean is that they didn't really mean to set off the gun, which is why I put innocent in quote marks. Basically, they are not hardened criminals and they only have a gun to show off but things go wrong and they end up shooting someone. By tightenting gun laws it would prevent this.
Did the UK not have tight enough gun laws before the 'purge' took place?

Did the UK not have tight enough gun laws before the 'purge' took place?

You can never have tight enough gun control laws.

Did the UK not have tight enough gun laws before the 'purge' took place?

You can never have tight enough gun control laws.

Well clamping down on air-rifles and bb guns could be seen as being a bit extreme. Also clamping down on known responsible users could be to.

Did the UK not have tight enough gun laws before the 'purge' took place?

You can never have tight enough gun control laws.

Well clamping down on air-rifles and bb guns could be seen as being a bit extreme. Also clamping down on known responsible users could be to.
No I'm happy for the tight control of all weapons and banning assualt weapons etc, but all out bans of responsible people owning guns strikes me as untrusting and extreme.

Did the UK not have tight enough gun laws before the 'purge' took place?

You can never have tight enough gun control laws.

Well clamping down on air-rifles and bb guns could be seen as being a bit extreme. Also clamping down on known responsible users could be to.
No I'm happy for the tight control of all weapons and banning assualt weapons etc, but all out bans of responsible people owning guns strikes me as untrusting and extreme.

Well it is partially common sense. Why would anyone need a spas-12 or m-16 in Britain. Game isn't that tough. But 12 bore (iirc) are useful for country folk.

"The NRA says you have the right to have armour-piercing bullets for hunting. Why? Is there deer with bullet-proof armour?" - Robin Williams

Why should the majority be able to tell me what I can and can't do if I don't attack or rob anyone?

And, for whoever said I don't understand fascism (man).

"An extreme form of nationalism that played on fears of communism and rejected *individual freedom, liberal individualism*, democracy, and *limitations on the state.*"
www.nelson.com/nelson/polisci/glossary.html
Subjecting peaceful individuals to the arbitrary whim of the state=fascism.

OK, you have a dictionary definition of fascism. Now what makes you think that only letting people own firearms if they have a good reason to is the same as "subjecting peaceful individuals to the arbitrary whim of the state"?

Think about speed limits. We are restricted by law to how fast we can drive, no matter what our personal preferences might be. Is this fascism? No, of course not. If driving a car at 120mph only risked the life of the driver, then I'd be all for it. But it doesn't. Driving at high speed puts everybody at increased risk. Widespread gun ownership does precisely the same thing. Yelling "fascism" every time you are mildly inconvenienced by a law makes me think you don't really understand what "subjecting peaceful individuals to the arbitrary whim of the state" actually means.
I believe the state should obey the same rules of morality as everyone else. Some consequences of this are things like "tax is robbery" and "conscription is slavery" since if anyone but the state did these that's how they'd be viewed. Clearly a private road owner would have speed limits (it's part of his property rights to tell you to drive carefully on his road) so the state may do this (assuming you view the state as the owner of the roads, it did after all pay for them by robbery). Conversely, if anyone but the state tried to ban handguns it would be seen as an invasion of rights and thus the state shouldn't do it.

What I mean by "subjecting peaceful individuals to the arbitrary whim of the state" is the state using aggressive violence (threats of jail and fines against peaceful individuals) to enforce it's will.

Your analogy is flawed. I can't have a gun because someone is actively preventing me. If I can't eat without taking a job it's not because somebody's forcing me to any more than they are forcing me not to flap my arms and fly. You might feel terribly put out that you have to work in order to eat but if you don't work for your food why should someone else work for your food? That's an unavoidable reality.

Why should the majority be able to tell me what I can and can't do if I don't attack or rob anyone?

And, for whoever said I don't understand fascism (man).

"An extreme form of nationalism that played on fears of communism and rejected *individual freedom, liberal individualism*, democracy, and *limitations on the state.*"
www.nelson.com/nelson/polisci/glossary.html
Subjecting peaceful individuals to the arbitrary whim of the state=fascism.

Look. Society is not equal. Some are born with poor parents, and some are born with rich parents. If I'm born into a poor family, why should I suffer because my parents are lazy/have not been able to get a job. So why should I work my ass off just so I can go to a proper school just because of my parents managed to screw up their life? Since I didn't exactly choose my parents. If society would be as equal as possible in a competative society where everyone have different abilities, then everyone should start with the same amount of money and getting money from your parents should not be allowed (notice, I said: START with the same amount of money) Now a liberal society is not equal and every doesn't have the same chance of "reaching the big bucks" Of course, there are those who are simply too lazy to work, you're right about that. But personally I don't care about them, if they want to live at the bottom of society, then that's fine by me. They will never feel the joy of being important or being rich. They lose even if they would get social welfare.

Yes, someone is actively stopping you from getting a gun. And that "person" are the criminals. If there were no criminals and everyone was friendly I wouldn't have anything against guns as such, but now there are criminals and you have no idea whom to trust with the exception of the police of course. And before you start complaining that the police can't really be trusted either, consider this: how many crimes are commited by the police and how many crimes are commited by civilians?
I amn't into equality of wealth or equality of opportunity. I'm into human rights. The rights of self ownership and ownership of property you've justly aquired - including guns.

So in short you DO think compassion has to be legislated. Without govt screwing up the economy there'd be less need for charity. People have always voluntarily donated when necessary. 19th century America for example. Paying taxes requires all the work you do until 'bout mid April in America or beginning of May in UK. Quite a lot of effort I'd say. Most tax money goes to the rich (corporate welfare, military industrial complex, govt contracts as well as the rich's share of health, education etc which they use proportionally more than the poor)

The best way to help a poor person is give him a job, something that's very hard to do in our current taxation/regulation climate.


My gun. Oh, sh*t........ :lol:

Errr... I think everyone in the country benefits from the military industry, since the military help to keep out forgein threats out from the country. Of course, we could make it volontary to pay money to defence, but then you would have to wear a sign which says: "Don't defend me, I don't pay any tax to the military" lol :D

19th centuary America is a bit different from the society now. During that age most people lived in close knit villages and now we live in gigantic citys where you don't know everyone. Also, it's impossible to keep any data or statistics over the welfare being distributed if you have such a system, which makes it impossible to prove that this system works... And yes of course the best way to reduce poverty is to give them jobs, but that doesn't mean we should remove welfare, since there's always people that litterally can't work for one reason or another.

Pfft! A gun! That's nothing! :wink: I'm going to do the National guards training in my country and if I decied to join then I'll be allowed to have one of these babys at home: http://securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1400/1444.htm :D
Voluntary military payment? Count me in. It's quite feasable.

http://libertariannation.org/a/f22l3.html

My point was just that taxes redistributing from rich to poor is at best only just true and maybe not at all true.

19th century America had many big cities. It wasn't all "little house on the prarie". Why would you want to prove it works with statistics? If people aren't starving on the streets then what's the problem? The proportion of those who literally cannot work is small and could easily be handled by charity.

Voluntary military payment? Count me in. It's quite feasable.

http://libertariannation.org/a/f22l3.html

My point was just that taxes redistributing from rich to poor is at best only just true and maybe not at all true.

