Man shoots own son dead in attempted 'burglary'...

[Kardan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19756499

There was a debate on the forum a few weeks back about whether civilians should have access to firearms in the UK... I guess this just backs up what some people were saying in that thread...

[efq]

OOOH.

I just read it, the story is confusing, it makes out like his son was dressed as a burglar...
Hmm yeah I guess it backs it up.

[GommeInc]

Basically the one who used the firearm thought it was an attempted burglary when in actual fact it wasn't and he over-reacted. In the Courts, he might go straight to prison, because in order for it to be attempted burlgary he needs to actually try and break into the house. As the story suggests, he was just walking around the premises which would only be trespass. None of this matters though as someone who shouldn't have a gun because he clearly hasn't got the mental capacity to use it has shot down an innocent person who actually has right to use that property, and is his son :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19756499

There was a debate on the forum a few weeks back about whether civilians should have access to firearms in the UK... I guess this just backs up what some people were saying in that thread...

Yes thats right, one freak incident which is a tragic accident thus condemns the thousands of holders of a weapon.

Why is it that guns and incidents involving them provoke a weird and out of proportion emotional response from many on here and in the public? if one only looks at statistics ranging from certain sports to guns, to knives and car deaths then they would see that deaths via guns aren't even anything to statistically worry about - but then maybe its the self rightousness which many feel when they take a 'stand' against gun ownership.

In a free society and don't like guns? then don't own one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209465/Most-senior-judge-says-people-right-protect-homes-fear-life.html

.... thankfully though, the Lord Chief Justice has come out and said people have a right to defend their homes - and the two who attempted a break in a few weeks ago and who were shot by the property owner, have been sent to prison... which is how it should work.

Finally a victory of the victims over the wrong in this country, and boy do I side with the victims - as should everybody with a head screwed on.

[GommeInc]

Why is it that guns and incidents involving them provoke a weird and out of proportion emotional response from many on here and in the public? if one only looks at statistics ranging from certain sports to guns, to knives and car deaths then they would see that deaths via guns aren't even anything to statistically worry about - but then maybe its the self rightousness which many feel when they take a 'stand' against gun ownership.
Have you not simply supported why low gun ownership is a good thing by saying that? :P Deaths via guns are low because there are hardly any about, which is a good thing as you seem to be suggesting. Although I'm sure you're usually the one saying statistics are usually tampered with and are therefore unreliable :/

[-:Undertaker:-]

Have you not simply supported why low gun ownership is a good thing by saying that? :P Deaths via guns are low because there are hardly any about, which is a good thing as you seem to be suggesting.

No, because compare with countries such as Switzerland and Norway which have very lax gun laws - the notion that gun ownership causes more gun crime is a fallacy. If you allow law abiding people to own guns, then naturally you will have little or no change in the statistics - only against those breaking onto property, in which case they deserve it fully.

Deaths of those breaking into private property is entirely that of their own fault, and deserves little if any sympathy. The only people who have compassion from me are the victims of criminality across this country who are denied the right to defend themselves and their property.


Although I'm sure you're usually the one saying statistics are usually tampered with and are therefore unreliable :/

Almost all government statistics are fiddled as are most things the government says, if i'm supposed to be portrayed as a crackpot or mad for saying this then just cast your mind to the Iraq War, inflation figures, global warming, debt figures, spending figures, taxation figures yada yada and so on.

[dbgtz]

No, because compare with countries such as Switzerland and Norway which have very lax gun laws - the notion that gun ownership causes more gun crime is a fallacy. If you allow law abiding people to own guns, then naturally you will have little or no change in the statistics - only against those breaking onto property, in which case they deserve it fully.

Deaths of those breaking into private property is entirely that of their own fault, and deserves little if any sympathy. The only people who have compassion from me are the victims of criminality across this country who are denied the right to defend themselves and their property.



Almost all government statistics are fiddled as are most things the government says, if i'm supposed to be portrayed as a crackpot or mad for saying this then just cast your mind to the Iraq War, inflation figures, global warming, debt figures, spending figures, taxation figures yada yada and so on.

