Nigel Farage calls for UK gun laws to be relaxed

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

      

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:You know what is disturbing here - it is seeing someone being mocked who is oblivious to it and actually thinks he is winning the argument.

And yes I do recognize my own participation.

Mocked countless times by people who think they are right, where as seen they cannot show they are right , which is even more amusing

Do you not get sassy is anti gun I am pro gun (with strict licensing - not the US system) and we are both arguing with you because the scenario you have come up with manages to somehow be worse than either of the things we do not support.

As for showing we are right - you have certainly not managed to come within a million miles of being right unless being right means leaving your audience trying to work out if you are serious or trying to pull off some huge piss take they cant work out.

Warren Moon wrote:Knife or Gun....not the kind of words you want to hear the Rabbi say before a circumcision.

  

That's scary.

Shocking Fox Hunt Picture Shows Three Men Slaughtering An Animal In Front Of Children (GRAPHIC IMAGE)


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/27/shocking-fox-hunt-picture-modbury-harriers_n_4674276.html?utm_hp_ref=uk



the vote was interesting:


Quick Poll
What should happen to the three men involved in this killing?

Nothing, it's a countryside way of life  27.11%

If found illegal, they should be prosecuted  31.69%

All three should be shoved into a badger sett and attacked with spades and guns 41.2%

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Mocked countless times by people who think they are right, where as seen they cannot show they are right , which is even more amusing

Do you not get sassy is anti gun I am pro gun (with strict licensing - not the US system) and we are both arguing with you because the scenario you have come up with manages to somehow be worse than either of the things we do not support.

As for showing we are right - you have certainly not managed to come within a million miles of being right unless being right means leaving your audience trying to work out if you are serious or trying to pull off some huge piss take they cant work out.

I believe this forum has a way to resolve such things; Sphinx and Sassy must go head to head in a topless wrestling match.




Place your bets!

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Mocked countless times by people who think they are right, where as seen they cannot show they are right , which is even more amusing

Do you not get sassy is anti gun I am pro gun (with strict licensing - not the US system) and we are both arguing with you because the scenario you have come up with manages to somehow be worse than either of the things we do not support.

As for showing we are right - you have certainly not managed to come within a million miles of being right unless being right means leaving your audience trying to work out if you are serious or trying to pull off some huge piss take they cant work out.

In both of your opinion, but then sassy never has a relevant opinion, and most of yours has been spent with too much time on your hand sitting doing nothing contemplating how to always think you are right, so what you both think is irrelevant, what is though is debating the points, of which I can manipulate them easily
So your view is I am wrong, that does not make it so hun

grumpy old git wrote:

Warren Moon wrote:



Common sense, I'm also borderline psychotic.

Keith, take comfort....what is normal....well I guess its best defined as "the state of the majority" therefor, considering the state of the world today, you being borderline psychotic probably makes you more normal than you think  :D 

Well he's a damn site saner than some!

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

Its called referencing you hypocritical troll

Still wound up with his potty mouth, ha ha ha ha bless you need back up

 :D 

ohh threats now is it ...from a troll . Well now thats made me laugh

lets look at the didge (as he sees himself)

he recons hes from a mixed irish/sicillian descent...I cannot beleive him
he recons he is from a poor home backgound ..a child of 12 I believe he claims....I dont beleive him
he recons he has known poverty....i dont believe him
I have left one thing out here just in case I am wrong (but he knows what it is)
he plays the poor didge victim card when all else fails

he lies
he is a hypocrite...PROVEN

he has no grasp of reality...PROVEN


all in all TROLL .

all further communications ignored...There are better things to do than bandy words with an idiot....

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Do you not get sassy is anti gun I am pro gun (with strict licensing - not the US system) and we are both arguing with you because the scenario you have come up with manages to somehow be worse than either of the things we do not support.

As for showing we are right - you have certainly not managed to come within a million miles of being right unless being right means leaving your audience trying to work out if you are serious or trying to pull off some huge piss take they cant work out.

In both of your opinion, but then sassy never has a relevant opinion, and most of yours has been spent with too much time on your hand sitting doing nothing contemplating how to always think you are right, so what you both think is irrelevant, what is though is debating the points, of which I can manipulate them easily
So your view is I am wrong, that does not make it so hun

No my view is you are coming across as so illogical I must be failing in some way. I can understand sassys point of view and with respect to sassy think she is wrong. I cannot actually understand yours and so cannot actually judge it.

