Nigel Farage calls for UK gun laws to be relaxed

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 11:10 pm

First topic message reminder :

Nigel Farage calls for UK gun laws to be relaxed
Ukip leader says ban on handguns brought in after Dunblane massacre is 'ludicrous'

Nigel Farage has called for firearm laws to be relaxed, calling the current ban on handguns "ludicrous".

The Ukip leader criticised the "kneejerk" restrictions on handguns imposed after the 1996 Dunblane massacre in which Thomas Hamilton killed 16 schoolchildren and a teacher before shooting himself.

The laws were brought in by Sir John Major, the then Tory prime minister, and extended to a total ban by Tony Blair's Labour government in 1997.

Asked about gun controls, Farage said: "I think proper gun licensing is something we've done in this country responsibly and well for a long time, and I think the kneejerk legislation that Blair brought in that meant that the British Olympic pistol team have to go to France to even practise was just crackers.

"If you criminalise handguns then only the criminals carry the guns. It's really interesting that since Blair brought that piece of law in, gun crime doubled in the next five years in this country."

"I think that we need a proper gun licensing system, which to a large extent I think we already have, and I think the ban on handguns is ludicrous."

Ian Mearns, Labour MP for Gateshead, said the comments were an example of "how extremely dangerous Ukip are".

"Families facing a cost-of-living crisis will find it bizarre that one of Nigel Farage's priorities would be to relax Britain's tough gun controls," he added.

The remarks come after Farage was caught in a storm over his party's 2010 election policies, which he entirely disowned this week and later described as "drivel".

The Ukip leader said he had never read the 486 pages of policy documents that were published alongside Ukip's manifesto in 2010, which included plans to repaint trains in traditional colours, bring in a uniform for taxi drivers, and ban offshore windfarms amid fears they could hurt fish.

After rejecting the entire collection of policies, he told LBC 97.3 that they were put together by Ukip's then policy chief David Campbell Bannerman, who is now a Conservative MEP.

"We had a manifesto – and I'm going to put some inverted commas around it – that was produced in 2010. It was basically a series of policy discussion papers that was put up on the website as a manifesto," he said.

"It was 486 pages long. I'm pleased to say that the idiot that wrote it has now left us and joined the Conservatives. They are very welcome to him.

"Malcolm Pearson, who was leader of Ukip at the time, was picked up in interviews for not knowing the manifesto. Of course he didn't know the manifesto. It was 486 pages of excessive detail.

"Eighteen months ago, I said I wanted the whole lot taken down off the website. We reject the whole thing. We'll start again with a blank sheet of paper. So there's nothing new in that story.

"I didn't read it. It was drivel. 486 pages of drivel. I didn't read it and nor did the party leader."

However, his attempt to distance himself from the documents was undermined on Friday, after it emerged he wrote the foreword to the party's manifesto and helped launch it at an event in London.

A video started circulating of Farage speaking as Ukip's chief spokesman at the launch of the manifesto in Westminster in 2010, promising "straight talking" about the party's policies. The Ukip leader also co-authored the summary 16-page manifesto that now appears to have disappeared from the party's website.

The 2010 policy documents – which also appear to have been blocked – detail plans such as capping the number of foreign players in football teams, bringing back "proper dress" at the theatre, scrapping paid maternity leave, allowing corporal punishment in schools and holding referendums on new places of worship such as mosques.

Other ideas included making the Circle line on the London tube circular again, investigating alleged discrimination against white people at the BBC and teaching schoolchildren more about the role of Arabs and African states in slavery.

Farage's attempt to distance Ukip from its manifesto of four years ago may put him under more scrutiny about what the party stands for in the runup to the May elections.

On Thursday, the usually assured politician floundered on live television as he was asked about the party's proposal to scrap Trident, saying he was not sure where the interviewer had got this suggestion from.

When told it was on the Ukip website, he said: "When it comes to websites, I'm not the expert."

Challenged over a compulsory dress code for taxi drivers, he said: "Do we? News to me."

And asked about a policy to repaint trains in traditional colours, Farage said: "I've never read that. I've no idea what you're talking about."

However, he said it was not "obvious nonsense" that he could cut £90bn of taxes and increase spending by £30bn, even though that would be "ambitious".

