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

[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 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 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.