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Still wound up with his potty mouth, ha ha ha ha bless you need back up

 :D 

ohh threats now is it ...from a troll . Well now thats made me laugh

lets look at the didge (as he sees himself)

he recons hes from a mixed irish/sicillian descent...I cannot beleive him
he recons he is from a poor home backgound ..a child of 12 I believe he claims....I dont beleive him
he recons he has known poverty....i dont believe him
I have left one thing out here just in case I am wrong (but he knows what it is)
he plays the poor didge victim card when all else fails

he lies
he is a hypocrite...PROVEN

he has no grasp of reality...PROVEN


all in all TROLL .

all further communications ignored...There are better things to do than bandy words with an idiot....

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 


So where have I played the victim card apart from just point out your potty mouth?

Hilarious, so you don;t believe me on things, I really am not going to lose any sleep over that.#


You say you have better things to do after posting countless replies to me, that is logic for you

 ://?roflmao?/: 

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


In both of your opinion, but then sassy never has a relevant opinion, and most of yours has been spent with too much time on your hand sitting doing nothing contemplating how to always think you are right, so what you both think is irrelevant, what is though is debating the points, of which I can manipulate them easily
So your view is I am wrong, that does not make it so hun

No my view is you are coming across as so illogical I must be failing in some way.  I can understand sassys point of view and with respect to sassy think she is wrong.  I cannot actually understand yours and so cannot actually judge it.

Yes that is your view, your view though may not understand logic as seen you favour hunting so your view is going to be swayed and you cannot understand mine yet have failed to show it wrong so much so I got you to admit that guns were not a necessity in society. So clearly you were understanding very well sphinx

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


In both of your opinion, but then sassy never has a relevant opinion, and most of yours has been spent with too much time on your hand sitting doing nothing contemplating how to always think you are right, so what you both think is irrelevant, what is though is debating the points, of which I can manipulate them easily
So your view is I am wrong, that does not make it so hun

No my view is you are coming across as so illogical I must be failing in some way.  I can understand sassys point of view and with respect to sassy think she is wrong.  I cannot actually understand yours and so cannot actually judge it.

I'm not completely anti gun.   I can see why farmers etc need them, having lived in the country for some time.   I don't think they need hand guns, but most of them don't use hand guns.   As I said, I think it ludicrous that the shooting team have to practice in France, but then I also wonder how they came to know they could shoot handguns anyway.   That's my conundrum.   Of course there has to be guns in the country, we'd be overrun with rabbits etc and then they would bring in myxomatotis again,  which is simply vile.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:



No my view is you are coming across as so illogical I must be failing in some way.  I can understand sassys point of view and with respect to sassy think she is wrong.  I cannot actually understand yours and so cannot actually judge it.

Yes that is your view, your view though may not understand logic as seen you favour hunting so your view is going to be swayed and you cannot understand mine yet have failed to show it wrong so much so I got you to admit that guns were not a necessity in society. So clearly you were understanding very well sphinx

No you got me to admit guns for sport were not a necessity - I have shown other areas where guns are a necessity with you admitting it through your plans for having the army take care of those areas.

Statements where I say "If we accept that premise" are not me agreeing with you they are me trying to understand you.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Yes that is your view, your view though may not understand logic as seen you favour hunting so your view is going to be swayed and you cannot understand mine yet have failed to show it wrong so much so I got you to admit that guns were not a necessity in society. So clearly you were understanding very well sphinx

No you got me to admit guns for sport were not a necessity - I have shown other areas where guns are a necessity with you admitting it through your plans for having the army take care of those areas.
Thus you understood my argument, that is not someone not understanding someone is it, seriously you make absurd statements all the time. My idea was to render your arguments moot with with the use of the army, of which you then poorly tried to claim not even knowing they actually perform many various civilian job roles with things like Vets or even training as pest control and they actually do

Statements where I say "If we accept that premise" are not me agreeing with you they are me trying to understand you.