You can keep saying Switzerland and Norway which have very lax gun laws bla bla but it doesn't mean the people in the UK are anything like them at all and you should stop living in this fantasy that everyone would instantly behave or that every person would be able to defend themself.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You can keep saying Switzerland and Norway which have very lax gun laws bla bla but it doesn't mean the people in the UK are anything like them at all and you should stop living in this fantasy that everyone would instantly behave or that every person would be able to defend themself.

Where did I claim either of those?

As usual however, as politicians do whenever they like to shut down debate, they simply claim the people cannot be trusted and that they know better - as with so many other subjects (the EU for one in regards to referendum results).

Personally I trust British subjects because they know best how to defend themselves and keep their families safe than I or any government does.

[dbgtz]

Where did I claim either of those?

You're always claiming crime would be lower if guns were allowed for all.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You're always claiming crime would be lower if guns were allowed for all.

Indeed, but I never have made the claim (as you make out) that crime would cease if guns were legalised for law abiding people.

Either way, we could argue about the effect on crime until the cows come home - the fact is, that in a free society there will be risks in regards to safety but that the individual or family ought to be allowed to arm themselves to protect their families and property.

And in a free society, if you don't like it - then you can simply opt to not have a gun. It really is as simple as that.

[The Don]

Where did I claim either of those?

As usual however, as politicians do whenever they like to shut down debate, they simply claim the people cannot be trusted and that they know better - as with so many other subjects (the EU for one in regards to referendum results).

Personally I trust British subjects because they know best how to defend themselves and keep their families safe than I or any government does.

Like you did with our debate in the Habbo section which you swiftly stopped replying to after I pointed out you had no evidence and decided to blame the governments corruption to make my evidence seem worthless...

---------- Post added 29-09-2012 at 02:00 PM ----------


Indeed, but I never have made the claim (as you make out) that crime would cease if guns were legalised for law abiding people.

Either way, we could argue about the effect on crime until the cows come home - the fact is, that in a free society there will be risks in regards to safety but that the individual or family ought to be allowed to arm themselves to protect their families and property.

And in a free society, if you don't like it - then you can simply opt to not have a gun. It really is as simple as that.

How are you going to prevent criminals from gaining access to guns?

NIRVANA FALLACY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

---------- Post added 29-09-2012 at 02:01 PM ----------


Indeed, but I never have made the claim (as you make out) that crime would cease if guns were legalised for law abiding people.

Either way, we could argue about the effect on crime until the cows come home - the fact is, that in a free society there will be risks in regards to safety but that the individual or family ought to be allowed to arm themselves to protect their families and property.

And in a free society, if you don't like it - then you can simply opt to not have a gun. It really is as simple as that.

It really isn't as simple as that because you opting to not have a gun doesn't stop others from having them.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Like you did with our debate in the Habbo section which you swiftly stopped replying to after I pointed out you had no evidence and decided to blame the governments corruption to make my evidence seem worthless...

I have just moved to University and spent a week here getting to know the place just after seeing friends and family before I go, hence the bright highlighted red signature. Believe it or not, Habbox Forum isn't my life although I have always (when I have the time) attempted to respond.

If you do wish to discuss it and you're burning to discuss it to such an extent (and i'm sure in the past you've been one of those who have accused me of 'going on and on') then by all means create a thread in Debates and i'll reply whenever I have the time.


How are you going to prevent criminals from gaining access to guns?

And they are stopped now?

Criminals already have access to guns along with many other weapons, the only thing gun laws do is remove the same right from law abiding people. I mean, do you really think criminals (the clue is in the name) are going to follow a ban on gun ownership? of course not, hence why in this country the criminals are armed and the law abiding victims are not.

But can I ask, with the example I posted before, do you think that property owner was right to shoot the thieves?


It really isn't as simple as that because you opting to not have a gun doesn't stop others from having them.

Why is what others have in their private property the concern of you in any way shape or form? provided they do not hurt you, then it is none of your concern - that is, if you believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Libertarianism: the radical notion that other people are not your property.

