Originally Posted by
-:Undertaker:-
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?
