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 Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:12 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Yes but this argument is about weaponry, not people being boring by train spotting for example, I understand sports where weaponry is used and have no issue with that except when it comes to hunting the only exception for hunting would be necessity to eat.
Weaponry has been designed for one sole purpose, to kill, hence why making view points on other dull past times is very much moot!

Again this is your view - why does that give you the right to stop others from doing something they enjoy that hurts no-one?

Its called ethics and morals.
I am not stopping people playing sports either or even hunting, I just fail to see what pleasure you can get out of ending the life of an animal, as there is no real sport on contest when using a modern rifle/gun. To me it is nothing more than machoism and a feeling of egotistic empowerment over animals. That is my view yes, a moral view.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:18 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Again this is your view - why does that give you the right to stop others from doing something they enjoy that hurts no-one?

Its called ethics and morals.
I am not stopping people playing sports either or even hunting, I just fail to see what pleasure you can get out of ending the life of an animal, as there is no real sport on contest when using a modern rifle/gun. To me it is nothing more than machoism and a feeling of egotistic empowerment over animals. That is my view yes, a moral view.

I am not asking about hunting I am asking why you feel it is acceptable to prevent my partners mother from participating in an activity she did for years - shooting at a paper square with circles drawn on it.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:22 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Its called ethics and morals.
I am not stopping people playing sports either or even hunting, I just fail to see what pleasure you can get out of ending the life of an animal, as there is no real sport on contest when using a modern rifle/gun. To me it is nothing more than machoism and a feeling of egotistic empowerment over animals. That is my view yes, a moral view.

I am not asking about hunting I am asking why you feel it is acceptable to prevent my partners mother from participating in an activity she did for years - shooting at a paper square with circles drawn on it.

I suggest she take up Bingo instead!

lol!

Seriously joking aside, is this your argument here on what is the lesser need against the greater good?

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:27 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

I am not asking about hunting I am asking why you feel it is acceptable to prevent my partners mother from participating in an activity she did for years - shooting at a paper square with circles drawn on it.

I suggest she take up Bingo instead!

Seriously joking aside, is this your argument here on what is the lesser need against the greater good?

What great good didge?

What greater good has the handgun ban achieved?

It has not reduced gun crime
It has not stopped innocent people being killed with handguns
It has not reduced drug crime
It has not even stopped spree killings

So what is this greater good you are talking about?

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:34 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

I suggest she take up Bingo instead!

Seriously joking aside, is this your argument here on what is the lesser need against the greater good?

What great good didge?

What greater good has the handgun ban achieved?

It has not reduced gun crime
It has not stopped innocent people being killed with handguns
It has not reduced drug crime
It has not even stopped spree killings

So what is this greater good you are talking about?

The greater good is being able to deny access to such weaponry which its main purpose is to kill, that is the greater good by denying access to such harmful weapons.

Your view is pedantic, based upon a small minority of people who wish to have things which will conflict with other issues, something you fail to understand.

Drug crime will be reduced by legalising drugs and yes crime/murder is much lower in nations that have high restrictions on gun control.
The reality is compare the two nations America and Britain on this issue, and the minute you do, your argument is lost.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:47 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

What great good didge?

What greater good has the handgun ban achieved?

It has not reduced gun crime
It has not stopped innocent people being killed with handguns
It has not reduced drug crime
It has not even stopped spree killings

So what is this greater good you are talking about?

The greater good is being able to deny access to such weaponry which its main purpose is to kill, that is the greater good by denying access to such harmful weapons.

Your view is pedantic, based upon a small minority of people who wish to have things which will conflict with other issues, something you fail to understand.

Drug crime will be reduced by legalising drugs and yes crime/murder is much lower in nations that have high restrictions on gun control.
The reality is compare the two nations America and Britain on this issue, and the minute you do, your argument is lost.

Who is being denied access didge?

You look at 2 countries - what about Sweden? Want to tell me about their statistics for both criminal and accidental injuries and deaths due to guns?

I am not saying we should have the free for all which is the US system - I am simply saying that the complete ban on one single variant that we have here is pointless and unfair.

Or if you want to compare murder/crime rates by the way you want to look at them before and after the ban in this country.