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/24/nigel-farage-uk-gun-control-laws-relaxed

Rolling Eyes

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:55 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Is that a counter?
Seriously, ball is in your court prove a need for a necessity of need of the gun within society, then you have a case

No I am accepting your argument that there is no need for people to have handguns.

I am challenging your assertion that because there is no need for them it is acceptable to ban them.

So do you apply the argument of need to everything or just to guns?

Guns are already banned sphinx are they not with exceptions on the ban, so your question is again about the existing laws on where they are already banned but how we have far we allow exceptions.

So are guns banned Sphinx?

yes, thus we are not making it acceptable to ban guns, that has already happened, what we are doing is looking at changing the exceptions to this rule.

Do you understand that?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:59 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

No I am accepting your argument that there is no need for people to have handguns.

I am challenging your assertion that because there is no need for them it is acceptable to ban them.

So do you apply the argument of need to everything or just to guns?

Guns are already banned sphinx are they not with exceptions on the ban, so your question is again about the existing laws on where they are already banned but how we have far we allow exceptions.

So are guns banned Sphinx?

yes, thus we are not making it acceptable to ban guns, that has already happened, what we are doing is looking at changing the exceptions to this rule.

Do you understand that?

Hand guns are banned.

There is no need for hand guns.

You say the fact that there is no need justifies the ban and it should remain.

I do not believe that lack of need justifies the ban and believe it should be overturned and hand guns returned to the strict licensing used for other guns.

I ask you again does your belief that lack of need justifies a ban extend to everything or is it just guns?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:03 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Guns are already banned sphinx are they not with exceptions on the ban, so your question is again about the existing laws on where they are already banned but how we have far we allow exceptions.

So are guns banned Sphinx?

yes, thus we are not making it acceptable to ban guns, that has already happened, what we are doing is looking at changing the exceptions to this rule.

Do you understand that?

Hand guns are banned.

There is no need for hand guns.

You say the fact that there is no need justifies the ban and it should remain.

I do not believe that lack of need justifies the ban and believe it should be overturned and hand guns returned to the strict licensing used for other guns.

I ask you again does your belief that lack of need justifies a ban extend to everything or is it just guns?

Dear me many guns are banned, thus the view point on whether other guns are banned, being the fact your come back was in regards to acceptability to ban something which in the main is banned with acceptions to the rule, means it is accepted many guns are banned.
My belief shows there is no necessity for guns, you are thus rendering a moot argument over the level of the ban.
Seriously, I am always going to be one step ahead in this argument Sphinx, you do realise that!

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:04 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Hand guns are banned.

There is no need for hand guns.

You say the fact that there is no need justifies the ban and it should remain.

I do not believe that lack of need justifies the ban and believe it should be overturned and hand guns returned to the strict licensing used for other guns.

I ask you again does your belief that lack of need justifies a ban extend to everything or is it just guns?

Dear me many guns are banned, thus the view point on whether other guns are banned, being the fact your come back was in regards to acceptability to ban something which in the main is banned with acceptions to the rule.
My belief shows there is no necessity for guns, you are thus rendering a moot argument over the level of the ban.
Seriously, I am always going to be one step ahead in this argument Sphinx, you do realise that!

Again do you apply lack of need as justification for banning to everything or just guns.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:05 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Dear me many guns are banned, thus the view point on whether other guns are banned, being the fact your come back was in regards to acceptability to ban something which in the main is banned with acceptions to the rule.
My belief shows there is no necessity for guns, you are thus rendering a moot argument over the level of the ban.
Seriously, I am always going to be one step ahead in this argument Sphinx, you do realise that!

Again do you apply lack of need as justification for banning to everything or just guns.

Dear me, why does that matter either way to this debate?
Now that would interest me more as to why this is now your divergence from the debate?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:05 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:Honestly guys you are getting so far into the nitty gritty that you are missing the big picture.

Do you want a society where individuals have as much personal freedom as possible so long as they do nothing to harm others

or

Do you want a society that micro controls everything according to whatever the moral code of the moment is?

Really, the question is -- do you want to be like the U.K., where every year there's one gun-related death per 400,000 people?