Well as seen your whole argument now is about me, which says much to your belief in your own views, where all you can do is now debate me. The reality is I set out to render moot your arguments, you then became so fixated you looked for any little clause that could help you keep guns for hunting, that was the desperation within your debating, because you can invent many means to outwit a poster on something they think they have all worked out and 9 pages later they never did. I could have used age old arguments, but you are prepared for them by constantly studying them, where as here you were left struggling to find ways to counter.
If all you can do is talk about me, then again I am very happy with that

Can I suggest talking to an idiot only drags you down Sphinx, I think Victor has decided that as well.

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Still wound up with his potty mouth, ha ha ha ha bless you need back up

 :D 

ohh threats now is it ...from a troll . Well now thats made me laugh

lets look at the didge (as he sees himself)

he recons hes from a mixed irish/sicillian descent...I cannot beleive him
he recons he is from a poor home backgound ..a child of 12 I believe he claims....I dont beleive him
he recons he has known poverty....i dont believe him
I have left one thing out here just in case I am wrong (but he knows what it is)
he plays the poor didge victim card when all else fails

he lies
he is a hypocrite...PROVEN

he has no grasp of reality...PROVEN


all in all TROLL .

all further communications ignored...There are better things to do than bandy words with an idiot....

                

Sassy wrote:Can I suggest talking to an idiot only drags you down Sphinx, I think Victor has decided that as well.

Words of wisdom from sassy slag poster constantly off, bravo, yes please some more sassy

 :D 

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No my view is you are coming across as so illogical I must be failing in some way.  I can understand sassys point of view and with respect to sassy think she is wrong.  I cannot actually understand yours and so cannot actually judge it.

I'm not completely anti gun.   I can see why farmers etc need them, having lived in the country for some time.   I don't think they need hand guns, but most of them don't use hand guns.   As I said, I think it ludicrous that the shooting team have to practice in France, but then I also wonder how they came to know they could shoot handguns anyway.   That's my conundrum.   Of course there has to be guns in the country, we'd be overrun with rabbits etc and then they would bring in my myxomatotis,  which is simply vile.

My apologies.

I do not think there is a need for handguns I am just opposed to ineffective legislation - and the handgun ban is ineffective. While there is no need to have hand guns there is no reason for them not to be licensed the same as rifles and shotguns and I know several people who used to get a great deal of pleasure out of shooting them for sport.

I would imagine the way the current Olympic team got into it would be parents/family who were keen on shooting before the handgun ban and willing to travel to continue combined with people whose family travelled a lot and who were exposed to it while travelling. For instance if I won the lottery (unlikely I have given up playing) and visited the US and Canada where I have relatives I might be taken to a shooting range - I might be offered to have a go. If I did so and found I enjoyed it and had a talent for it (highly unlikely) I might wish to continue and develop the talent. I mean I am not quite 40 and can remember gun clubs in my local area from before the ban, my partner is younger and remembers handling and firing some of his dads collection at clubs - it wasnt that long ago the ban came in.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No you got me to admit guns for sport were not a necessity - I have shown other areas where guns are a necessity with you admitting it through your plans for having the army take care of those areas.
Thus you understood my argument, that is not someone not understanding someone is it, seriously you make absurd statements all the time. My idea was to render your arguments moot with with the use of the army, of which you then poorly tried to claim not even knowing they actually perform many various civilian job roles with things like Vets or even training as pest control and they actually do

Statements where I say "If we accept that premise" are not me agreeing with you they are me trying to understand you.

Well as seen your whole argument now is about me, which says much to your belief in your own views, where all you can do is now debate me. The reality is I set out to render moot your arguments, you then became so fixated you looked for any little clause that could help you keep guns for hunting, that was the desperation within your debating, because you can invent many means to outwit a poster on something they think they have all worked out and 9 pages later they never did. I could have used age old arguments, but you are prepared for them by constantly studying them, where as here you were left struggling to find ways to counter.
If all you can do is talk about me, then again I am very happy with that

No I do not understand your argument because it is one a brain dead idiot can see is so fatally flawed as to be useless. I kept exploring it in the hope it would make sense.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Well as seen your whole argument now is about me, which says much to your belief in your own views, where all you can do is now debate me. The reality is I set out to render moot your arguments, you then became so fixated you looked for any little clause that could help you keep guns for hunting, that was the desperation within your debating, because you can invent many means to outwit a poster on something they think they have all worked out and 9 pages later they never did. I could have used age old arguments, but you are prepared for them by constantly studying them, where as here you were left struggling to find ways to counter.
If all you can do is talk about me, then again I am very happy with that

No I do not understand your argument because it is one a brain dead idiot can see is so fatally flawed as to be useless.  I kept exploring it in the hope it would make sense.