What this actually comes down to is you are so confident in your "morally superior" stance you think it acceptable that other private individuals have their choices restricted.

Finally lets consider your advice to me on another thread - how about people just go out and get handguns to target shoot anyway - why should they obey the rules after all criminals dont and many of them are never punished for it so what does it matter?

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:49 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

The greater good is being able to deny access to such weaponry which its main purpose is to kill, that is the greater good by denying access to such harmful weapons.

Your view is pedantic, based upon a small minority of people who wish to have things which will conflict with other issues, something you fail to understand.

Drug crime will be reduced by legalising drugs and yes crime/murder is much lower in nations that have high restrictions on gun control.
The reality is compare the two nations America and Britain on this issue, and the minute you do, your argument is lost.

Who is being denied access didge?

You look at 2 countries - what about Sweden? Want to tell me about their statistics for both criminal and accidental injuries and deaths due to guns?

I am not saying we should have the free for all which is the US system - I am simply saying that the complete ban on one single variant that we have here is pointless and unfair.

Or if you want to compare murder/crime rates by the way you want to look at them before and after the ban in this country.

What this actually comes down to is you are so confident in your "morally superior" stance you think it acceptable that other private individuals have their choices restricted.

Finally lets consider your advice to me on another thread - how about people just go out and get handguns to target shoot anyway - why should they obey the rules after all criminals dont and many of them are never punished for it so what does it matter?

So many moot points to argue for having instruments of death

Yes lets compare murder rates, all nations that allow guns to those with gun control.

Please post them all, in fact I am dying for you to do so!

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:06 pm

Sweden has a people militia and one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world.

At the same time it has one of the lowest gun related death rates.

Like I said you are just using an emotional moralistic stance to defend the restricting of choice in others.

At the same time on another thread you advise that it is acceptable even recommendable to break rules you dont like so long as the penalty is unlikely to be enforced.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:11 pm

sphinx wrote:Sweden has a people militia and one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world.

At the same time it has one of the lowest gun related death rates.

Like I said you are just using an emotional moralistic stance to defend the restricting of choice in others.

At the same time on another thread you advise that it is acceptable even recommendable to break rules you dont like so long as the penalty is unlikely to be enforced.

One country, again that does not hold a world view does it Sphinx, which means your argument is based on one nation not hundreds thus again your view point is moot.

So now we really see you clutching at straws to divert onto a view point I never claimed, where in fact I did say some rules are made to be broken, I never claimed it was right, and in some cases it is right where people are persecuted because of laws that are wrong, which was the real point I was trying to get across, where there is an injustice that people have to fight by breaking the rules. So please spare me that lame view, as I fail to see how it is such an injustice to have strict gun laws or that people are being persecuted for not having the abilities to have guns

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:33 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:Sweden has a people militia and one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world.

At the same time it has one of the lowest gun related death rates.

Like I said you are just using an emotional moralistic stance to defend the restricting of choice in others.

At the same time on another thread you advise that it is acceptable even recommendable to break rules you dont like so long as the penalty is unlikely to be enforced.

One country, again that does not hold a world view does it Sphinx, which means your argument is based on one nation not hundreds thus again your view point is moot.

So now we really see you clutching at straws to divert onto a view point I never claimed, where in fact I did say some rules are made to be broken, I never claimed it was right, and in some cases it is right where people are persecuted because of laws that are wrong, which was the real point I was trying to get across, where there is an injustice that people have to fight by breaking the rules. So please spare me that lame view, as I fail to see how it is such an injustice to have strict gun laws or that people are being persecuted for not having the abilities to have guns

How the hell do you expect me have any respect for a person who calls for rules he disagrees with to be ignored or broken but expects to be able to subject others to rules they disagree with?

You claim more gun ownership equals more deaths - I show you an example that disproves it and you declare I am only talking one country. Did I tell you about only talking about 2 countries when you compared the states and UK?

So again why should people be banned from a pastime they enjoy which hurts no-one because other people will use the same equipment to hurt people? Why are we punishing the innocent while the guilty carry on as if nothing happened?

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:42 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

One country, again that does not hold a world view does it Sphinx, which means your argument is based on one nation not hundreds thus again your view point is moot.