19th century America had many big cities. It wasn't all "little house on the prarie". Why would you want to prove it works with statistics? If people aren't starving on the streets then what's the problem? The proportion of those who literally cannot work is small and could easily be handled by charity.

I take it that you like the ideas of Robert Nozick.

Libertarianism - interesting ideal, could work in small societies, mostly very fine principles but with a couple of points that really stick in people's craw. In reality we're nowhere near ready for it. Sound like any other type of ideology? I'll give you the first few letters: C, O, M, M, U...

Gun control in the States - sounds to me like Dean had the right idea. leave it to the states or cities themselves to decide. The outback and huntin' an' a-fishin' states (eg Texas, Vermont) may do well out of liberal gun policy (by liberal I mean relaxed). New York should perhaps adopt the British approach. Then again, I don't know how workable this is as I'm not at all clear on the devolution of powere in the US. Apologies for any woeful misunderstanding I've displayed.

Fascism - note the 'nationalism' part of the quote. Clappi, Tactical Grace and others have not invoked nationalism or even patriotism at any point. Fascism is irrelevant here.

The difference between libertarianism and communism is that for any part of the libertarian programme I can point to working examples.

This still leaves the individual subject to the whim of the collective whether nationwide or city by city.

They worship the nation-state as the fountain of authority to subject society to their will. I.e. they put the nation above the individual. Nationalism, one might say. Perhaps "statism" is more accurate than nationalism and "authoritarian" is more accurate than fascism.

And before you start complaining that the police can't really be trusted either, consider this: how many crimes are commited by the police and how many crimes are commited by civilians?
In the 20th century over 160 million people were killed by their own govt. If you include victims of statist wars the figure is over 200 million. If you think the govt can be trusted with guns take a look at Iraq.

Voluntary military payment? Count me in. It's quite feasable.

http://libertariannation.org/a/f22l3.html

My point was just that taxes redistributing from rich to poor is at best only just true and maybe not at all true.

19th century America had many big cities. It wasn't all "little house on the prarie". Why would you want to prove it works with statistics? If people aren't starving on the streets then what's the problem? The proportion of those who literally cannot work is small and could easily be handled by charity.

I take it that you like the ideas of Robert Nozick.
Mostly, yes. But he was a statist. I prefer Murray Rothbard or David Friedman.

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

Voluntary military payment? Count me in. It's quite feasable.

http://libertariannation.org/a/f22l3.html

My point was just that taxes redistributing from rich to poor is at best only just true and maybe not at all true.

19th century America had many big cities. It wasn't all "little house on the prarie". Why would you want to prove it works with statistics? If people aren't starving on the streets then what's the problem? The proportion of those who literally cannot work is small and could easily be handled by charity.

I take it that you like the ideas of Robert Nozick.
Mostly, yes. But he was a statist. I prefer Murray Rothbard or David Friedman.

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

I read him a long time ago (really before I was old enough to completely understand his politics fully), but I cannot remember how he is statist (although you sound like you know what you are talking about).

I'll take a look at those other ones. Rothbard I have never heard of, D Friedman I have.

The difference between libertarianism and communism is that for any part of the libertarian programme I can point to working examples.

I'd be interested to see some of these examples. If anyone can offer working examples for communism I'd be grateful for them as well. However... this is perhaps getting off the subject.

They worship the nation-state as the fountain of authority to subject society to their will. I.e. they put the nation above the individual. Nationalism, one might say. Perhaps "statism" is more accurate than nationalism and "authoritarian" is more accurate than fascism.

I think the colourful language isn't very helpful - I doubt there's any worship going on here. I do however have a lot of sympathy for your views and I suspect that didn't previously come across.

Something that interests me is that you refer to your passion for human rights (something I'm also passionate about) but many 'libertarians' scorn those who would not wish to hold a gun to defend themselves, as if it's not so much of a right but an obligation. This seems a little illiberal to me.

Voluntary military payment? Count me in. It's quite feasable.

http://libertariannation.org/a/f22l3.html

My point was just that taxes redistributing from rich to poor is at best only just true and maybe not at all true.

19th century America had many big cities. It wasn't all "little house on the prarie". Why would you want to prove it works with statistics? If people aren't starving on the streets then what's the problem? The proportion of those who literally cannot work is small and could easily be handled by charity.

I take it that you like the ideas of Robert Nozick.
Mostly, yes. But he was a statist. I prefer Murray Rothbard or David Friedman.

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

I read him a long time ago (really before I was old enough to completely understand his politics fully), but I cannot remember how he is statist (although you sound like you know what you are talking about).

I'll take a look at those other ones. Rothbard I have never heard of, D Friedman I have.
Nozick tried to justify the "nightwatchman" state in "Anarchy, State and Utopia". He failed, but it's still a good read.

I don't mean to be patronising but are you sure it's not Milton Friedman you've heard of (Milton is David's father and is a noble prize winner)

I believe the state should obey the same rules of morality as everyone else. Some consequences of this are things like "tax is robbery" and "conscription is slavery" since if anyone but the state did these that's how they'd be viewed. Clearly a private road owner would have speed limits (it's part of his property rights to tell you to drive carefully on his road) so the state may do this (assuming you view the state as the owner of the roads, it did after all pay for them by robbery). Conversely, if anyone but the state tried to ban handguns it would be seen as an invasion of rights and thus the state shouldn't do it.

What I mean by "subjecting peaceful individuals to the arbitrary whim of the state" is the state using aggressive violence (threats of jail and fines against peaceful individuals) to enforce it's will.

OK, this is an interesting view. I can't really refute the morality, except with an appeal to brute reality: i.e. the difference between the ideal and the actual. I am no great fan of states, but here and now we have to deal with them. I certainly oppose the state interfering in the personal activities of consenting adults, although where their activities impinge on the safety and liberty of others, then I feel a line has to be drawn. I am in favour of speed limits. I see no reason why my life should be endangered just because some boy racer has too much testosterone in his bloodstream. Likewise, I don't see why my neighbourhood should be made more dangerous just because some people want -- for no good reason that I can see -- to own a handgun. You might be responsible; but what about the next guy, and the one next to him? Fewer guns = fewer petty criminals and knuckle-dragging yahoos with guns = safer society.

Given that the state exists, and is unlikely to be withering away any time soon, it will inevitably enforce its will. In fact, with regards to people speeding, I think it doesn't come down nearly hard enough; for some reason endangering the lives of dozens of other people by playing silly buggers with a half a ton of steel isn't regarded as a terribly serious offence. However, that's drifting a bit off-topic. :) Given that the state exists, though, the best we can hope for in the forseeable future is for one which does not have "arbitrary whims". Very few of our laws, relatively speaking, could be classed as "arbitrary whims"; most of them represent something approaching a consensus view of society at large, passed -- and enforced -- with the permission of society at large. Which is not to say that I wouldn't be happy to see the back of some of them.

I'm afraid that, as primates, threats of, and use of, force, are pretty much our standard and immediate fall-back position when polite requests fail. Until we learn to, in the most literal sense, change our minds, this will always be with us. So will gangs. As gangs get bigger, they will start to gain the trappings of statehood until "By Arts is formed that great Mechanical Man called a State, foremost of the Beasts of the Earth for Pride." (http://www.bijoubooks.com/lanark1982/images/lanark-title.jpg) Sad but true.