Or do you want to be like the U.S., where every year there's one gun-related death per 10,000 people?

considering our ultra tough gun laws Ben thats not a tenable argument...merely emotive....allowing a small number of folks deemed suitable to posess a firearm to have a handgun provided they have good reason i.e belong to a target shooting club is NOT going to result in an outbreak of columbine style massacres.
I mean...I am deemed by the authorities to be a suitable person to own a firearm, therefor are you suggesting that allowing me to own a hand gun (not that I personally would want to ) will turn me into some sort of slavering monster?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:06 pm

The British are known for their great spirit , ingenuity and ability to compromise; so how about we forget guns and allow the longbow to be legal.

Clay pigeon shooting but with arrows.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:07 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Again do you apply lack of need as justification for banning to everything or just guns.

Dear me, why does that matter either way to this debate?
Now that would interest me more as to why this is now your divergence from the debate?

Answer the question and I will explain the relevance.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:08 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Really, the question is -- do you want to be like the U.K., where every year there's one gun-related death per 400,000 people?

Or do you want to be like the U.S., where every year there's one gun-related death per 10,000 people?
considering our ultra tough gun laws Ben thats not a tenable argument...merely emotive....allowing a small number of folks deemed suitable to posess a firearm to have a handgun provided they have good reason i.e belong to a target shooting club is NOT going to result in an outbreak of columbine style massacres.
I mean...I am deemed by the authorities to be a suitable person to own a firearm, therefor are you suggesting that allowing me to own a hand gun (not that I personally would want to ) will turn me into some sort of slavering monster?

His argument is sound.
The reality is as seen for the main guns are banned with exceptions to the rule, so the only argument here is on the level of exception to the rule.
This many people are being denied access to guns already, thus the level of the debate falls down to not whether a ban is acceptable, as seen this already is acceptable to ban guns, but over whether you think it is acceptable to have a necessity to allow the exceptions to the rule

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:09 pm

Warren Moon wrote:The British are known for their great spirit , ingenuity and ability to compromise; so how about we forget guns and allow the longbow to be legal.

Clay pigeon shooting but with arrows.

The longbow is legal.

So is the crossbow.

Not only are they both legal they both are not subject to any kind of control or licensing.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:09 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Dear me, why does that matter either way to this debate?
Now that would interest me more as to why this is now your divergence from the debate?

Answer the question and I will explain the relevance.

Why? I have asked your reason, hence I am not silly to answer something that you have not explained.

Must remember that one, another absurd logic, answer and I will tell you after

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:09 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

it makes the point that relative risk is the important thing, It is clear that you simply dont like guns and you are anti hunting (hypocrite ) however
you would admit that even if I lived in your street, the risk to YOU from a vehicle accident is vastly greater (by a massive degree) than the risk to you caused by my possession of a gun?
AND there is also the fact that by owning that gun, i HAVE to be very careful in EVERYTHING i do...even my driving is perforce better than average, because I am more than normally aware of the issues. I have to be unusually peaceable...I cant afford to be arrested for affray, or indeed be involved in anything that might be deemed arrestable, or even considered aggressive...

But the fact is as seen there is no necessity to have a gun Victor, where as a car is still needed, now if you can show a way where there is no need to have cars I back you as any prevention of injuries and death is always the better option, but you have not show a way where it renders cars not a necessity!
Even if you do I would then back your view to help prevent such injuries

Simple didge...in towns and cities there IS NO NEED for cars there is public transport a plenty...so no town/city dweller has "need" for a car do they.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:10 pm

But you cannot walk down the street with either whilst fiddling with your quiver.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:11 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

But the fact is as seen there is no necessity to have a gun Victor, where as a car is still needed, now if you can show a way where there is no need to have cars I back you as any prevention of injuries and death is always the better option, but you have not show a way where it renders cars not a necessity!
Even if you do I would then back your view to help prevent such injuries

Simple didge...in towns and cities there IS NO NEED for cars there is public transport a plenty...so no town/city dweller has "need" for a car do they.

That is just people in towns though, thus you have not rendered the need for cars, you also have neglected the fact that, the only way to deliver or do job is through a car even within a town

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:11 pm

sphinx wrote:
Warren Moon wrote:The British are known for their great spirit , ingenuity and ability to compromise; so how about we forget guns and allow the longbow to be legal.

Clay pigeon shooting but with arrows.

The longbow is legal.

So is the crossbow.