So now we really see you clutching at straws to divert onto a view point I never claimed, where in fact I did say some rules are made to be broken, I never claimed it was right, and in some cases it is right where people are persecuted because of laws that are wrong, which was the real point I was trying to get across, where there is an injustice that people have to fight by breaking the rules. So please spare me that lame view, as I fail to see how it is such an injustice to have strict gun laws or that people are being persecuted for not having the abilities to have guns

How the hell do you expect me have any respect for a person who calls for rules he disagrees with to be ignored or broken but expects to be able to subject others to rules they disagree with?
Could care less if you do when again you miss the point about where breaking the rules would be right, where injustices are done, clearly again clutching at straws diverging from the topic now to pedantically go over something you are taking badly out of context. I respect the view to keep the law, but in certain countries the law is wrong, do you understand that now. If you have no respect for my views, that is your own issue. I respect some of yours others I find poor, that is life, it makes little relevance to the debate what you think of me

You claim more gun ownership equals more deaths - I show you an example that disproves it and you declare I am only talking one country. Did I tell you about only talking about 2 countries when you compared the states and UK?
No you show me one nation as if this is proof that it means guns are not a danger onto society with lax controls, even worse not even understanding many other aspects of what creates crime. That reality is guns availability into areas where there is crime enhances and increases the likelihood of more murders. So what you are doing is making a comparison to just one nation, whilst ignoring countless others and the many aspects about what creates crime in these countries, again an absurd counter and very moot

So again why should people be banned from a pastime they enjoy which hurts no-one because other people will use the same equipment to hurt people? Why are we punishing the innocent while the guilty carry on as if nothing happened?

I gave you the answer, you did not like it, I suggest they take up another hobby, I have heard Halo is good for shooting up, maybe that can relieve some of that shooting release they need.

Have a nice evening

by Beekeeper Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:42 pm

Nige' is a dick...

BigAndy9 wrote:
Guns are used in thousands of crimes in the US every year!

I thought this story was about extremists and reactionaries wanting to get more guns into Britain ?

Suspect

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:52 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

How the hell do you expect me have any respect for a person who calls for rules he disagrees with to be ignored or broken but expects to be able to subject others to rules they disagree with?
Could care less if you do when again you miss the point about where breaking the rules would be right, where injustices are done, clearly again clutching at straws diverging from the topic now to pedantically go over something you are taking badly out of context. I respect the view to keep the law, but in certain countries the law is wrong, do you understand that now. If you have no respect for my views, that is your own issue. I respect some of yours others I find poor, that is life, it makes little relevance to the debate what you think of me

You claim more gun ownership equals more deaths - I show you an example that disproves it and you declare I am only talking one country. Did I tell you about only talking about 2 countries when you compared the states and UK?
No you show me one nation as if this is proof that it means guns are not a danger onto society with lax controls, even worse not even understanding many other aspects of what creates crime. That reality is guns availability into areas where there is crime enhances and increases the likelihood of more murders. So what you are doing is making a comparison to just one nation, whilst ignoring countless others and the many aspects about what creates crime in these countries, again an absurd counter and very moot

So again why should people be banned from a pastime they enjoy which hurts no-one because other people will use the same equipment to hurt people? Why are we punishing the innocent while the guilty carry on as if nothing happened?

I gave you the answer, you did not like it, I suggest they take up another hobby, I have heard Halo is good for shooting up, maybe that can relieve some of that shooting release they need.

Have a nice evening

No the answer you are giving is it is OK to break rules if you phildidge believe they constitute an injustice but it is wrong to break rules if you phildidge believe they are good.

Well I believe the handgun ban to be an injustice as it harmed thousands of people who had never broken the law by stopping their hobby and stealing their possessions (the value to a widow of her husbands collection is not financial) so is it OK for me to ignore that rule?

You are saying you are right and I am wrong so it is right to do things your way.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:00 pm

ALLAKAKA wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Over how long a period ? And have you got stats over a long period of time to back this up Kaka?

No problem Div. I can post ALL the news articles and court details.

Just watch the attitude you knob, btw, love the avi, you should have just come out with it.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:03 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

I gave you the answer, you did not like it, I suggest they take up another hobby, I have heard Halo is good for shooting up, maybe that can relieve some of that shooting release they need.