[The Don]

I have just moved to University and spent a week here getting to know the place just after seeing friends and family before I go, hence the bright highlighted red signature. Believe it or not, Habbox Forum isn't my life.

If you do wish to discuss it and you're burning to discuss it to such an extent (and i'm sure in the past you've been one of those who have accused me of 'going on and on') then by all means create a thread in Debates and i'll reply whenever I have the time.



And they are stopped now?



Why is what others have in their private property the concern of you in any way shape or form?

Libertarianism: the radical notion that other people are not your property.

No, but it's a hell of a lot harder for them to gain access to them. Why don't we arm every petty thug with a balaclava and sawn-off shotguns, I mean how does what they have in their private possession have anything to do with you or could potentially effect you in any way even if said person with a gun happens to be a law abiding citizen (For the answer to "Why is what others have in their private property the concern of you in any way shape or form?" take a look at the original post and you'll see that arming the general public can have huge repercussions and which is why it should be restricted)

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, but it's a hell of a lot harder for them to gain access to them. Why don't we arm every petty thug with a balaclava and sawn-off shotguns,

What, like drugs are hard to get? none of these things are get to get hold of provided you really want them, and with the links criminals have it really is much much easier than you dare to think.


I mean how does what they have in their private possession have anything to do with you or could potentially effect you in any way even if said person with a gun happens to be a law abiding citizen (For the answer to "Why is what others have in their private property the concern of you in any way shape or form?" take a look at the original post and you'll see that arming the general public can have huge repercussions and which is why it should be restricted)

If it has huge repercussions as you state, then in any free society those repurcussions and risks would be taken into account whenever a householder buys a weapon. You may judge that the risk of the thief turning the gun on you when you confront them is too great, hence you'll choose not to buy one - I on the other hand might decide that hey, I actually feel safer being armed against intruders and that I have a right to defend myself and my property. Thats the beauty of it you see, individual rights - I don't tell you what to do and vice versa.

Just as with the example I provided, the property owners successfully repelled an attack on their property - thanks to gun ownership.

[The Don]

What, like drugs are hard to get? none of these things are get to get hold of provided you really want them, and with the links criminals have it really is much much easier than you dare to think.


Are you serious? I don't have you down as being very streetwise so i'll forgive you, but it's far more difficult to obtain a gun, much more so than drugs especially. If you were to legalise guns then they will become widely distributed which means (and even a toddler can work this out) more will end up in the hands of criminals who otherwise wouldn't be armed.


If it has huge repercussions as you state, then in any free society those repurcussions and risks would be taken into account whenever a householder buys a weapon. You may judge that the risk of the thief turning the gun on you when you confront them is too great, hence you'll choose not to buy one - I on the other hand might decide that hey, I actually feel safer being armed against intruders and that I have a right to defend myself and my property. Thats the beauty of it you see, individual rights - I don't tell you what to do and vice versa.

That's all fine and dandy, free will and all that jazz, but as the original post shows, people being armed against 'intruders' can cause more problems than they solve.

We don't live in the American Frontier, You don't need to be armed at all times to protect yourself or your family. The police can handle a situation that comes up, if burglaries are really that much of a fear for you, get a burglar alarm.

Guns promote a culture of fear. We don't need wannabe vigilantes wandering around in the mindset that everyone is their enemy otherwise you get events such as these occurring...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

There is absolutely no need whatsoever for legalising guns. We seem to be coping quite well without them.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Are you serious? I don't have you down as being very streetwise so i'll forgive you, but it's far more difficult to obtain a gun, much more so than drugs especially. If you were to legalise guns then they will become widely distributed which means (and even a toddler can work this out) more will end up in the hands of criminals who otherwise wouldn't be armed.

Where did I make the claim that both were as easily as accessible? I made the comparison of how criminals who really want guns will obtain them no matter what, but as easy as drugs? I never made that claim.