Not only are they both legal they both are not subject to any kind of control or licensing.

and both are deadly.....and silent....

and you know something keith...i recon I'll have a word with my local clay ground, I fancy having a go at that...could it be done...I recon its just about possible,

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:12 pm

sphinx wrote:
Warren Moon wrote:The British are known for their great spirit , ingenuity and ability to compromise; so how about we forget guns and allow the longbow to be legal.

Clay pigeon shooting but with arrows.

The longbow is legal.

So is the crossbow.

Not only are they both legal they both are not subject to any kind of control or licensing.

Yes because your average day gang shooting is done with a crossbow or long bow.

Again I think neither should be accessible either, thus rendering your argument moot

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:13 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:
considering our ultra tough gun laws Ben thats not a tenable argument...merely emotive....allowing a small number of folks deemed suitable to posess a firearm to have a handgun provided they have good reason i.e belong to a target shooting club is NOT going to result in an outbreak of columbine style massacres.
I mean...I am deemed by the authorities to be a suitable person to own a firearm, therefor are you suggesting that allowing me to own a hand gun (not that I personally would want to ) will turn me into some sort of slavering monster?

His argument is sound.
The reality is as seen for the main guns are banned with exceptions to the rule, so the only argument here is on the level of exception to the rule.
This many people are being denied access to guns already, thus the level of the debate falls down to not whether a ban is acceptable, as seen this already is acceptable to ban guns, but over whether you think it is acceptable to have a necessity to allow the exceptions to the rule

No didge guns are not banned.

Hand guns are banned.
Automatic guns are banned.

Other types of gun are not banned - some require the owner to be licensed. So unless you want to declare all drivers with a license to be exceptions from the rule banning driving I would stop saying guns are banned with exceptions.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:13 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

Simple didge...in towns and cities there IS NO NEED for cars there is public transport a plenty...so no town/city dweller has "need" for a car do they.

That is just people in towns though, thus you have not rendered the need for cars, you also have neglected the fact that, the only way to deliver or do job is through a car even within a town

the geographical area of need is not the issue...if there was plentiful and reliable public transport out in the sticks then it would apply there too...as for deliveries...what wrong with using the army??(your argument...not mine)

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:14 pm

Warren Moon wrote:But you cannot walk down the street with either whilst fiddling with your quiver.

Actually technically you can.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:16 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

That is just people in towns though, thus you have not rendered the need for cars, you also have neglected the fact that, the only way to deliver or do job is through a car even within a town
the geographical area of need is not the issue...if there was plentiful and reliable public transport out in the sticks then it would apply there too...as for deliveries...what wrong with using the army??(your argument...not mine)

You have still not rendered the need for carsmoot, or that even if you did missing the point I would back it if it was sound

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:16 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

The longbow is legal.

So is the crossbow.

Not only are they both legal they both are not subject to any kind of control or licensing.

Yes because your average day gang shooting is done with a crossbow or long bow.

Again I think neither should be accessible either, thus rendering your argument moot

No didge it does not render my argument moot it simply demonstrates you want to ban more things - hence why I am asking you to define the parameters by which you decide what should be banned and what should not.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:17 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

The longbow is legal.

So is the crossbow.

Not only are they both legal they both are not subject to any kind of control or licensing.

Yes because your average day gang shooting is done with a crossbow or long bow.

Again I think neither should be accessible either, thus rendering your argument moot

No no didge....you are confusing criminal use with legitimate use....an association fallacy...
and oh dear...whats this ban even more folks interests...this time purely target shooters.......since live shooting with bows and cross bows is illegal....

you are becoming a misery in your old age didge....what you gonna ban next...

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:19 pm

people fear what they cant understand....

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:19 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Yes because your average day gang shooting is done with a crossbow or long bow.

Again I think neither should be accessible either, thus rendering your argument moot

No didge it does not render my argument moot it simply demonstrates you want to ban more things - hence why I am asking you to define the parameters by which you decide what should be banned and what should not.

Ha ha, so now you admit it is banning more things, not even the case, the law bans guns, it has exceptions to this rule, so your argument is moot.
You can ask all you like on my argument, that clearly detracts from your own showing once again desperation to be right here, you see physiology is my bag baby.
Thus we ban guns, we are debating over the exceptions to this bad, thus no argument yet to render a need for guns within society except within the army!

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:21 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Yes because your average day gang shooting is done with a crossbow or long bow.