Have a nice evening

No the answer you are giving is it is OK to break rules if you phildidge believe they constitute an injustice but it is wrong to break rules if you phildidge believe they are good.
Utterly pathetic, do you wanna now debate on what is right or wrong or are you going to claim there are no exceptions where people should break the rules? Seriously, is that your absurd claim now, that everyone who suffers injustices now should just suck it up? You are digging yourself a hole you cannot get out of, because it is okay to break rules where people are being persecuted to help change the laws which has been done constantly throughout history, of which you would not be writing on this forum today without women breaking the rules fighting for equality to women in the past. So spare me the bullshit on what I think is an injustice, because your argument has no point here, as seen throughout history sometimes rules have been broken with good reason, so I will thrown this back at you, thus you think women fighting throughout history breaking the rule to gain equality were wrong then?

Well I believe the handgun ban to be an injustice as it harmed thousands of people who had never broken the law by stopping their hobby and stealing their possessions (the value to a widow of her husbands collection is not financial) so is it OK for me to ignore that rule?

You are saying you are right and I am wrong so it is right to do things your way.

An injustice? Really, how so, is your life now going to make you subjected to abuse and discrimination because of it? No.
Will your life go on?
Yes
Seriously your arguments are absurd here, now I am running late, so again I hope you have a nice evening and start to understand how of little importance it is the views you have on gun controls in the greater needs of this nation.

Bye

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:05 pm

sphinx wrote:
Joy Division wrote:Yes, let's relax laws on guns and let people do as they wish and murder others...

The stupidity and Motto of this extreme RW party.

And worryingly some are voting for them.

So JD would you like to explain how making hand guns illegal stopped criminals doing as they wished and resulted in nobody being murdered with a handgun since the law changed.

Who said that like?

Sphinx, there will always be gun crime, guns purchased in the underworld black market, but to legalise them would be a big mistake as guns purchased legally by some with a forearms licence , would no doubt after time fall into the wrong hands.

It's a no brainer, ken.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:05 pm

The squirrels down my way are kind of tough to say the least:

Nigel Farage calls for UK gun laws to be relaxed - Page 2 Squirrel_with_machine_gun

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:32 pm

Joy Division wrote:
sphinx wrote:

So JD would you like to explain how making hand guns illegal stopped criminals doing as they wished and resulted in nobody being murdered with a handgun since the law changed.

Who said that like?

Sphinx, there will always be gun crime, guns purchased in the underworld black market, but to legalise them would be a big mistake as guns purchased legally by some with a forearms licence , would no doubt after time fall into the wrong hands.

It's a no brainer, ken.

So because a criminal might steal from them that is sufficient reason to deny people a hobby of their choice?

Why do you think there is no doubt every single legally owned weapon will inevitably end up in the wrong hands?

Do you have any idea how legal gun owners think and feel about their equipment? Do you understand what the licensing rules for guns are?

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:43 pm

sphinx wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Who said that like?

Sphinx, there will always be gun crime, guns purchased in the underworld black market, but to legalise them would be a big mistake as guns purchased legally by some with a forearms licence , would no doubt after time fall into the wrong hands.

It's a no brainer, ken.

So because a criminal might steal from them that is sufficient reason to deny people a hobby of their choice?

Why do you think there is no doubt every single legally owned weapon will inevitably end up in the wrong hands?

Do you have any idea how legal gun owners think and feel about their equipment? Do you understand what the licensing rules for guns are?

..yes they are tight and for good reason...massacres like Dunblane , just because some time has passed does not mean that horrible event never happened...

Try telling what you are telling me to some of the parents of those little nippers killed by Thomas Hamilton...we all remember that name for the wrong reasons.

I never said EVERY legally owned gun would end up in the wrong hands, bit some would and even one gone in the wrong hands is one too many Sphinx.

How do you think every parent who has lost a child because of a gun thinks and feels?

Is it really going to affect someone's life so badly and force them to have a very low quality of life just because they can not have a gun?

Is it really too much to ask to want to keep kids and the general public safe?

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:47 pm

"Is it really going to affect someone's life so badly and force them to have a very low quality of life just because they can not have a gun?

Is it really too much to ask to want to keep kids and the general public safe?"