We don't live in the American Frontier, You don't need to be armed at all times to protect yourself or your family. The police can handle a situation that comes up, if burglaries are really that much of a fear for you, get a burglar alarm.

Then you show no understanding in Policing. The Police arrive 10 to 15 minutes (if you're lucky) after a crime has taken place, and within those 15 minutes you can either have had your property taken, family hurt or worse. We don't live in the American Frontier correct, but many of us live in inner city areas which are utterly plagued by crime.


Guns promote a culture of fear. We don't need wannabe vigilantes wandering around in the mindset that everyone is their enemy otherwise you get events such as these occurring...

I was under the impression this is the case in many of our inner city areas anyway.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

There is absolutely no need whatsoever for legalising guns. We seem to be coping quite well without them.

Quoting random incidents at me for emotional effect has no more weight behind it than me quoting horrific stories of skiing accidents, no seatbelt accidents, violent game incidents and so on has.

I'm sure we could just as easily quote instances of where people have been murdered in their own homes (usually by strangulation in this country as petty criminals can easily overpower their often elderly victims) - circumstances where, had a gun been present, those people may be alive today and the thief dead.

[The Don]

Where did I make the claim that both were as easily as accessible? I made the comparison of how criminals who really want guns will obtain them no matter what, but as easy as drugs? I never made that claim.


You compared it to obtaining drugs, which is ridiculous and shows how deluded you actually are.




Then you show no understanding in Policing. The Police arrive 10 to 15 minutes (if you're lucky) after a crime has taken place, and within those 15 minutes you can either have had your property taken, family hurt or worse. We don't live in the American Frontier correct, but many of us live in inner city areas which are utterly plagued by crime.


Or you can suspect someone is stealing from your house and shoot them only to find out it's your child... There is not a high enough crime rate to justify legalising guns, and legalising guns is a stupid way to counter the problem, it will only cause more violence as you end up getting cases of mistaken identity (for example, this case) I also think you'll find our crime rate is far lower than other countries which have legalised guns so your point is null and void...



I was under the impression this is the case in many of our inner city areas anyway.


So let's just make it worse then, yeh? Great attitude LOL



Quoting random incidents at me for emotional effect has no more weight behind it than me quoting horrific stories of skiing accidents, no seatbelt accidents, violent game incidents and so on has.


Wow, completely missing the point. That wasn't for emotional effect, it's evidence which reinforces my point (see, how a debate works, we're nearly having one...) The article I linked showed how a random guy used a gun to prevent a 'criminal' when in fact the criminal was innocent. This completely destroys any point you make of freewill in your defence for legalising guns as the acts of other peoples freewill can intervene with other people.



I'm sure we could just as easily quote instances of where people have been murdered in their own homes (usually by strangulation in this country as petty criminals can easily overpower their often elderly victims) - circumstances where, had a gun been present, those people may be alive today and the thief dead.

And I'm sure I could quote plenty more instances of where people have shot 'armed' criminals when in fact the criminal was never a threat in the first place.

So essentially, what you're in favour of, is vigilante justice rather than improving the police?

gg dan

[-:Undertaker:-]

You compared it to obtaining drugs, which is ridiculous and shows how deluded you actually are.

In that making something illegal doesn't mean you eradicate it.

Not a deluded concept, bit difficult to grasp it seems though.


Or you can suspect someone is stealing from your house and shoot them only to find out it's your child... There is not a high enough crime rate to justify legalising guns, and legalising guns is a stupid way to counter the problem, it will only cause more violence as you end up getting cases of mistaken identity (for example, this case) I also think you'll find our crime rate is far lower than other countries which have legalised guns so your point is null and void...

The crime rate is also apparently lower in Norway and Switzerland, who have lax gun laws. So basing this entire thing on statistics, we could simply declare it null and void that way.

But rather than do that, i'm attempting to have you understand that by legalising guns you do not cause more crime, it can only act as a deterrent. Indeed, the statistics neither show strongly either way which means the laws matter very little - making it a question of whether we allow innocent people the right to defend themselves and make a free judgement.. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


There is some evidence, Professor Volokh said, that denying guns to people who might use them in self-defense, usually merely by brandishing them, tends to increase crime rates. There is also evidence that the possibility of confronting a victim with a gun deters some criminals.