Nozick tried to justify the "nightwatchman" state in "Anarchy, State and Utopia". He failed, but it's still a good read.

I don't mean to be patronising but are you sure it's not Milton Friedman you've heard of (Milton is David's father and is a noble prize winner)

I have "Anarchy, State and Utopia," I really should read it but I currently have more important obligations.

I have heard of both Milton and David (hence the 'D' before the surname when I refered to him), your not the first to think that have not heard of the son so no worries.

The difference between libertarianism and communism is that for any part of the libertarian programme I can point to working examples.

I'd be interested to see some of these examples. If anyone can offer working examples for communism I'd be grateful for them as well. However... this is perhaps getting off the subject.

Try the Rothbard link above. Also, see

http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm

for law without the state.

They worship the nation-state as the fountain of authority to subject society to their will. I.e. they put the nation above the individual. Nationalism, one might say. Perhaps "statism" is more accurate than nationalism and "authoritarian" is more accurate than fascism.
I think the colourful language isn't very helpful - I doubt there's any worship going on here. I do however have a lot of sympathy for your views and I suspect that didn't previously come across.

Something that interests me is that you refer to your passion for human rights (something I'm also passionate about) but many 'libertarians' scorn those who would not wish to hold a gun to defend themselves, as if it's not so much of a right but an obligation. This seems a little illiberal to me.

Yeah, sorry. It does seem that way sometimes though.

I'm not one of those. I don't even want to own a gun myself. But if I did I like to think I'd be able to.

I believe the state should obey the same rules of morality as everyone else. Some consequences of this are things like "tax is robbery" and "conscription is slavery" since if anyone but the state did these that's how they'd be viewed. Clearly a private road owner would have speed limits (it's part of his property rights to tell you to drive carefully on his road) so the state may do this (assuming you view the state as the owner of the roads, it did after all pay for them by robbery). Conversely, if anyone but the state tried to ban handguns it would be seen as an invasion of rights and thus the state shouldn't do it.

What I mean by "subjecting peaceful individuals to the arbitrary whim of the state" is the state using aggressive violence (threats of jail and fines against peaceful individuals) to enforce it's will.

OK, this is an interesting view. I can't really refute the morality, except with an appeal to brute reality: i.e. the difference between the ideal and the actual. I am no great fan of states, but here and now we have to deal with them. I certainly oppose the state interfering in the personal activities of consenting adults, although where their activities impinge on the safety and liberty of others, then I feel a line has to be drawn. I am in favour of speed limits. I see no reason why my life should be endangered just because some boy racer has too much testosterone in his bloodstream. Likewise, I don't see why my neighbourhood should be made more dangerous just because some people want -- for no good reason that I can see -- to own a handgun. You might be responsible; but what about the next guy, and the one next to him? Fewer guns = fewer petty criminals and knuckle-dragging yahoos with guns = safer society.

Given that the state exists, and is unlikely to be withering away any time soon, it will inevitably enforce its will. In fact, with regards to people speeding, I think it doesn't come down nearly hard enough; for some reason endangering the lives of dozens of other people by playing silly buggers with a half a ton of steel isn't regarded as a terribly serious offence. However, that's drifting a bit off-topic. :) Given that the state exists, though, the best we can hope for in the forseeable future is for one which does not have "arbitrary whims". Very few of our laws, relatively speaking, could be classed as "arbitrary whims"; most of them represent something approaching a consensus view of society at large, passed -- and enforced -- with the permission of society at large. Which is not to say that I wouldn't be happy to see the back of some of them.

I'm afraid that, as primates, threats of, and use of, force, are pretty much our standard and immediate fall-back position when polite requests fail. Until we learn to, in the most literal sense, change our minds, this will always be with us. So will gangs. As gangs get bigger, they will start to gain the trappings of statehood until "By Arts is formed that great Mechanical Man called a State, foremost of the Beasts of the Earth for Pride." (http://www.bijoubooks.com/lanark1982/images/lanark-title.jpg) Sad but true.
I am not an idealist. I back up all my claims with solid economic theory and historical examples. On the other hand your claim that gun prohibition makes a society safer cannot be backed up. In fact, the evidence there is tends to show the opposite so if this was truly your concern you'd want to legalise guns (or even make them compulsory!)

Very few laws are arbitrary whims? Drug prohibition, anti-prostitution/gambling laws, anti-flag burning, the vast majority of business regulation, banning home schooling......Very few of our laws are anything but arbitrary whims. Most laws are not formed by consensus but are purchased by powerful pressure groups in exchange for their members votes or campaign funds.

I'm not denying the need for law enforcement. I'm denying the need for state law enforcement. Check out the praxeology link I posted earlier for historical examples and the theoretical underpinnings.

I believe the state should obey the same rules of morality as everyone else. Some consequences of this are things like "tax is robbery" and "conscription is slavery" since if anyone but the state did these that's how they'd be viewed. Clearly a private road owner would have speed limits (it's part of his property rights to tell you to drive carefully on his road) so the state may do this (assuming you view the state as the owner of the roads, it did after all pay for them by robbery). Conversely, if anyone but the state tried to ban handguns it would be seen as an invasion of rights and thus the state shouldn't do it.

What I mean by "subjecting peaceful individuals to the arbitrary whim of the state" is the state using aggressive violence (threats of jail and fines against peaceful individuals) to enforce it's will.

OK, this is an interesting view. I can't really refute the morality, except with an appeal to brute reality: i.e. the difference between the ideal and the actual. I am no great fan of states, but here and now we have to deal with them. I certainly oppose the state interfering in the personal activities of consenting adults, although where their activities impinge on the safety and liberty of others, then I feel a line has to be drawn. I am in favour of speed limits. I see no reason why my life should be endangered just because some boy racer has too much testosterone in his bloodstream. Likewise, I don't see why my neighbourhood should be made more dangerous just because some people want -- for no good reason that I can see -- to own a handgun. You might be responsible; but what about the next guy, and the one next to him? Fewer guns = fewer petty criminals and knuckle-dragging yahoos with guns = safer society.

Given that the state exists, and is unlikely to be withering away any time soon, it will inevitably enforce its will. In fact, with regards to people speeding, I think it doesn't come down nearly hard enough; for some reason endangering the lives of dozens of other people by playing silly buggers with a half a ton of steel isn't regarded as a terribly serious offence. However, that's drifting a bit off-topic. :) Given that the state exists, though, the best we can hope for in the forseeable future is for one which does not have "arbitrary whims". Very few of our laws, relatively speaking, could be classed as "arbitrary whims"; most of them represent something approaching a consensus view of society at large, passed -- and enforced -- with the permission of society at large. Which is not to say that I wouldn't be happy to see the back of some of them.

I'm afraid that, as primates, threats of, and use of, force, are pretty much our standard and immediate fall-back position when polite requests fail. Until we learn to, in the most literal sense, change our minds, this will always be with us. So will gangs. As gangs get bigger, they will start to gain the trappings of statehood until "By Arts is formed that great Mechanical Man called a State, foremost of the Beasts of the Earth for Pride." (http://www.bijoubooks.com/lanark1982/images/lanark-title.jpg) Sad but true.
I am not an idealist. I back up all my claims with solid economic theory and historical examples. On the other hand your claim that gun prohibition makes a society safer cannot be backed up. In fact, the evidence there is tends to show the opposite so if this was truly your concern you'd want to legalise guns (or even make them compulsory!)