So because you say so, that makes it so, sorry as seen you really are left not knowing your own cause, which again was easy to manipulate and you can say idiot or what ever you like it just backs my view further you cannot debate, now get off your arse and get a job you layabout! For someone to be so ill able to type all day is incredible

 :D

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No I do not understand your argument because it is one a brain dead idiot can see is so fatally flawed as to be useless.  I kept exploring it in the hope it would make sense.

So because you say so, that makes it so, sorry as seen you really are left not knowing your own cause, which again was easy to manipulate and you can say idiot or what ever you like it just backs my view further you cannot debate, now get off your arse and get a job a layabout!

 :D 

Didge can you produce a single poster who has got the foggiest idea of what point you were trying to make?

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No I do not understand your argument because it is one a brain dead idiot can see is so fatally flawed as to be useless.  I kept exploring it in the hope it would make sense.

So because you say so, that makes it so, sorry as seen you really are left not knowing your own cause, which again was easy to manipulate and you can say idiot or what ever you like it just backs my view further you cannot debate, now get off your arse and get a job a layabout! For someone to be so ill able to type all day is incredible

 :D

The real didge....from his position of privilidge

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


So because you say so, that makes it so, sorry as seen you really are left not knowing your own cause, which again was easy to manipulate and you can say idiot or what ever you like it just backs my view further you cannot debate, now get off your arse and get a job a layabout!

 :D 

Didge can you produce a single poster who has got the foggiest idea of what point you were trying to make?

Yes, me!

As there are only limited people posting on this you have two that back you, Joy does not back you, so limited to say the least

One thing this thread has proved  is that you do not need a license to own a gun , you do it illegally like all those poor criminals do. but you hide it somewhere not on your premises. If the shit hits the fan in the uk you can retrieve it when you really need it. And one other thing is needed in the event of civil war in the UK and that's a RED FLAG , you wave it and if anyone waves back it's a lefty so shoot the fucker.





               

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


So because you say so, that makes it so, sorry as seen you really are left not knowing your own cause, which again was easy to manipulate and you can say idiot or what ever you like it just backs my view further you cannot debate, now get off your arse and get a job a layabout! For someone to be so ill able to type all day is incredible

 :D

The real didge....from his position of privilidge

Yes the real Didge who can see something is not right with a claim to be ill to be perfectly able to debate all day long typing, it does beg questions, when I know people who suffer this condition and for days are not able to do anything.

 :D 

The real Didge that says he has a job but is on here all day posting.

Sassy wrote:The real Didge that says he has a job but is on here all day posting.

Have I been on here all day, nope.


Poor accusations sassy, I have a very good job making me one of those rich people you dispise so much!

 :D 

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

The real didge....from his position of privilidge

Yes the real Didge who can see something is not right with a claim to be ill to be perfectly able to debate all day long typing, it does beg questions, when I know people who suffer this condition and for days are not able to do anything.

 :D 

But some one who is supposed to be working and having a family can spend upto 18 hours a day on web sites.


I rest my case.



               

Why does everything have to end up in a peeing up the backyard wall contest?   
What ever happened to taking what posters say at face value.
People personal info is just that.

Sassy wrote:The real Didge that says he has a job but is on here all day posting.

I thought he was paid to post by '' Hope not hate'' are you saying he has another employer.

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:The real Didge that says he has a job but is on here all day posting.

Have I been on here all day, nope.


Poor accusations sassy, I have a very good job making me one of those rich people you dispise so much!

 :D 

Notice you thought better of it and changed your post. I don't despise the rich. I think they should pay their fair share. Like my Dad, who thinks it is wrong to take the winter fuel allowance even though he is over 90, because he is very well off, so he gives it to a local children's charity.

NemsAgain wrote:Why does everything have to end up in a peeing up the backyard wall contest?   
What ever happened to taking what posters say at face value.
People personal info is just that.

Fair point and Sphinx knows I like her, so take it back and knows she suffers, though most of the abuse was from one potty mouth but happy to say sorry to sphinx

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Have I been on here all day, nope.