In addition, criminals are the people least likely to obey gun control laws, meaning that the laws probably have a disproportionate impact on law-abiding individuals. “For the typical gun control law,” Professor Volokh said, “you’ll have very little positive effect but a possible negative effect.”


So let's just make it worse then, yeh? Great attitude LOL

Arming innocent subjects makes it worse? the fact that people can't even walk British streets at night, to me, means it can't possibly get much worse - gun legalisation means it can only get worse for the criminals.


Wow, completely missing the point. That wasn't for emotional effect, it's evidence which reinforces my point (see, how a debate works, we're nearly having one...) The article I linked showed how a random guy used a gun to prevent a 'criminal' when in fact the criminal was innocent. This completely destroys any point you make of free will in your defence for legalising guns as the acts of other peoples free will can intervene with other people.

Oh my lord, are you being serious on the free will part? do you not understand the concept of freedom? the idea is, that you have the most freedom possible provided it does not infringe on the rights of other people in regards to property and life.

If somebody breaks this, then that is why we have courts and a criminal justice system. It appears to me that you are arguing for corpus juris (the state telling you what you can do [limited freedom]) as opposed to common law (the state telling you what you cannot do [very free]).


And I'm sure I could quote plenty more instances of where people have shot 'armed' criminals when in fact the criminal was never a threat in the first place.

Indeed, thank you for agreeing with my point that emotional cases aren't evidence - despite arguing that they are just above.


So essentially, what you're in favour of, is vigilante justice rather than improving the police?

No Police force will ever be capable of preventing all crimes, especially concerning break in crimes.

[The Don]

In that making something illegal doesn't mean you eradicate it.

Not a deluded concept, bit difficult to grasp it seems though.


Guess you missed the point about guns being pretty much eradicated and extremely hard to get a hold of?



The crime rate is also apparently lower in Norway and Switzerland, who have lax gun laws. So basing this entire thing on statistics, we could simply declare it null and void that way.


That's where your argument falls to pieces, I've literally just had a 1 minute look at gun politics in Norway. "By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting"
and self defence is practically never accepted as a reason for gun ownership. What exactly were you saying Dan? :rolleyes:




But rather than do that, i'm attempting to have you understand that by legalising guns you do not cause more crime, it can only act as a deterrent. Indeed, the statistics neither show strongly either way which means the laws matter very little - making it a question of whether we allow innocent people the right to defend themselves and make a free judgement.. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Again, There is no need for people to walk around enforcing the law themselves when we have the police to do that, people interfering and trying to be 'Good Samaritans' only causes more problems. And if the statistics are pretty much neutral, why change it?



Arming innocent subjects makes it worse? the fact that people can't even walk British streets at night, to me, means it can't possibly get much worse - gun legalisation means it can only get worse for the criminals.


exaggeration.



Oh my lord, are you being serious on the free will part? do you not understand the concept of freedom? the idea is, that you have the most freedom possible provided it does not infringe on the rights of other people in regards to property and life.

And shooting someone/being shot doesn't infringe the rights of other people?



If somebody breaks this, then that is why we have courts and a criminal justice system. It appears to me that you are arguing for corpus juris (the state telling you what you can do [limited freedom]) as opposed to common law (the state telling you what you cannot do [very free]).


Why allow it to happen in the first place when it can be prevented by making it almost impossible to obtain guns?



Indeed, thank you for agreeing with my point that emotional cases aren't evidence - despite arguing that they are just above.

re-read what I wrote, didn't agree with you, simply phrased my sentence in a similar way...



No Police force will ever be capable of preventing all crimes, especially concerning break in crimes.