Very few laws are arbitrary whims? Drug prohibition, anti-prostitution/gambling laws, anti-flag burning, the vast majority of business regulation, banning home schooling......Very few of our laws are anything but arbitrary whims. Most laws are not formed by consensus but are purchased by powerful pressure groups in exchange for their members votes or campaign funds.

I'm not denying the need for law enforcement. I'm denying the need for state law enforcement. Check out the praxeology link I posted earlier for historical examples and the theoretical underpinnings.

I am not an idealist. I back up all my claims with solid economic theory and historical examples. On the other hand your claim that gun prohibition makes a society safer cannot be backed up. In fact, the evidence there is tends to show the opposite so if this was truly your concern you'd want to legalise guns (or even make them compulsory!)

Wouldn't making guns compulsory be subjecting citizens to an arbitrary whim? What would happen to me if I refused to carry one? Who would make it compulsory? If it would be my hard luck if I couldn't defend myself in a casual, day-to-day shootout, fair enough -- but then why the compulsion?

Also, I question your evidence that gun posession makes society safer; if that is so, why is the US murder rate four times higher than the UK's? I've been in several situations where, in retrospect, I am deeply grateful that nobody had guns. An example: outside the Woodside pub on Maryhill road in 1992, after Partick Thistle had beaten Rangers 3-0 (hee hee hee). Ahem. The pub is partially surrounded by irate, greetin'-faced Huns*. I and a friend attempt to leave the pub. My friend is hit on the head by a half-brick. Result: small cut. Replace "half-brick" with "bullet" and repeat scenario. Even if he and I had emerged wielding our own guns like Butch and Sundance, what do you think the result would have been?

Very few laws are arbitrary whims? Drug prohibition, anti-prostitution/gambling laws, anti-flag burning, the vast majority of business regulation, banning home schooling......Very few of our laws are anything but arbitrary whims. Most laws are not formed by consensus but are purchased by powerful pressure groups in exchange for their members votes or campaign funds.

Relatively speaking, yes. My personal view is that anything I want to do -- or you want to do -- which doesn't impact on anyone else should be legal. I would legalise drugs, prostitution and gambling -- although I also feel that, for a consenting adult to be a true consenting adult, they have to be informed and educated. In a society where, for example, many teenage girls seem to believe that you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex, I think we're quite a way off achieving that ideal. Most laws -- or, rather, I should say, the core laws of our society (I haven't done a statistical analysis of this, and nor am I likely to) -- deal with preventing violence and protecting private property. Mind you, by another ideal, property is theft... things tend to be messier in real life.

Incidentally, in the UK we have fairly relaxed gaming laws, no proscriptions on flag-burning (apart from health-and-safety: no doubt many synthetic flags give off noxious fumes), and quite a few people are educated at home -- although even here I feel that what one consenting adult may regard as a fit and proper education for their child might actually be bizarre, wrong, and damaging to that child's future life. Who guards the guards? Who teaches the teachers?

I'm not denying the need for law enforcement. I'm denying the need for state law enforcement. Check out the praxeology link I posted earlier for historical examples and the theoretical underpinnings.

Society is big, dirty and complex. Freedoms that have to be afforded are not freedoms. We may not need state enforcement, but -- until we physically alter the way our primate minds work -- we're always going to have state enforcement. But I'll check out your links.


*disconsolate Rangers supporters

Try the Rothbard link above. Also, see

http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm

for law without the state.

OK, haven't checked Rothbard yet but browsed the Molinari link. It's all very interesting theory (well, the bits I checked - I could spend days on that site!) but as far as I could see it offers very little in the way of concrete evidence. That's not to say I'm denying that there is evidence, mind.

I regard myself as a social near-libertarian (gun issues and maybe a couple of others aside) but my main problem with the ideology has always been the faith placed in the market. It's too idealistic and trusting in human nature (like communism) for my liking.

As an end goal, with humanity experiencing a maturing of values and so on, anarcho-communism or anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-libertarian-whatever (bloody labels) really appeals to me. However, I don't think we're ready for it. This doesn't mean I'm through with debating or learning by any means. I hope you appreciate that I'm trying to understand and appreciate your views and I hope also that you willing to take on board my scepticism with no ill feeling.

Back on the issue, I guess a big part of it comes down to the fact that I simply don't like guns. And, sadly, we don't naturally act in a rational way all of the time so we ought to make at least some allowance for emotional instincts in these debates etc.

OK, I think I'm slipping into gibberish again. I blame the lunchtime boozing...

The difference between libertarianism and communism is that for any part of the libertarian programme I can point to working examples.

I'd be interested to see some of these examples. If anyone can offer working examples for communism I'd be grateful for them as well. However... this is perhaps getting off the subject.

Isn't cuba communist?

The difference between libertarianism and communism is that for any part of the libertarian programme I can point to working examples.

I'd be interested to see some of these examples. If anyone can offer working examples for communism I'd be grateful for them as well. However... this is perhaps getting off the subject.

Isn't cuba communist?

*recoils fearfully from opened can of worms*

Communist? Debatably. Is it working? Debatably. Considering the completely unwarranted sanctions it has suffered, it's done very well, I suppose. Bloody good health service, not exactly that great on human rights though.

Try the Rothbard link above. Also, see

http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm

for law without the state.
OK, haven't checked Rothbard yet but browsed the Molinari link. It's all very interesting theory (well, the bits I checked - I could spend days on that site!) but as far as I could see it offers very little in the way of concrete evidence. That's not to say I'm denying that there is evidence, mind.

Examples:

England: http://libertariannation.org/a/f21l1.html

"Wild" west (not as wild as advertised): http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Ireland: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Iceland: http://libertariannation.org/a/f13l1.html
Others I don't have links for include many African tribes and medieval "law merchants" who dealt with international trade law.

I regard myself as a social near-libertarian (gun issues and maybe a couple of others aside) but my main problem with the ideology has always been the faith placed in the market. It's too idealistic and trusting in human nature (like communism) for my liking.

As an end goal, with humanity experiencing a maturing of values and so on, anarcho-communism or anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-libertarian-whatever (bloody labels) really appeals to me. However, I don't think we're ready for it. This doesn't mean I'm through with debating or learning by any means. I hope you appreciate that I'm trying to understand and appreciate your views and I hope also that you willing to take on board my scepticism with no ill feeling.

No trust in human nature is required. Stateless is better than state given any general level of evil. The reason is that a nation of devils cannot elect an angel. If people are evil why would you want one to have power over you? In fact, elected people tend to be less honourable than the average citizen. And remember - responsibility isn't required for freedom, it is freedom that is required for responsibility.
Back on the issue, I guess a big part of it comes down to the fact that I simply don't like guns. And, sadly, we don't naturally act in a rational way all of the time so we ought to make at least some allowance for emotional instincts in these debates etc.

Yes, people are sometimes violent. That's why you need to be able to protect yourself.
OK, I think I'm slipping into gibberish again. I blame the lunchtime boozing...

Don't apologise, you're living the dream. :D

A great big stack of interesting stuff

Damn you, this'll teach me to engage in political debate...

Don't apologise, you're living the dream. :D

Not if my liver gets its way. Still, the last few days have proved to me that it's possible to enjoy yourself in Walworth (grotty area near the Elephant & Castle). If that's not proof that anything is possible, I don't know what is.