Again I think neither should be accessible either, thus rendering your argument moot

No no didge....you are confusing criminal use with legitimate use....an association fallacy...
and oh dear...whats this ban even more folks interests...this time purely target shooters.......since live shooting with bows and cross bows is illegal....

you are becoming a misery in your old age didge....what you gonna ban next...

Really, the point is the gun is already banned, it is accepted ecept by some who feel the need to have them, thus your point is based upon the exception to the rule and as seen there is no necessity for this exception.
The point on the bow is about again there is no necessity for them either

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:23 pm

The burden would fall on the police to prove that you intended or had adapted the bow and arrows for the purpose of causing harm to other persons.

However, the arrows themselves (not the bow), when carried in a public place or on school premises, would fall under Pointed and Bladed Articles offences (Section 139, Criminal Justice Act, 1988).

In this case, the burden would fall on the individual carrying the arrows to convince the police that he or she had 'good reason' to have them at the time: for example, if the carrier was on their way to a practice area or to hunt. Ultimately a court would have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the individual did not have a 'good reason', for that individual to be convicted of the offence.
Source:
Section 139, Criminal Justice Act, 1988

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:30 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

No didge it does not render my argument moot it simply demonstrates you want to ban more things - hence why I am asking you to define the parameters by which you decide what should be banned and what should not.

Ha ha, so now you admit it is banning more things, not even the case, the law bans guns, it has exceptions to this rule, so your argument is moot.
You can ask all you like on my argument, that clearly detracts from your own showing once again desperation to be right here, you see physiology is my bag baby.
Thus we ban guns, we are debating over the exceptions to this bad, thus no argument yet to render a need for guns within society except within the army!

Again the law does not ban all guns and it does not have exceptions.

Handguns are banned.
Automatic guns are banned.

Rifles, shot guns, air guns are not banned.

Rifles and shot guns are licensed. Air guns may or may not need a licence depending on their poundage. Licensing is not an exception to a ban unless you are going to say all drivers are exceptions to a ban on anyone driving.

We are not debating over exceptions we are debating over the hand gun ban. I believe hand guns should be licensed the same way as rifles and shot guns.

You believe hand guns should remain banned because there is no need for them. You believe longbows and crossbows should be banned as well. I am asking you if the argument of there being no need justifies banning anything fitting that criteria. You are refusing to answer.

You are refusing to answer because you know that if you agree the argument of no need justifies banning of anything meeting that criteria you are going to make yourself look like a total idiot while if you admit it should only apply to certain things like guns and bows then you have demonstrated that you are arguing only from your own position of personal prejudice and have no real argument.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:31 pm

Well didge, having changed the basis of your argument 3 times, and humiliating yourself with desperation in the process, you have finally retreated into the bunker of the "lack of need", the last refuge of the rogue dictator...

It is up to you to PROVE lack of need with full and proper facts, not emotives and anecdotes...It is NOT for me to prove need.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Oh yes and just to add - many rifles and shotguns are licensed for no reason other than target shooting - they are not "needed" for anything else

So why can we not extend the same logic to handguns?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:35 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Ha ha, so now you admit it is banning more things, not even the case, the law bans guns, it has exceptions to this rule, so your argument is moot.
You can ask all you like on my argument, that clearly detracts from your own showing once again desperation to be right here, you see physiology is my bag baby.
Thus we ban guns, we are debating over the exceptions to this bad, thus no argument yet to render a need for guns within society except within the army!

Again the law does not ban all guns and it does not have exceptions.
Yes it does, you just answered below the law bans guns

Handguns are banned.
Automatic guns are banned.

Rifles, shot guns, air guns are not banned.
But guns are banned as seen, what there is though is exceptions to the ban on guns

Rifles and shot guns are licensed. Air guns may or may not need a licence depending on their poundage. Licensing is not an exception to a ban unless you are going to say all drivers are exceptions to a ban on anyone driving.
Gobbledygook, guns are banned, exceptions allow some guns

We are not debating over exceptions we are debating over the hand gun ban. I believe hand guns should be licensed the same way as rifles and shot guns.
No we are debating to exceptions, to the rule of ban

You believe hand guns should remain banned because there is no need for them. You believe longbows and crossbows should be banned as well. I am asking you if the argument of there being no need justifies banning anything fitting that criteria. You are refusing to answer.
I believe there is no necessity for any of them, and as seen you cannot provide one

You are refusing to answer because you know that if you agree the argument of no need justifies banning of anything meeting that criteria you are going to make yourself look like a total idiot while if you admit it should only apply to certain things like guns and bows then you have demonstrated that you are arguing only from your own position of personal prejudice and have no real argument.