And you think giving guns to untrained civilians and also making them easily available to criminals will somehow benefit society? Again, take a look at the UK's gun culture compared to that of the USA

[GommeInc]

The idea that the streets of London are a dangerous place doesn't make much sense. Would arming everyone with guns really make a change? At the moment the weapon of choice is knives. Adding guns just means you don't have to put too much leg work into getting a target. The days of running over the other side of the street and jabbing someone in the back are over, now we can conveniently shoot someone we do not like (or be shot by someone who has beef with us) without having to break a sweat. It's still criminal. Adding guns will not solve anything. If anything, it will give whoever writes up the police reports some extra work, they will have to add guns into the mix.

[Charz777]

Personally, I'm thankful that I can walk into my own home knowing my father doesn't have the necessary equipment to shoot me! Some places in the UK are bad enough for crime. I for one don't feel safe walking through my own city alone in broad daylight. With firearms in the hands of civilians, I know I wouldn't stand a chance if someone took a shot at me for whatever reason!


No, because compare with countries such as Switzerland and Norway which have very lax gun laws - the notion that gun ownership causes more gun crime is a fallacy.

It is ridiculous to say this^^ Just because civilians of a certain country can own a gun it doesn't change anything. If you want guns in the UK then you have to think about the situation of the UK. Not Switzerland! The people of Switzerland have most likely adapted to a society with guns, and as you say have low gun crime. This is because they respect their possession of them and know how to handle them and not use them in crime. If you look at crime rates overall, you will see that the UK is higher than Switzerland and Norway. This only demonstrates that given firearms the people in the UK are more likely to display criminal acts using them than people in other countries with lower crime rates.

The people of the UK haven't had the proper education to handle firearms and many would take advantage of being allowed them. It would make our streets and lives unsafe. So, don't talk about Switzerland's gun crime, because this is the UK, and the situations are completely different. You can't roll out statistic and forget about reality.

[Kardan]

This thread turned out exactly as I imagined... (h)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Guess you missed the point about guns being pretty much eradicated and extremely hard to get a hold of?

If you believe this than you are naive at best.


That's where your argument falls to pieces, I've literally just had a 1 minute look at gun politics in Norway. "By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting"
and self defence is practically never accepted as a reason for gun ownership. What exactly were you saying Dan? :rolleyes:

Whether or not it is 'accepted' (who accepts what in a free society anyway? absolutely none of anybody elses business except that of the gun owner) isn't even important - if you have a gun in the house, and criminals break in and threaten you, your property or family.. then you have the means to defend yourself.

It is as simple as that.


Again, There is no need for people to walk around enforcing the law themselves when we have the police to do that, people interfering and trying to be 'Good Samaritans' only causes more problems. And if the statistics are pretty much neutral, why change it?

Then you do not understand the law, as shown earlier. The law is there to protect the law abiding against those who seek to induce harm on the law abiding. The law therefore gives you the right to defend yourself, your family and your property against those who threaten you.

I ask again, are those home owners right to shoot the intruders? (the example I linked to)


exaggeration.

Naive and probably in a fairly well off area and middle class i'd hazard a guess at. Try or dare spending a night on the streets in Norris Green, Toxteth or many other estates in this country.


And shooting someone/being shot doesn't infringe the rights of other people?

Nope, you broadly forfeit your rights when you break into a property. You leave them at the doorstep when you show no care or regard for the rights of the people who you are attempting to remove their rights away from them.


Why allow it to happen in the first place when it can be prevented by making it almost impossible to obtain guns?

Because this is a flawed argument, the same goes for drugs and all other times governments have attempted to outlaw something - the only people the likes of trade embargos, regulations and so on effect are law abiding people. Why? because they follow the law. Why would criminals still have guns? because they do not follow the law.


And you think giving guns to untrained civilians and also making them easily available to criminals will somehow benefit society? Again, take a look at the UK's gun culture compared to that of the USA

They are already easily availble to criminals. As for the 'trained' part, sorry, but since when did you have the mandate to say who can take a risk and who cannot? the risk and dangers argument can easily be dismantled with examples on drugs, smoking, dangerous sports, certain sexual acts, knives and so on.