Wouldn't making guns compulsory be subjecting citizens to an arbitrary whim? What would happen to me if I refused to carry one? Who would make it compulsory? If it would be my hard luck if I couldn't defend myself in a casual, day-to-day shootout, fair enough -- but then why the compulsion?

Also, I question your evidence that gun posession makes society safer; if that is so, why is the US murder rate four times higher than the UK's? I've been in several situations where, in retrospect, I am deeply grateful that nobody had guns. An example: outside the Woodside pub on Maryhill road in 1992, after Partick Thistle had beaten Rangers 3-0 (hee hee hee). Ahem. The pub is partially surrounded by irate, greetin'-faced Huns*. I and a friend attempt to leave the pub. My friend is hit on the head by a half-brick. Result: small cut. Replace "half-brick" with "bullet" and repeat scenario. Even if he and I had emerged wielding our own guns like Butch and Sundance, what do you think the result would have been?

I wasn't suggesting making gun ownership compulsory, just saying that since you seem concerned about enforcing whatever minimises crime this, by your logic, is what should be done.

US is more violent generally. The kill each other more with knives than we do too. A more scientific comparison would be between US states with and without gun control. The evidence from such studies seems to be that there is NO link between gun control and crime.

Is the woodside the one with the barells in it? Would they have risked attacking you if they thought you might have had a gun? After all, you would kill at least a few of them. Would they be willing to kill instead of just hit you? Assault is one thing but few people want to be murderers.


Libertovania wrote:
Very few laws are arbitrary whims? Drug prohibition, anti-prostitution/gambling laws, anti-flag burning, the vast majority of business regulation, banning home schooling......Very few of our laws are anything but arbitrary whims. Most laws are not formed by consensus but are purchased by powerful pressure groups in exchange for their members votes or campaign funds.


Relatively speaking, yes. My personal view is that anything I want to do -- or you want to do -- which doesn't impact on anyone else should be legal. I would legalise drugs, prostitution and gambling -- although I also feel that, for a consenting adult to be a true consenting adult, they have to be informed and educated. In a society where, for example, many teenage girls seem to believe that you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex, I think we're quite a way off achieving that ideal. Most laws -- or, rather, I should say, the core laws of our society (I haven't done a statistical analysis of this, and nor am I likely to) -- deal with preventing violence and protecting private property. Mind you, by another ideal, property is theft... things tend to be messier in real life.

The vast vast majority of "crimes" are victimless and to do with regulating behaviour. If you're saying that banning teenagers having sex doesn't effect whether or not they do I agree. So why ban it? It just causes extra upset. The point to note is that govt is no better at enforcing the law than it is at running schools or hospitals. The property is theft "ideal" is immoral and an abject failure which leads to mass starvation and death.

Incidentally, in the UK we have fairly relaxed gaming laws, no proscriptions on flag-burning (apart from health-and-safety: no doubt many synthetic flags give off noxious fumes), and quite a few people are educated at home -- although even here I feel that what one consenting adult may regard as a fit and proper education for their child might actually be bizarre, wrong, and damaging to that child's future life. Who guards the guards? Who teaches the teachers?

I think that public education is far more dangerous and damaging. If parents were so determined to mess up their kid's life you probably couldn't stop them anyway.

Society is big, dirty and complex. Freedoms that have to be afforded are not freedoms. We may not need state enforcement, but -- until we physically alter the way our primate minds work -- we're always going to have state enforcement. But I'll check out your links.

Society is complex. And we all know how good the govt is at running complex things. Private law enforcement tends to be more peaceful, fairer, humane (it mainly consists of fines to compensate the victim rather than prison sentences) and has inbuilt incentives not to become a tyranny. The argument in favour of private law is not only that it isn't funded coercively, it would also do a better job. There's less to fear, not more.

Wouldn't making guns compulsory be subjecting citizens to an arbitrary whim? What would happen to me if I refused to carry one? Who would make it compulsory? If it would be my hard luck if I couldn't defend myself in a casual, day-to-day shootout, fair enough -- but then why the compulsion?

Also, I question your evidence that gun posession makes society safer; if that is so, why is the US murder rate four times higher than the UK's? I've been in several situations where, in retrospect, I am deeply grateful that nobody had guns. An example: outside the Woodside pub on Maryhill road in 1992, after Partick Thistle had beaten Rangers 3-0 (hee hee hee). Ahem. The pub is partially surrounded by irate, greetin'-faced Huns*. I and a friend attempt to leave the pub. My friend is hit on the head by a half-brick. Result: small cut. Replace "half-brick" with "bullet" and repeat scenario. Even if he and I had emerged wielding our own guns like Butch and Sundance, what do you think the result would have been?

I wasn't suggesting making gun ownership compulsory, just saying that since you seem concerned about enforcing whatever minimises crime this, by your logic, is what should be done.

US is more violent generally. The kill each other more with knives than we do too. A more scientific comparison would be between US states with and without gun control. The evidence from such studies seems to be that there is NO link between gun control and crime.

Is the woodside the one with the barells in it? Would they have risked attacking you if they thought you might have had a gun? After all, you would kill at least a few of them. Would they be willing to kill instead of just hit you? Assault is one thing but few people want to be murderers.


Libertovania wrote:
Very few laws are arbitrary whims? Drug prohibition, anti-prostitution/gambling laws, anti-flag burning, the vast majority of business regulation, banning home schooling......Very few of our laws are anything but arbitrary whims. Most laws are not formed by consensus but are purchased by powerful pressure groups in exchange for their members votes or campaign funds.


Relatively speaking, yes. My personal view is that anything I want to do -- or you want to do -- which doesn't impact on anyone else should be legal. I would legalise drugs, prostitution and gambling -- although I also feel that, for a consenting adult to be a true consenting adult, they have to be informed and educated. In a society where, for example, many teenage girls seem to believe that you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex, I think we're quite a way off achieving that ideal. Most laws -- or, rather, I should say, the core laws of our society (I haven't done a statistical analysis of this, and nor am I likely to) -- deal with preventing violence and protecting private property. Mind you, by another ideal, property is theft... things tend to be messier in real life.

The vast vast majority of "crimes" are victimless and to do with regulating behaviour. If you're saying that banning teenagers having sex doesn't effect whether or not they do I agree. So why ban it? It just causes extra upset. The point to note is that govt is no better at enforcing the law than it is at running schools or hospitals. The property is theft "ideal" is immoral and an abject failure which leads to mass starvation and death.

Incidentally, in the UK we have fairly relaxed gaming laws, no proscriptions on flag-burning (apart from health-and-safety: no doubt many synthetic flags give off noxious fumes), and quite a few people are educated at home -- although even here I feel that what one consenting adult may regard as a fit and proper education for their child might actually be bizarre, wrong, and damaging to that child's future life. Who guards the guards? Who teaches the teachers?

I think that public education is far more dangerous and damaging. If parents were so determined to mess up their kid's life you probably couldn't stop them anyway.

Society is big, dirty and complex. Freedoms that have to be afforded are not freedoms. We may not need state enforcement, but -- until we physically alter the way our primate minds work -- we're always going to have state enforcement. But I'll check out your links.