Good post, I totally agree.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:04 pm

Joy Division wrote:
sphinx wrote:

So because a criminal might steal from them that is sufficient reason to deny people a hobby of their choice?

Why do you think there is no doubt every single legally owned weapon will inevitably end up in the wrong hands?

Do you have any idea how legal gun owners think and feel about their equipment? Do you understand what the licensing rules for guns are?

..yes they are tight and for good reason...massacres like Dunblane , just because some time has passed does not mean that horrible event never happened...

Try telling what you are telling me to some of the parents of those little nippers killed by Thomas Hamilton...we all remember that name for the wrong reasons.

I never said EVERY legally owned gun would end up in the wrong hands, bit some would and even one gone in the wrong hands is one too many Sphinx.

How do you think every parent who has lost a child because of a gun thinks and feels?

Is it really going to affect someone's life so badly and force them to have a very low quality of life just because they can not have a gun?

Is it really too much to ask to want to keep kids and the general public safe?

Ask derrick birds victims about the way the gun ban prevented spree killings.

If the ban kept the kids and general public safe I would not be objecting. The reason I and others object is because the ban does nothing to keep them safe - if anything it increases their risks because it ensures that only the criminal element has access to guns - the only place a young person will come across a hand gun is in the hands of a criminal.

As for quality of life JD I do attempt to measure the value a widow puts on her late husbands belongings - or a child puts on his fathers. If you want to carry on.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:33 pm

sphinx wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

..yes they are tight and for good reason...massacres like Dunblane , just because some time has passed does not mean that horrible event never happened...

Try telling what you are telling me to some of the parents of those little nippers killed by Thomas Hamilton...we all remember that name for the wrong reasons.

I never said EVERY legally owned gun would end up in the wrong hands, bit some would and even one gone in the wrong hands is one too many Sphinx.

How do you think every parent who has lost a child because of a gun thinks and feels?

Is it really going to affect someone's life so badly and force them to have a very low quality of life just because they can not have a gun?

Is it really too much to ask to want to keep kids and the general public safe?

Ask derrick birds victims about the way the gun ban prevented spree killings.

If the ban kept the kids and general public safe I would not be objecting. The reason I and others object is because the ban does nothing to keep them safe - if anything it increases their risks because it ensures that only the criminal element has access to guns - the only place a young person will come across a hand gun is in the hands of a criminal.

As for quality of life JD I do attempt to measure the value a widow puts on her late husbands belongings - or a child puts on his fathers. If you want to carry on.

What you're basically saying is that making guns legal will save more lives than making them illegal? Is that the gist of iSphinx?

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:02 pm

Joy Division wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Ask derrick birds victims about the way the gun ban prevented spree killings.

If the ban kept the kids and general public safe I would not be objecting. The reason I and others object is because the ban does nothing to keep them safe - if anything it increases their risks because it ensures that only the criminal element has access to guns - the only place a young person will come across a hand gun is in the hands of a criminal.

As for quality of life JD I do attempt to measure the value a widow puts on her late husbands belongings - or a child puts on his fathers. If you want to carry on.

What you're basically saying is that making guns legal will save more lives than making them illegal? Is that the gist of iSphinx?

No I am saying it will make no difference - it will simply change the circumstances young people may come across guns giving those who become curious the option of satisfying that curiosity in a legal way rather than having to find out through the local gangs.

The ban has not affected the people who use guns for crime and for hurting innocent people. It has affected the people who use guns legally for benevolent purposes.

If the ban had actually stopped handgun crime - if children like Rhys Jones were actually safe from being shot then I would support it. I do not support things that do not work.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:14 pm

and you are all talking emotive claptrap,
firstly, if we start at Dunblaine, with one small exception, ALL gun "catastrophes" have been THE FAULT OF THE POLICE, who FAILED to use their considerable powers to revoke licenses and seize guns of individuals KNOWN TO THEM TO BE A RISK. That right, excepting criminal use, those other killings were down to bad policing.

Of course with didge we have this...

didge of course has had it worse than anyone else...he knows what poverty is....hell when he were a kid he slept in a cardboard box..
He is of course of superior morals to anyone else, a paragon of virtue,
he is of course always right,
He is typical liberalist (R/W) who knows whats best for everyoe else...

he shows this when he says "they can get another hobby" and considers his bunny hugging moralistic stance to hunting....are you a veggie Digge???
because ...at least i have the balls to kill my own meat...and its had far better conditions than that farmed crap YOU eat, and is killed in a far more humane way.....you clearly know NOTHING about modern hunting.

recon he's a Texan by default.........