In a free society (unless you want to say openly you don't suppot one) you allow people to take risks whether or not you agree with them. For example, I think taking drugs ranks as one of the most stupid things you can ever do - yet I support them being legalised. Why? because I don't think it is any of my business to tell you how stupid you can or cannot be.


The idea that the streets of London are a dangerous place doesn't make much sense. Would arming everyone with guns really make a change? At the moment the weapon of choice is knives. Adding guns just means you don't have to put too much leg work into getting a target. The days of running over the other side of the street and jabbing someone in the back are over, now we can conveniently shoot someone we do not like (or be shot by someone who has beef with us) without having to break a sweat. It's still criminal. Adding guns will not solve anything. If anything, it will give whoever writes up the police reports some extra work, they will have to add guns into the mix.

A gun can be used be somebody who cannot fight back as easily, a knife cannot. An example would be attacks on older people (increasing) as well as weaker men - even if they had a knife on them for self defence (something which is also stupidly outlawed) they simply wouldn't be able to save themselves because they are weaker in terms of strength and reaction.

Do you think the cretins who attack little old ladys at sunset with knives (or threaten) would be so keen on doing so when old Mrs. Fletcher has a hangbag on her that might contain a gun?


Personally, I'm thankful that I can walk into my own home knowing my father doesn't have the necessary equipment to shoot me! Some places in the UK are bad enough for crime. I for one don't feel safe walking through my own city alone in broad daylight. With firearms in the hands of civilians

Why would your father shoot you? absolutely barmy arguments here.


I know I wouldn't stand a chance if someone took a shot at me for whatever reason

You wouldn't stand a chance if you were knifed in the street either.


It is ridiculous to say this^^ Just because civilians of a certain country can own a gun it doesn't change anything. If you want guns in the UK then you have to think about the situation of the UK. Not Switzerland! The people of Switzerland have most likely adapted to a society with guns, and as you say have low gun crime. This is because they respect their possession of them and know how to handle them and not use them in crime. If you look at crime rates overall, you will see that the UK is higher than Switzerland and Norway. This only demonstrates that given firearms the people in the UK are more likely to display criminal acts using them than people in other countries with lower crime rates.

Then if this is your sole cause for concern, we could slowly relax rules on gun ownership in the United Kingdom to ensure gun ownership and responsibility similar to that of Switzerland.

My suspicion is however, that even this wouldn't please you - as the bottom line is, you have an emotional fear of guns and therefore dislike them and therefore think that everybody else ought to live according to your personal tastes.

But you can always prove me wrong by accepting the sensible compromise I put forward.


The people of the UK haven't had the proper education to handle firearms and many would take advantage of being allowed them. It would make our streets and lives unsafe. So, don't talk about Switzerland's gun crime, because this is the UK, and the situations are completely different. You can't roll out statistic and forget about reality.

Our streets are already unsafe, with the criminal class having a free hand over those who abide by the law. The Police, even if they were able to, wouldn't be able to save everybody - therefore it is sensible to suggest that people ought to be allowed to arm themselves should they wish to do so.

And unless and until they break the law themselves, then what is there to fear?

[The Don]

You're deluded at best if you think giving everybody access to guns is the correct way to tackle crime problems. As you keep repeating "only criminals use guns so we should make them available to everyone as those who would use them would get access to them regardless" is flawed logic, you're completely ignoring opportunists, and if this was the case we would have a much lower knife crime rate and a higher gun crime rate as why would any criminal choose a knife over a gun? (Because It's difficult to get a hold of one)

You seem to think that if made legal, no accidents could occur such as children getting a hold of their parents gun, Samaritans killing innocent people and giving opportunists access to a tool they otherwise wouldn't use.

And you're sadly misguided if you think i come from a middle class area considering I've only (three months ago) just moved out of a council estate.

you can twist it anyway you want but it seems obvious that more guns = more gun crime.



If you believe this than you are naive at best.



Whether or not it is 'accepted' (who accepts what in a free society anyway? absolutely none of anybody elses business except that of the gun owner) isn't even important - if you have a gun in the house, and criminals break in and threaten you, your property or family.. then you have the means to defend yourself.