Poor accusations sassy, I have a very good job making me one of those rich people you dispise so much!

 :D 

Notice you thought better of it and changed your post.   I don't despise the rich.   I think they should pay their fair share.   Like my Dad, who thinks it is wrong to take the winter fuel allowance even though he is over 90, because he is very well off, so he gives it to a local children's charity.

We do pay are fair share and I changed nothing in my post

PhilDidge wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:Why does everything have to end up in a peeing up the backyard wall contest?   
What ever happened to taking what posters say at face value.
People personal info is just that.

Fair point and Sphinx knows I like her, so take it back and knows she suffers, though most of the abuse was from one potty mouth but happy to say sorry to sphinx

Sorry Didge that wasnt aimed specifically at you.
This groundhog day of constant abuse and spite is becoming very tedious

NemsAgain wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Fair point and Sphinx knows I like her, so take it back and knows she suffers, though most of the abuse was from one potty mouth but happy to say sorry to sphinx

Sorry Didge that wasnt aimed specifically at you.
This groundhog day of constant abuse and spite is becoming very tedious

I know, but I should have not said that about sphinx, maybe I was getting bored of the constant insults being thrown my way when I should have risen above it and agree it is getting tedious

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Didge can you produce a single poster who has got the foggiest idea of what point you were trying to make?

Yes, me!

As there are only limited people posting on this you have two that back you, Joy does not back you, so limited to say the least

Ok let me rephrase that - can you find some poster other than yourself that could read your entire post argument and come out with the foggiest idea of your point yet alone agree with you.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Yes, me!

As there are only limited people posting on this you have two that back you, Joy does not back you, so limited to say the least

Ok let me rephrase that - can you find some poster other than yourself that could read your entire post argument and come out with the foggiest idea of your point yet alone agree with you.

Why do I need to, if you want to find out then what should you do?
Bit silly to ask me, if others are not involved in the debate!

I could turn this the other way and ask why people have not come on in abundance and said my arguments cannot be understood can I not?

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Have I been on here all day, nope.


Poor accusations sassy, I have a very good job making me one of those rich people you dispise so much!

 :D 

Notice you thought better of it and changed your post.   I don't despise the rich.   I think they should pay their fair share.   Like my Dad, who thinks it is wrong to take the winter fuel allowance even though he is over 90, because he is very well off, so he gives it to a local children's charity.

Good on him. Mine goes to the local hospital oncology department for patient comforts such as more comfortable chairs in the chemo suite..

gun laws should be relaxed in this country and the reaction to the disaster was totally out of proportion, many legitimate and perfectly normal people had guns taken away for no good reason..

Guest wrote:gun laws should be relaxed in this country and the reaction to the disaster was totally out of proportion, many legitimate and perfectly normal people had guns taken away for no good reason..

Why?

I don't want gun laws relaxed in this country. Do you want us to become like America?

The old cliche that not guns but people kill other people may be true but they tend to do so with guns..they have been created to ensure death occurs ,that is the point of a gun. Allowing more people to own guns or relaxing the laws will inevitably just lead to more deaths simply because more people are in possession of a deadly weapon.

I understand the fears of people who worry about crime and want guns for home protection,but I just don't think allowing individuals to own guns is the answer.Relaxing the ownership of lethal weapons created to kill will only end in more death as America shows us.

I don't know what the answer is r.e home protection is though I admit.

When you have a law that keeps guns from the public, do the 'bad guys' follow said laws? Does it just make it harder for the upstanding citizens to protext themselves when all they have to protect themselves with is whistles, sticks and bricks?


Why tilt the playing field in the criminals direction because of ones fear of firearms?

It would be a great topic for the forthcoming Farage v Cloggy debate........ Cloggy would be even more useless in his replies....

FluffyBunny wrote:

Guest wrote:gun laws should be relaxed in this country and the reaction to the disaster was totally out of proportion, many legitimate and perfectly normal people had guns taken away for no good reason..

Why?

I don't want gun laws relaxed in this country. Do you want us to become like America?

The old cliche that not guns but people kill other people may be true but they tend to do so with guns..they have been created to ensure death occurs ,that is the point of a gun. Allowing more people to own guns or relaxing the laws will inevitably just lead to more deaths simply because more people are in possession of a deadly weapon.