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:20 pm

FOX HUNTING..........The worm turns.........

Nigel Farage calls for UK gun laws to be relaxed - Page 2 20071210

by nicko Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:38 pm

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 11:14 pm

Warren Moon wrote:"Is it really going to affect someone's life so badly and force them to have a very low quality of life just because they can not have a gun?

Is it really too much to ask to want to keep kids and the general public safe?"

Good post, I totally agree.

Thanks Warren, only common sense really is it?...

Guns = death.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 11:27 pm

sphinx wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

What you're basically saying is that making guns legal will save more lives than making them illegal? Is that the gist of iSphinx?

No I am saying it will make no difference - it will simply change the circumstances young people may come across guns giving those who become curious the option of satisfying that curiosity in a legal way rather than having to find out through the local gangs.

The ban has not affected the people who use guns for crime and for hurting innocent people. It has affected the people who use guns legally for benevolent purposes.

If the ban had actually stopped handgun crime - if children like Rhys Jones were actually safe from being shot then I would support it. I do not support things that do not work.

I know what your saying here Sphinx, I do...

Kill the curiosity at an early age, now that's fine with say allowing one's fifteen year old to have a drink at home(in moderation) where the parents can see them, but that chance just can't be taken with a gun, even kids at eighteen are not always mature enough to fully realise the consequences of guns ..

And just look at that Dylan Klebold and his mate somebody Harris who massacred so many kids at an American school.

Sphinx as I said, it only takes one gun to get into the wrong hands and we can have more mass murders, of course there will always be a certain amount of gun crime, but Farage saying we need to relax gun law is just the stupidest thing I've heard and spells disaster.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 11:27 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Warren Moon wrote:"Is it really going to affect someone's life so badly and force them to have a very low quality of life just because they can not have a gun?

Is it really too much to ask to want to keep kids and the general public safe?"

Good post, I totally agree.

Thanks Warren, only common sense really is it?...

Guns = death.

Except the figures disprove that - death by guns remains whether they are banned or not. Death by multiple other causes remains whether guns are banned or not.

The only thing this ban has affected are the thousands of law abiding citizens who lost out.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 11:50 pm

Joy Division wrote:
sphinx wrote:

No I am saying it will make no difference - it will simply change the circumstances young people may come across guns giving those who become curious the option of satisfying that curiosity in a legal way rather than having to find out through the local gangs.

The ban has not affected the people who use guns for crime and for hurting innocent people. It has affected the people who use guns legally for benevolent purposes.

If the ban had actually stopped handgun crime - if children like Rhys Jones were actually safe from being shot then I would support it. I do not support things that do not work.

I know what your saying here Sphinx, I do...

Kill the curiosity at an early age, now that's fine with say allowing one's fifteen year old to have a drink at home(in moderation) where the parents can see them, but that chance just can't be taken with a gun, even kids at eighteen are not always mature enough to fully realise the consequences of guns ..

And just look at that Dylan Klebold and his mate somebody Harris who massacred so many kids at an American school.

Sphinx as I said, it only takes one gun to get into the wrong hands and we can have more mass murders, of course there will always be a certain amount of gun crime, but Farage saying we need to relax gun law is just the stupidest thing I've heard and spells disaster.

Its got bugger all to do with maturity JD - there are 10 year olds licensed in this country and they are far safer with guns than your average non licensed adult. My children start handling semi automatic weapons at 13 and I trust them far more than I do the average idiot on the street because I know they have been taught properly. If hand guns were legal they would have been observing their use younger than that and learning how to handle them safely.

The mass murders are not caused by guns - they are caused by feelings of intense alienation. They will happen regardless of whether guns are legal or not.

I mean we have stuck ourself with a situation where 11 year olds get shot in the back while our national representatives have to live outside the country in order to be able to compete. We let the scum bastards who kill people live here but ban potential world champions from our shores while expecting them wear our colours and wave our flag.