Society is complex. And we all know how good the govt is at running complex things. Private law enforcement tends to be more peaceful, fairer, humane (it mainly consists of fines to compensate the victim rather than prison sentences) and has inbuilt incentives not to become a tyranny. The argument in favour of private law is not only that it isn't funded coercively, it would also do a better job. There's less to fear, not more.

Well clamping down on air-rifles and bb guns could be seen as being a bit extreme. Also clamping down on known responsible users could be to.

It's all in the name of prevention and protection. I have no problem with it.

Well clamping down on air-rifles and bb guns could be seen as being a bit extreme. Also clamping down on known responsible users could be to.

It's all in the name of prevention and protection. I have no problem with it.

How is preventive? Preventive of what?

If you can pull some statistics on the murders/killings with air rifles and bb guns fine. But I doubt there are few is any at all.

Same with responsible gun owners who go through all the legal means of obtaining one.

How far will you allow the government to go in the name of "prevention and protection?" By that logic it would be possible for the government to bring in all sorts of Draconian rules and laws in the name of "provention and protection." I don't know if you know, but for generations Catholics were legally discriminated against in the name of "prevention and protection."

Here in Sweden it is illegal to carry any kind of weapon (that includes knives) on public spaces, in your home and on the shooting range you may do as you wish, are knives illegal in UK too?

Here in Sweden it is illegal to carry any kind of weapon (that includes knives) on public spaces, in your home and on the shooting range you may do as you wish, are knives illegal in UK too?

Carrying an offensive weapon is.... :?

Here in Sweden it is illegal to carry any kind of weapon (that includes knives) on public spaces, in your home and on the shooting range you may do as you wish, are knives illegal in UK too?

Carrying an offensive weapon is.... :?

Knives over a certain length (3 inches iirc) are banned from carrying in the street. Knives like switch-blades, butterfly-knives etc. are categorised as concealed weapons are banned completley. Many cities have also instituted a policy of banning drinking in public spaces to curb violence especially bottling.

I wasn't suggesting making gun ownership compulsory, just saying that since you seem concerned about enforcing whatever minimises crime this, by your logic, is what should be done.

US is more violent generally. The kill each other more with knives than we do too. A more scientific comparison would be between US states with and without gun control. The evidence from such studies seems to be that there is NO link between gun control and crime.

If there is no link between gun control and crime, why do you think that widespread gun ownership would minimise crime?

OK, countries like Canada and Switzerland seem to be able to combine widespread gun ownership without impacting on their crime statistics; America, on the other hand, can't. How do you know the UK would be like Canada, and not like America? How do you know in advance that the UK would be able to cope with a sudden influx of guns, into a society largely unused to them? What would be the benefit, apart from letting a small number of mostly single men feel good about themselves? Frankly, it's not worth the risk, IMO.

Is the woodside the one with the barells in it? Would they have risked attacking you if they thought you might have had a gun? After all, you would kill at least a few of them. Would they be willing to kill instead of just hit you? Assault is one thing but few people want to be murderers.

The Woodside is the one with all the Jags fans in it. As to the mentality and intentions of the Rangers fans in question, I wouldn't like to put the issue to the test. Given that people get stabbed for being in the wrong place with the wrong shirt or scarf, and given that the person who chucked the brick was probably full of several pints of bottled bravado, I wouldn't be surprised. If I and my friend had guns, and had been willing to use or threaten to use them (something which I, personally, would find morally repugnant), and were facing a crowd of aggressive drunks who also had guns, then that sounds to me like a recipe for a bloodbath. Half bricks, knives and bottles are bad enough, thanks; adding thousands of guns to the equation does not sound like a smart move to me.

The vast vast majority of "crimes" are victimless and to do with regulating behaviour. If you're saying that banning teenagers having sex doesn't effect whether or not they do I agree. So why ban it? It just causes extra upset. The point to note is that govt is no better at enforcing the law than it is at running schools or hospitals. The property is theft "ideal" is immoral and an abject failure which leads to mass starvation and death.

Actually, I was talking about consent, and most especially informed consent. Consent without proper access to the relevant background information is meaningless. It's merely an open invitation to exploitation.

I think that public education is far more dangerous and damaging. If parents were so determined to mess up their kid's life you probably couldn't stop them anyway.

Based on what evidence? If parents were allowed to keep their children at home and, say, teach them that pi=3 because that's what it says in the Bible, or filling their heads with creationist nonsense, or teaching them that they are members of a superior race, all without allowing them the chance to socialise with other children and encounter other ideas, then these children will grow up socially and mentally crippled. It's the educational equivalent of keeping them locked in the cellar. Complete personal liberty would be great if we didn't have to give it to the bampots of the world as well.

Society is complex. And we all know how good the govt is at running complex things. Private law enforcement tends to be more peaceful, fairer, humane (it mainly consists of fines to compensate the victim rather than prison sentences) and has inbuilt incentives not to become a tyranny. The argument in favour of private law is not only that it isn't funded coercively, it would also do a better job. There's less to fear, not more.

I'm not saying that the state is better; I'm saying that the state is inevitable. When push comes to shove -- as it does all too often to our monkey minds -- the state has more push and more shove. This may not always be the case, but here and now it's the only game in town.

Incidentally, though, if you've not read them already you might enjoy some of Ken MacLeod's SF: particularly The Star Fraction and The Stone Canal. Lots of libertarian ideas, lots of political argument, and I'm still not sure which (if any) represent MacLeod's own views. Or my own, come to that.

And before you start complaining that the police can't really be trusted either, consider this: how many crimes are commited by the police and how many crimes are commited by civilians?
In the 20th century over 160 million people were killed by their own govt. If you include victims of statist wars the figure is over 200 million. If you think the govt can be trusted with guns take a look at Iraq.

The reason why these things happen is because poverty corrupts goverments. If you look at it all dictatorships have been poor when they started.

Nazi Germany - Was crushed by England, USA and France during WWI.

Soviet Russia - Was a poor farmer country that just had started the industralization.

Most of the Arabic countries - Well they're simply poor

Africa and other non-industrulized countries - See above

And I'm pretty sure Italy was pretty poor when Muossulíni got started.

Poverty breeds ignorance and stupidty because of lack of education. and stupid people are easier to control (that's why dictators tend to remove educated people when they come to power) Education makes people question things and makes them think (one of the reason why we should have public education)

And I was talking about the police force of western "civilized" nations. You know, people become police officers for a reason you know, to protect the law and protect the people. Why would they otherwise take such a dangerous and demanding job?

Any way, if the goverment are normal people and just as easilly corrupted as everyone else? Wouldn't that mean if there was a liberal society, then it would be like living with thousands and thousands of "goverments" and they would all push in different directions depending on which ideology they would have? Since I hardly think that people would stay for themselves, they would gather up in small societies and there they would form small councils, vote for a mayor, be taken over by a dictator (since the quality of the education will vary allot this is not very impossible) Then they will look around, see other societies and possibly see some other societies that has the same ideology and they will think something like this: "Hey, neat! You guys think the same way as us! Maybe we should help each other?" and that they will do. So there you are. Thousand upon thousands small states and nations with thousands and thousands of small "armies" consisting of armed civilians. A more democratic world? I doubt it, since we wouldn't keep an eye on other countries ("since it's not our buissness anyway") dictatorships could easily arise. More humane? not really since it would be a dog eat dog world and the law of the jungle would rule.