I understand the fears of people who worry about crime and want guns for home protection,but I just don't think allowing individuals to own guns is the answer.Relaxing the ownership of lethal weapons created to kill will only end in more death as America shows us.

I don't know what the answer is r.e home protection is though I admit.

You are wrong. Hand guns in the UK were not about home protection - that is a concept from the US where the right to protect the home and bear arms is enshrined in the constitution. Deaths from guns actually increased immediately after the ban before returning to pre ban levels - it made no difference on the number of people killed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom.

Seeing as it made no difference in the number of people killed by guns - which has fluctuated due to other reasons - this means that the only people affected by the ban were the hobbiests and target shooters who never killed, injured or shot at anyone, and who had their hobbies and collections taken away.

The overturning of the ban would not make any difference to deaths - it would simple allow ordinary people to again take up a hobby that gave them pleasure and hurt nobody.

sphinx wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

Why?

I don't want gun laws relaxed in this country. Do you want us to become like America?

The old cliche that not guns but people kill other people may be true but they tend to do so with guns..they have been created to ensure death occurs ,that is the point of a gun. Allowing more people to own guns or relaxing the laws will inevitably just lead to more deaths simply because more people are in possession of a deadly weapon.

I understand the fears of people who worry about crime and want guns for home protection,but I just don't think allowing individuals to own guns is the answer.Relaxing the ownership of lethal weapons created to kill will only end in more death as America shows us.

I don't know what the answer is r.e home protection is though I admit.

You are wrong.  Hand guns in the UK were not about home protection - that is a concept from the US where the right to protect the home and bear arms is enshrined in the constitution.  Deaths from  guns actually increased immediately after the ban before returning to pre ban levels - it made no difference on the number of people killed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom.

Seeing as it made no difference in the number of people killed by guns - which has fluctuated due to other reasons - this means that the only people affected by the ban were the hobbiests and target shooters who never killed, injured or shot at anyone, and who had their hobbies and collections taken away.

The overturning of the ban would not make any difference to deaths - it would simple allow ordinary people to again take up a hobby that gave them pleasure and hurt nobody.

I thought you were all about democracy?
The majority do not want the gun laws changed, thus you must accept that and live with it, people see guns as a danger and know the potential lethal damage they are capable of and you are now claiming nobody from a love of gun clubs has killed ever, really?
Why overturn anything, the fact is take up a new hobby, people do it all the time

Also sphinx cannot deny that things have been better since the gun laws:



Likewise, most mainstream media organizations say that while gun crime clearly still exists in the U.K., gun control itself has been a success — the Economist recently pointed to an instance where two gangs in the city of Birmingham were forced to use the same gun in a turf war, rented from a third party, as they either couldn't find a gun to buy or couldn't afford inflated black market prices. The scarcity of illegal guns is reportedly so bad that stolen antique guns are frequently used by gangs, and U.K. law enforcement officials now estimate that only around 1,000 guns are in use by criminal elements in the entirety of the U.K.

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You are wrong.  Hand guns in the UK were not about home protection - that is a concept from the US where the right to protect the home and bear arms is enshrined in the constitution.  Deaths from  guns actually increased immediately after the ban before returning to pre ban levels - it made no difference on the number of people killed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom.

Seeing as it made no difference in the number of people killed by guns - which has fluctuated due to other reasons - this means that the only people affected by the ban were the hobbiests and target shooters who never killed, injured or shot at anyone, and who had their hobbies and collections taken away.

The overturning of the ban would not make any difference to deaths - it would simple allow ordinary people to again take up a hobby that gave them pleasure and hurt nobody.

I thought you were all about democracy?
The majority do not want the gun laws changed, thus you must accept that and live with it, people see guns as a danger and know the potential lethal damage they are capable of and you are now claiming nobody from a love of gun clubs has killed ever, really?
Why overturn anything, the fact is take up a new hobby, people do it all the time

Does democracy mean you would have a problem with a party putting out a referendum on over turning the hand gun laws with its various members free to campaign which ever way they believed? (An amazing thing happens at UKIP gatherings - people argue and disagree on things like this because they feel differently - the bottom line is it would come down to a vote)

How do you know the majority do not want this law overturned?

Yes people take up new hobbies - my OHs mother did. What cannot be overturned however is her having to give up the collection her husband left her on his death. All legal, all registered, all gone. For what?