The innocent are punished and the guilty and potentially guilty are rewarded with easier access

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 11:55 pm

It can only take a kid with a gun to throw a hissy at something Sphinx, then disaster...

If British people want to shoot guns then it is best for them if they move to a country where owning and using a gun is legitimate.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:20 am

Joy Division wrote:It can only take a kid with a gun to throw a hissy at something Sphinx, then disaster...

If British people want to shoot guns then it is best for them if they move to a country where owning and using a gun is legitimate.

Y'know what JD, sometimes you can be as daft as Didge!

so you would throw a british olympic champion out of the country for being a child ????

16 year old girl won olympic gold
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/shooting/24102032

both clay and game shooting are attracting an increasing number of "young guns" and police and educational authorities agree that the structured and safety concious atmosphere involved in todays shooting world "encourages responsibility and respect" and that the "discipline within the sport is of positive benefit to young people"

the LAW is quite specific about when and where young people can have and use guns, what supervision is required and so on.AND they are subject to the same evaluation by a firearms officer as an adult....remember that ...THE SAME.... as an adult...no leeway is given for them being under the age of majority...They have to be able to show a degree of maturity that would surprise you, must be medically and mentally fit, their school is contacted, and so on...AND they also have, just like an adult, to get a referee (not a parent or other family member) to say they are fit to own said gun.

What is your problem with legitimate gun ownership...what scares you about rational, law abiding and good citizens owning a gun...

I could make EXACTLY the same argument about vehicles....

what was it 20 CHILDREN per year killed by drivers and even more badly injured...oh lets ban ANYONE from owning a car ...because of a few idiots....

and YES it IS the exact same argument....

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:22 am

Joy Division wrote:It can only take a kid with a gun to throw a hissy at something Sphinx, then disaster...

If British people want to shoot guns then it is best for them if they move to a country where owning and using a gun is legitimate.

You dont get it do you?

A child that is taught to shoot will be the last person to throw a hissy - the disasters come when children who have not been taught get their hands on guns.

British people who want to shoot guns dont need to move - they just go and do it illegally. The law achieves nothing except to guarantee that the person with the gun does not know what they are doing and is dangerous.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:43 am

Daft absurd arguments, guns are designed to kill so sphinx use every lame excuse to lobby for more of there use.

Sorry you use the argument your partners mother cannot shoot anymore and to that I say tough luck, I am sure she like everyone else has suffered disappointments and moved on with their lives, as it is not the end of the world she does not and you are using guilt using her age here pathetically as if I should have sympathy for someone wanting to use guns, I don;t have any.

Guns can kill multiple people within seconds, they are a danger within society, there is no argument against that, it is moot to bring in other weapons as I feel the same on them.

The whole argument is again absurd to want to own instruments of death, placing their own selfish needs of something that is not a necessity in life for ordinary people.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:46 am

grumpy old git wrote:
Joy Division wrote:It can only take a kid with a gun to throw a hissy at something Sphinx, then disaster...

If British people want to shoot guns then it is best for them if they move to a country where owning and using a gun is legitimate.

Y'know what JD, sometimes you can be as daft as Didge!

Coming from the eccentric tree hugger, that is funny, is that all you can do grumpy make absurd claims about me and not the debate.

You think it is okay to have legitimate ownership of instruments of death now, may I suggest you get a play station or Xbox where you can shoot up as many things as you like if that is what you need to get off in life

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:55 am

PhilDidge wrote:Daft absurd arguments, guns are designed to kill so sphinx use every lame excuse to lobby for more of there use.

Sorry you use the argument your partners mother cannot shoot anymore and to that I say tough luck, I am sure she like everyone else has suffered disappointments and moved on with their lives, as it is not the end of the world she does not and you are using guilt using her age here pathetically as if I should have sympathy for someone wanting to use guns, I don;t have any.

Guns can kill multiple people within seconds, they are a danger within society, there is no argument against that, it is moot to bring in other weapons as I feel the same on them.

The whole argument is again absurd to want to own instruments of death, placing their own selfish needs of something that is not a necessity in life for ordinary people.

Where the hell am I lobbying for more use.

I am lobbying for people who were forced to stop doing something that hurt no one, produced world champions, and gave vast amounts of pleasure to some people.