Really? I am showing there is no necessity for such weapon, and as seen you and victor will attempt any kind of divergence to get around the fact you have no claim to a necessity for guns into society

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:38 pm

grumpy old git wrote:Well didge, having changed the basis of your argument 3 times, and humiliating yourself with desperation in the process, you have finally retreated into the bunker of the "lack of need", the last refuge of the rogue dictator...

It is up to you to PROVE lack of need with full and proper facts, not emotives and anecdotes...It is NOT for me to prove need.

Oh more points about me and none able to show the necessity of guns, hilarious

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:38 pm

OK didge people get shotguns and rifles made exceptions so they can go target shooting.

Why cant people get handguns made exceptions so they can go target shooting?

The rifles and shotguns used for target shooting are not necessary either - so why should there be exceptions for those but not exceptions for handguns?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:39 pm

sphinx wrote:Oh yes and just to add - many rifles and shotguns are licensed for no reason other than target shooting - they are not "needed" for anything else

So why can we not extend the same logic to handguns?

Why do you need a licence for a gun Sphinx?

is it because they are illegal?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:42 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:Oh yes and just to add - many rifles and shotguns are licensed for no reason other than target shooting - they are not "needed" for anything else

So why can we not extend the same logic to handguns?

Why do you need a licence for a gun Sphinx?

is it because they are illegal?

Well if that is the reason then driving must be illegal because we have to have a licence to drive.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:42 pm

No didge...the point is that YOU need to PROVE "lack of necessity"...not the other way round.

BTW the LAW does NOT ban guns per se. Indeed the LAW as it stands declares that it is the RIGHT of anyone to own a gun, subject to certain requirements (as to good character and so on) and then goes on to ban certain types of weapons, some for good reason and some for less good reason.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:45 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:Oh yes and just to add - many rifles and shotguns are licensed for no reason other than target shooting - they are not "needed" for anything else

So why can we not extend the same logic to handguns?

Why do you need a licence for a gun Sphinx?

is it because they are illegal?

NO didge...it isnt...you require a licence to show that you are considered by the police to be of sufficiently good character to TAKE UP YOUR RIGHT to own a gun,. Nothing more. I repeat IN LAW owning a gun is everymans right, subject to you being of good character and fitness....

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:48 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Why do you need a licence for a gun Sphinx?

is it because they are illegal?

NO didge...it isnt...you require a licence to show that you are considered by the police to be of sufficiently good character to TAKE UP YOUR RIGHT to own a gun,. Nothing more. I repeat IN LAW owning a gun is everymans right, subject to you being of good character and fitness....

So you need a licence for a gun because why Victor?

they are illegal

What right? Because you said so?
I must remember that logic next time, it is my right to rape, murder, pillage commit genocide?

Sorry no it isnt

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:49 pm

grumpy old git wrote:No didge...the point is that YOU need to PROVE "lack of necessity"...not the other way round.

BTW the LAW does NOT ban guns per se. Indeed the LAW as it stands declares that it is the RIGHT of anyone to own a gun, subject to certain requirements (as to good character and so on) and then goes on to ban certain types of weapons, some for good reason and some for less good reason.

Really, since when, you are now changing the rules to debate also, sorry not your forum son, you need to prove they are an necessity to prove they are needed in society

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:53 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Why do you need a licence for a gun Sphinx?

is it because they are illegal?

Well if that is the reason then driving must be illegal because we have to have a licence to drive.

Is driving not illegal without a licence?

Please take your time on that one

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:55 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

NO didge...it isnt...you require a licence to show that you are considered by the police to be of sufficiently good character to TAKE UP YOUR RIGHT to own a gun,. Nothing more. I repeat IN LAW owning a gun is everymans right, subject to you being of good character and fitness....

So you need a licence for a gun because why Victor?

they are illegal

NO they are NOT illegal...that is a myth...

What right? Because you said so?

NO...because the LAW of the land says so

I must remember that logic next time, it is my right to rape, murder, pillage commit genocide?