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


I thought you were all about democracy?
The majority do not want the gun laws changed, thus you must accept that and live with it, people see guns as a danger and know the potential lethal damage they are capable of and you are now claiming nobody from a love of gun clubs has killed ever, really?
Why overturn anything, the fact is take up a new hobby, people do it all the time

Does democracy mean you would have a problem with a party putting out a referendum on over turning the hand gun laws with its various members free to campaign which ever way they believed?  (An amazing thing happens at UKIP gatherings - people argue and disagree on things like this because they feel differently - the bottom line is it would come down to a vote)

How do you know the majority do not want this law overturned?

Yes people take up new hobbies - my OHs mother did.  What cannot be overturned however is her having to give up the collection her husband left her on his death.  All legal, all registered, all gone.  For what?

Odd did I say I have a problem with a party doing that?
I said you make a big song and dance about democracy, yet cannot comprehend many are against changing the gun laws

Nope seems you fail to understand many are against overturning the gun laws, the fact is the Dunblane massacre is still very much in many people's thoughts, hence why I doubt it will ever be overturned and thank goodness for that.

She did not have to give up the collection, that is a cock and bull, she could have had the guns deactivated and she would then have been able to keep them, so stop telling porkies

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587024/Pictured-15-year-old-girl-shot-dead-male-friend-East-London-house-three-teenage-boys-questioned.html

Once upon a time before these weapons were banned they were kept locked separately from the ammunition in the care of responsible adults who appreciated their risks.

If things have got better why are people still dying?

sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587024/Pictured-15-year-old-girl-shot-dead-male-friend-East-London-house-three-teenage-boys-questioned.html

Once upon a time before these weapons were banned they were kept locked separately from the ammunition in the care of responsible adults who appreciated their risks.

If things have got better why are people still dying?

Things have got better, less guns available, did you not read that part?
Read again it does not deny gun crime still exists:


Likewise, most mainstream media organizations say that while gun crime clearly still exists in the U.K., gun control itself has been a success — the Economist recently pointed to an instance where two gangs in the city of Birmingham were forced to use the same gun in a turf war, rented from a third party, as they either couldn't find a gun to buy or couldn't afford inflated black market prices. The scarcity of illegal guns is reportedly so bad that stolen antique guns are frequently used by gangs, and U.K. law enforcement officials now estimate that only around 1,000 guns are in use by criminal elements in the entirety of the U.K.

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Does democracy mean you would have a problem with a party putting out a referendum on over turning the hand gun laws with its various members free to campaign which ever way they believed?  (An amazing thing happens at UKIP gatherings - people argue and disagree on things like this because they feel differently - the bottom line is it would come down to a vote)

How do you know the majority do not want this law overturned?

Yes people take up new hobbies - my OHs mother did.  What cannot be overturned however is her having to give up the collection her husband left her on his death.  All legal, all registered, all gone.  For what?

Odd did I say I have a problem with a party doing that?
I said you make a big song and dance about democracy, yet cannot comprehend many are against changing the gun laws

Nope seems you fail to understand many are against overturning the gun laws, the fact is the Dunblane massacre is still very much in many people's thoughts, hence why I doubt it will ever be overturned and thank goodness for that.

She did not have to give up the collection, that is a cock and bull, she could have had the guns deactivated and she would then have been able to keep them, so stop telling porkies

So you have gone from the majority to many?

The fact is neither you nor I know how such a referendum would turn out - I hear far more people supporting it being overturned you hear the opposite because we tend to associate with people who are similar to ourselves. In a debate such as this I will speak the way I would if a referendum had been called. I assume you are doing the same and start out from the position that as we both live in a democracy we would both stand by the decision of the majority even if different from our own and that neither of us when debating are meaning we think our beliefs should be forced on all others without their input. I would appreciate the same respect from yourself rather than your assumption than me arguing my opinion equates to my rejection of democracy and a wish to take over dictator style.

It seems you are unfamiliar with firearms so I will not get angry at your ignorant display of disrespect for a bequest. To put it in a way you may find easier to understand what you have suggested in deactivation is like taking a Ferrari and removing its wheels and engine so it can be kept on blocks - or taking a Raphael and using a biro to draw fig leaves over the genitals.