Take one of your examples of a liberal states: The 19th centuary United states. They changed from being a liberal state to becoming a "facist" state. And they discriminated minoreties like black people (this happened even after the American civil war when slavary was abolished) and commited one of the larger genocides of all time (they slaughtered the Native Americans) So do you support ideology that supports slavary and genocide?

As for Iceland, sure they might have a liberalist working system but I can't confirm that since I don't know much about Iceland. Just like communism, liberalism can work on smaller scales or for a short time in areas/countries with like minded individuals. The problem is that some people simply are born leaders and some are born followers and some are born individualists e.t.c. The leader wants/have a talent to “control” people, the followers follows the leaders (not necissarilly mindlessly), the individualists don't care just as long as they can do whatever they want e.t.c. That's the big problem with liberalism: it simply doesn't fit with human nature.

Leaders should stand up high, stand in the light and be visable by everyone so that they can be examined and be controlled by the people. (so that they can't take control of everything)

BTW you said that you don't want a police force controlled by the goverment? You think that the civilians with guns should take care of it themselves? You know what that's called? Mob rule. Imagine a small liberal society. Done? Now imagine that the people in that society mostly consists of group A while group B is in minority. Lets say that group B smokes pot and group A doesn't like that. So they decide to simply go and kill everyone in group B. There's a small fire fight between the groups and group A wins since they have more people and more guns. Now who is going to stop them from doing this? Other societies can't inverstergate since group A can deny access to their society to members of other societies. And other societies can't go and kill or arrest group A without evidence because that would make them look bad to others and make them less trustworthy (and who would judge group A BTW? Who decides who is worthy of being the judge? The majority?)

And before you start complaining that the police can't really be trusted either, consider this: how many crimes are commited by the police and how many crimes are commited by civilians?
In the 20th century over 160 million people were killed by their own govt. If you include victims of statist wars the figure is over 200 million. If you think the govt can be trusted with guns take a look at Iraq.

The reason why these things happen is because poverty corrupts goverments. If you look at it all dictatorships have been poor when they started.

Nazi Germany - Was crushed by England, USA and France during WWI.

Soviet Russia - Was a poor farmer country that just had started the industralization.

Most of the Arabic countries - Well they're simply poor

Africa and other non-industrulized countries - See above

And I'm pretty sure Italy was pretty poor when Muossulíni got started.

Poverty breeds ignorance and stupidty because of lack of education. and stupid people are easier to control (that's why dictators tend to remove educated people when they come to power) Education makes people question things and makes them think (one of the reason why we should have public education)

And I was talking about the police force of western "civilized" nations. You know, people become police officers for a reason you know, to protect the law and protect the people. Why would they otherwise take such a dangerous and demanding job?

Any way, if the goverment are normal people and just as easilly corrupted as everyone else? Wouldn't that mean if there was a liberal society, then it would be like living with thousands and thousands of "goverments" and they would all push in different directions depending on which ideology they would have? Since I hardly think that people would stay for themselves, they would gather up in small societies and there they would form small councils, vote for a mayor, be taken over by a dictator (since the quality of the education will vary allot this is not very impossible) Then they will look around, see other societies and possibly see some other societies that has the same ideology and they will think something like this: "Hey, neat! You guys think the same way as us! Maybe we should help each other?" and that they will do. So there you are. Thousand upon thousands small states and nations with thousands and thousands of small "armies" consisting of armed civilians. A more democratic world? I doubt it, since we wouldn't keep an eye on other countries ("since it's not our buissness anyway") dictatorships could easily arise. More humane? not really since it would be a dog eat dog world and the law of the jungle would rule.


Take one of your examples of a liberal states: The 19th centuary United states. They changed from being a liberal state to becoming a "facist" state. And they discriminated minoreties like black people (this happened even after the American civil war when slavary was abolished) and commited one of the larger genocides of all time (they slaughtered the Native Americans) So do you support ideology that supports slavary and genocide?

As for Iceland, sure they might have a liberalist working system but I can't confirm that since I don't know much about Iceland. Just like communism, liberalism can work on smaller scales or for a short time in areas/countries with like minded individuals. The problem is that some people simply are born leaders and some are born followers and some are born individualists e.t.c. The leader wants/have a talent to “control” people, the followers follows the leaders (not necissarilly mindlessly), the individualists don't care just as long as they can do whatever they want e.t.c. That's the big problem with liberalism: it simply doesn't fit with human nature.

Leaders should stand up high, stand in the light and be visable by everyone so that they can be examined and be controlled by the people. (so that they can't take control of everything)

BTW you said that you don't want a police force controlled by the goverment? You think that the civilians with guns should take care of it themselves? You know what that's called? Mob rule. Imagine a small liberal society. Done? Now imagine that the people in that society mostly consists of group A while group B is in minority. Lets say that group B smokes pot and group A doesn't like that. So they decide to simply go and kill everyone in group B. There's a small fire fight between the groups and group A wins since they have more people and more guns. Now who is going to stop them from doing this? Other societies can't inverstergate since group A can deny access to their society to members of other societies. And other societies can't go and kill or arrest group A without evidence because that would make them look bad to others and make them less trustworthy (and who would judge group A BTW? Who decides who is worthy of being the judge? The majority?)

And before you start complaining that the police can't really be trusted either, consider this: how many crimes are commited by the police and how many crimes are commited by civilians?
In the 20th century over 160 million people were killed by their own govt. If you include victims of statist wars the figure is over 200 million. If you think the govt can be trusted with guns take a look at Iraq.

The reason why these things happen is because poverty corrupts goverments. If you look at it all dictatorships have been poor when they started.

Nazi Germany - Was crushed by England, USA and France during WWI.

Soviet Russia - Was a poor farmer country that just had started the industralization.

Most of the Arabic countries - Well they're simply poor

Africa and other non-industrulized countries - See above

And I'm pretty sure Italy was pretty poor when Muossulíni got started.

Poverty breeds ignorance and stupidty because of lack of education. and stupid people are easier to control (that's why dictators tend to remove educated people when they come to power) Education makes people question things and makes them think (one of the reason why we should have public education)

And I was talking about the police force of western "civilized" nations. You know, people become police officers for a reason you know, to protect the law and protect the people. Why would they otherwise take such a dangerous and demanding job?

Any way, if the goverment are normal people and just as easilly corrupted as everyone else? Wouldn't that mean if there was a liberal society, then it would be like living with thousands and thousands of "goverments" and they would all push in different directions depending on which ideology they would have? Since I hardly think that people would stay for themselves, they would gather up in small societies and there they would form small councils, vote for a mayor, be taken over by a dictator (since the quality of the education will vary allot this is not very impossible) Then they will look around, see other societies and possibly see some other societies that has the same ideology and they will think something like this: "Hey, neat! You guys think the same way as us! Maybe we should help each other?" and that they will do. So there you are. Thousand upon thousands small states and nations with thousands and thousands of small "armies" consisting of armed civilians. A more democratic world? I doubt it, since we wouldn't keep an eye on other countries ("since it's not our buissness anyway") dictatorships could easily arise. More humane? not really since it would be a dog eat dog world and the law of the jungle would rule.