Sorry no it isnt

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:56 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Well if that is the reason then driving must be illegal because we have to have a licence to drive.

Is driving not illegal without a licence?

Please take your time on that one

ahhh...but there is nothing in law that says driving a car is a RIGHT...unlike owning a gun....where the law is quite clear...

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:57 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

So you need a licence for a gun because why Victor?

they are illegal

NO they are NOT illegal...that is a myth...

What right? Because you said so?

NO...because the LAW of the land says so

I must remember that logic next time, it is my right to rape, murder, pillage commit genocide?

Sorry no it isnt

Really?
Do you need to own a licence to have some guns?

That they are illegal without one, thus many guns are already banned and you need a licence to own the exceptions to this rule.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:59 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Is driving not illegal without a licence?

Please take your time on that one

ahhh...but there is nothing in law that says driving a car is a RIGHT...unlike owning a gun....where the law is quite clear...

Can you own a car without a licence or tax and insurance, i can bring in more rules here if you like?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:03 pm

Right have to sign off, maybe you might have some better decorum victor and decency when debating.

Other than that I wish you a fine evening

by Fred Moletrousers Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:04 pm

Warren Moon wrote:The British are known for their great spirit , ingenuity and ability to compromise; so how about we forget guns and allow the longbow to be legal.

Clay pigeon shooting but with arrows.

If you're a resident of York, of course, an ancient by-law still allows you to shoot Scotsmen with a bow and arrow if they are out within the city walls after sunset.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:09 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Well if that is the reason then driving must be illegal because we have to have a licence to drive.

Is driving not illegal without a licence?

Please take your time on that one

Driving without a licence is not the same as driving

Owning a shotgun without a licence is not the same as owning a shotgun.

Consider things like murder - that is illegal and you cannot get a licence to murder, heroin is illegal and you cannot get a licence to take it.

Now apply that to handguns - owning one is illegal and you cannot get a licence for it

So why not have handguns licensed the same as shotguns

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:11 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

Really?
Do you need to own a licence to have some guns?

That they are illegal without one, thus many guns are already banned and you need a licence to own the exceptions to this rule.

Wrong didge...It is PERFECTLY legal to use a gun without a licence and in cetain circumstances it is perfectly legal to OWN a gun without a licence...

for instance my wife can pay for a gun and have the receipt...therefore in law SHE owns the gun...it has to be on MY license, I have to secure it and she can iuse it ONLY under my direct supervision, therefor she both owns and uses a gun without a license....... She cannot however be allowed unsupervised access to it, but only she could sell it or otherwise dispose of it since she is the legal owner of that PROPERTY.

what effectively the law states is that it is every mans right to own a gun. what this ACTUALLY means is that subject to you being of good character, having a referee to support your good character, and being medically fit, the police are OBLIGED to grant this license...that is to say you have a RIGHT to the licence (and therfore the gun to go with it) an applicant CANNOT be refused a license WITHOUT there being good cause be shown...
You do not get a licnese because some good fairy likes you or you are considered something special....you get it unless you are a bad boy...
In reality although called a licnse or permit, it is in effect neither, its is (effectively) a certificate of fitness to own.

A driving license on the other hand is a "certifcate of competance" to show you have Provwed you are capable of driving (well thats the theory), your character has nothing to do with it.

the two are simply not the same....

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:12 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

ahhh...but there is nothing in law that says driving a car is a RIGHT...unlike owning a gun....where the law is quite clear...

Can you own a car without a licence or tax and insurance, i can bring in more rules here if you like?

YES

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:15 pm

Look this is simple - didge does not like guns but is unable to admit that in his dislike he is simply expressing an opinion and so has to come out with the most ridiculous statements to try and prove he is right.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:17 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Can you own a car without a licence or tax and insurance, i can bring in more rules here if you like?

YES

Incorrect

It is against the law to own a car without insurance or tax, unless the registered keeper of the car officially declares that the car is permanently off road and not being driven, by filling out a Statutory Off Road Notification or SORN and sending it to the DVLA.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/scotland/consumer_s/consumer_cars_and_other_vehicles_e/consumer_driving_and_parking_e/consumer_wheel_clamping_s/when_your_car_can_be_clamped_or_towed_away_s.htm

Again exceptions needed

by Sponsored content