It is as simple as that.



Then you do not understand the law, as shown earlier. The law is there to protect the law abiding against those who seek to induce harm on the law abiding. The law therefore gives you the right to defend yourself, your family and your property against those who threaten you.

I ask again, are those home owners right to shoot the intruders? (the example I linked to)



Naive and probably in a fairly well off area and middle class i'd hazard a guess at. Try or dare spending a night on the streets in Norris Green, Toxteth or many other estates in this country.



Nope, you broadly forfeit your rights when you break into a property. You leave them at the doorstep when you show no care or regard for the rights of the people who you are attempting to remove their rights away from them.



Because this is a flawed argument, the same goes for drugs and all other times governments have attempted to outlaw something - the only people the likes of trade embargos, regulations and so on effect are law abiding people. Why? because they follow the law. Why would criminals still have guns? because they do not follow the law.



They are already easily availble to criminals. As for the 'trained' part, sorry, but since when did you have the mandate to say who can take a risk and who cannot? the risk and dangers argument can easily be dismantled with examples on drugs, smoking, dangerous sports, certain sexual acts, knives and so on.

In a free society (unless you want to say openly you don't suppot one) you allow people to take risks whether or not you agree with them. For example, I think taking drugs ranks as one of the most stupid things you can ever do - yet I support them being legalised. Why? because I don't think it is any of my business to tell you how stupid you can or cannot be.



A gun can be used be somebody who cannot fight back as easily, a knife cannot. An example would be attacks on older people (increasing) as well as weaker men - even if they had a knife on them for self defence (something which is also stupidly outlawed) they simply wouldn't be able to save themselves because they are weaker in terms of strength and reaction.

Do you think the cretins who attack little old ladys at sunset with knives (or threaten) would be so keen on doing so when old Mrs. Fletcher has a hangbag on her that might contain a gun?



Why would your father shoot you? absolutely barmy arguments here.



You wouldn't stand a chance if you were knifed in the street either.



Then if this is your sole cause for concern, we could slowly relax rules on gun ownership in the United Kingdom to ensure gun ownership and responsibility similar to that of Switzerland.

My suspicion is however, that even this wouldn't please you - as the bottom line is, you have an emotional fear of guns and therefore dislike them and therefore think that everybody else ought to live according to your personal tastes.

But you can always prove me wrong by accepting the sensible compromise I put forward.



Our streets are already unsafe, with the criminal class having a free hand over those who abide by the law. The Police, even if they were able to, wouldn't be able to save everybody - therefore it is sensible to suggest that people ought to be allowed to arm themselves should they wish to do so.

And unless and until they break the law themselves, then what is there to fear?

[GommeInc]

A gun can be used be somebody who cannot fight back as easily, a knife cannot. An example would be attacks on older people (increasing) as well as weaker men - even if they had a knife on them for self defence (something which is also stupidly outlawed) they simply wouldn't be able to save themselves because they are weaker in terms of strength and reaction.

Do you think the cretins who attack little old ladys at sunset with knives (or threaten) would be so keen on doing so when old Mrs. Fletcher has a hangbag on her that might contain a gun?
Take it off her and shoot her with it. Simple. Saves having to bring your own weapons :P By allowing people to protect themselves like this, you're also increasing the chances of people obtaining these weapons to attack the innocent. It's not really a viable solution.

[The Don]

Take it off her and shoot her with it. Simple. Saves having to bring your own weapons :P By allowing people to protect themselves like this, you're also increasing the chances of people obtaining these weapons to attack the innocent. It's not really a viable solution.

not to mention the fact that in this scenario the attacker would most likely have a gun as well...

[GommeInc]

not to mention the fact that in this scenario the attacker would most likely have a gun as well...
Indeed. If anything, it's an excuse to trade in the trusted butcher's knife for a gun.

Obviously the point about attacks on the vulnerable are of concern, but would this really solve anything? Accidental deaths like this one for example - the man shooting his son (or step-son?) - would be common place, and it actually involves innocents on both sides.