Take one of your examples of a liberal states: The 19th centuary United states. They changed from being a liberal state to becoming a "facist" state. And they discriminated minoreties like black people (this happened even after the American civil war when slavary was abolished) and commited one of the larger genocides of all time (they slaughtered the Native Americans) So do you support ideology that supports slavary and genocide?

As for Iceland, sure they might have a liberalist working system but I can't confirm that since I don't know much about Iceland. Just like communism, liberalism can work on smaller scales or for a short time in areas/countries with like minded individuals. The problem is that some people simply are born leaders and some are born followers and some are born individualists e.t.c. The leader wants/have a talent to “control” people, the followers follows the leaders (not necissarilly mindlessly), the individualists don't care just as long as they can do whatever they want e.t.c. That's the big problem with liberalism: it simply doesn't fit with human nature.

Leaders should stand up high, stand in the light and be visable by everyone so that they can be examined and be controlled by the people. (so that they can't take control of everything)

BTW you said that you don't want a police force controlled by the goverment? You think that the civilians with guns should take care of it themselves? You know what that's called? Mob rule. Imagine a small liberal society. Done? Now imagine that the people in that society mostly consists of group A while group B is in minority. Lets say that group B smokes pot and group A doesn't like that. So they decide to simply go and kill everyone in group B. There's a small fire fight between the groups and group A wins since they have more people and more guns. Now who is going to stop them from doing this? Other societies can't inverstergate since group A can deny access to their society to members of other societies. And other societies can't go and kill or arrest group A without evidence because that would make them look bad to others and make them less trustworthy (and who would judge group A BTW? Who decides who is worthy of being the judge? The majority?)

Here in Sweden it is illegal to carry any kind of weapon (that includes knives) on public spaces, in your home and on the shooting range you may do as you wish, are knives illegal in UK too?

Err I'm pretty sure that you're not allowed to have guns even in your own home if you don't have a licence for it. And if you have one you'll need a weapon locker I think?

And I'm pretty sure that you're allowed to carry a knife in public if you need it when you do your work (example if you're a carpenter)

Hmm... just wondering... did you just not notice that I posted or do you simply feel defeated and ignores me?

Canemtopia

The reason you are getting ignored is because you wrote a big load of crap.

Yes all those genocides were really accidents made by stupid poor people and Hitler, Stalin and Mao were just misunderstood confused old men. People can never be evil and actually want to exterminate a population group because thats just silly!

:roll:

Poverty breeds ignorance and stupidty because of lack of education. and stupid people are easier to control (that's why dictators tend to remove educated people when they come to power) Education makes people question things and makes them think (one of the reason why we should have public education)

Or that state education is used to make people stupid, e.g. Hitlers race theories, Mao's little red book or Niyazov and his wacky Turkish ideas being taught at school.

While I agree that guns shouldn't be allowed for anyone and everyone, I think the situation in the UK is a little extreme.

My dad's a police officer, and he's one of the few officers in the UK who carries a handgun as standard issue. He doesn't think that the change in law after Dunblane actually did anything. This is because the vast majority of gun crimes have always been done with illegal weapons. With any crimes that he has dealt with invloving fireams, every single one of those was done with an illegal weapon. Before Dunblane, the checks on wether somebody was suitable to own a handgun were so thorough that it was extremely rare for any crimes with legal weapons to happen. He thinks that the ban was just a little bit of overkill and was mainly introduced as a response to public hysteria.

Well, those are my thoughts. :)

Knives over a certain length (3 inches iirc) are banned from carrying in the street. Knives like switch-blades, butterfly-knives etc. are categorised as concealed weapons are banned completley. Many cities have also instituted a policy of banning drinking in public spaces to curb violence especially bottling.

Yes. Many bottles are now made of plastic rather than glass so people can't use them to hurt each other.

While I agree that guns shouldn't be allowed for anyone and everyone, I think the situation in the UK is a little extreme.

My dad's a police officer, and he's one of the few officers in the UK who carries a handgun as standard issue. He doesn't think that the change in law after Dunblane actually did anything. This is because the vast majority of gun crimes have always been done with illegal weapons. With any crimes that he has dealt with invloving fireams, every single one of those was done with an illegal weapon. Before Dunblane, the checks on wether somebody was suitable to own a handgun were so thorough that it was extremely rare for any crimes with legal weapons to happen. He thinks that the ban was just a little bit of overkill and was mainly introduced as a response to public hysteria.

Well, those are my thoughts. :)
Good thoughts. You forgot to mention it was a bit of a vote winner. As the way it was sold to the public was very one sided. The fact the Dunblain was down to prroly applying the existing laws was brushed over.

While I agree that guns shouldn't be allowed for anyone and everyone, I think the situation in the UK is a little extreme.

My dad's a police officer, and he's one of the few officers in the UK who carries a handgun as standard issue. He doesn't think that the change in law after Dunblane actually did anything. This is because the vast majority of gun crimes have always been done with illegal weapons. With any crimes that he has dealt with invloving fireams, every single one of those was done with an illegal weapon. Before Dunblane, the checks on wether somebody was suitable to own a handgun were so thorough that it was extremely rare for any crimes with legal weapons to happen. He thinks that the ban was just a little bit of overkill and was mainly introduced as a response to public hysteria.

Well, those are my thoughts. :)

Although it has to be remembered that those thorough checks failed to stop Thomas Hamilton from shooting up a primary school with his four legally-held firearms, despite previous concerns about his behaviour towards children in particular. He killed 16 children and one teacher, and wounded 10 others. At the time of the shooting, in Central Scotland there were approximately 1,200 firearm certificates and nearly 3,500 shotgun certificates (source (http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/scottish/dunblane/duncntnt.htm)). I suppose you have to ask yourself the question: are 17 lives a fair price to pay to let a tiny, tiny, tiny number of gun enthusiasts enjoy their hobby? Can they not find something more constructive to do with their spare time?

Population of Central Scotland = 1.5--2 million, by the way.

Knives over a certain length (3 inches iirc) are banned from carrying in the street. Knives like switch-blades, butterfly-knives etc. are categorised as concealed weapons are banned completley. Many cities have also instituted a policy of banning drinking in public spaces to curb violence especially bottling.

Yes. Many bottles are now made of plastic rather than glass so people can't use them to hurt each other.

Unfortunately, the plastic bottles aren't the ones with alcohol in them.

Although it has to be remembered that those thorough checks failed to stop Thomas Hamilton from shooting up a primary school with his four legally-held firearms, despite previous concerns about his behaviour towards children in particular. He killed 16 children and one teacher, and wounded 10 others. At the time of the shooting, in Central Scotland there were approximately 1,200 firearm certificates and nearly 3,500 shotgun certificates (source (http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/scottish/dunblane/duncntnt.htm)). I suppose you have to ask yourself the question: are 17 lives a fair price to pay to let a tiny, tiny, tiny number of gun enthusiasts enjoy their hobby? Can they not find something more constructive to do with their spare time?

Population of Central Scotland = 1.5--2 million, by the way.
The mistake of giving Thomas Hamilton a certificate was not a mistake in the actual firearms laws, but down to the incompetence of one man. The DCC of the Central Scotland Police (Who resigned afterwards) already had sufficient evidence of Hamilton's psychiatric disorders to refuse him the firearms certificate. Dunblane could easily have been avoided by more stringnent enforcement of the current laws.