I am not saying everyone must be forced to have a gun, learn to shoot, or even show an interest and I dont say people have to approve.

I am saying that the ban has achieved nothing - it has not reduced deaths or injuries or stopped people getting hold of guns.

You think guns are immoral and for killing - I disagree but I am not basing the argument on the moral side anyway. I am basing it on the grounds that the ban is unfair to law abiding people because it does not affect criminals.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:57 am

What about fox hunting? How about a typical hunt but no hounds and all riders carrying sawn-off shotguns....tally ho!

by nicko Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:24 am

I have used guns all my life both in the military and for vermin control .I have never used one for an illegal act.i have enjoyed the use of guns for sporting purposes.to put it bluntly the military use involved killing,i never enjoyed that.who are you to say I should hang up my gun and stop my enjoyment.no one raised any objection when I used it to kill an enemy,why should you object when I used it to kill vermin? I must say that due to ill health I can no longer shoot anything,but I would not stop people who do!

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:33 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:Guns are used in thousands of crimes in the US every year.

Forgot to say:

But guns are used to protect people and their property thousands of times more in the US every year!

No they're not, that's a huge right-wing myth, based on very faulty statistics.

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/hemenway1.htm

George Zimmerman is a perfect example of how a responsible member of the public used a firearm in self defense, he is just one such incident out of thousands across the US

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:53 am

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:Daft absurd arguments, guns are designed to kill so sphinx use every lame excuse to lobby for more of there use.

Sorry you use the argument your partners mother cannot shoot anymore and to that I say tough luck, I am sure she like everyone else has suffered disappointments and moved on with their lives, as it is not the end of the world she does not and you are using guilt using her age here pathetically as if I should have sympathy for someone wanting to use guns, I don;t have any.

Guns can kill multiple people within seconds, they are a danger within society, there is no argument against that, it is moot to bring in other weapons as I feel the same on them.

The whole argument is again absurd to want to own instruments of death, placing their own selfish needs of something that is not a necessity in life for ordinary people.

Where the hell am I lobbying for more use.

I am lobbying for people who were forced to stop doing something that hurt no one, produced world champions, and gave vast amounts of pleasure to some people.
Yes you are lobbying for madness
I am not saying everyone must be forced to have a gun, learn to shoot, or even show an interest and I dont say people have to approve.
Never said you did, my view is why change something just to pander to people that get their kicks from firing weapons of death, like I said if you want to do that get a playstation

I am saying that the ban has achieved nothing - it has not reduced deaths or injuries or stopped people getting hold of guns.
Where is your evidence that is the case, because you say so? I asked you to show all nations in regards to those with lax gun control compared to those that do and not once have you done so

You think guns are immoral and for killing - I disagree but I am not basing the argument on the moral side anyway. I am basing it on the grounds that the ban is unfair to law abiding people because it does not affect criminals.

What do you think the gun was invented for? To kill, since then people have taken that and made sport of being able to shoot other living things, wow such a turn on to feel empowered over an animal that does not have the capacity to have a fighting chance of fighting back. So the ban is unfair to you, tough and thank goodness for that, get used to it and find another hobby, never heard something so absurd.

by nicko Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:06 am

a lot of people don't like guns because they are scared of them,they make a loud noise and they kick back.FACT.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:08 am

nicko wrote:a lot of people don't like guns because they are scared of them,they make a loud noise and they kick back.FACT.

Nothing to do with it Nicko, I have fired guns myself abroad years ago, I know what they are capable of and hence I see no reason why in a decent society they should be available and back the laws we have

by nicko Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:20 am

Over one million gun licences issued in Britain in 2013.a lot of people disagreeing with you didge.game shooting and rough shooting brings in over a billion pounds to the country every year with workers in the industry totalling over half a million and foreigners bringing in money for hotels gun sales ect.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:27 am

nicko wrote:Over one million gun licences issued in Britain in 2013.a lot of people disagreeing with you didge.game shooting and rough shooting brings in over a billion pounds to the country every year with workers in the industry totalling over half a million and foreigners bringing in money for hotels gun sales ect.

one million out of 63 million, seems more like the there way round Nicko,
I really could care less what game shooting brings in, it is a sport mainly to make the wielder of the weapon feel empowered to have power over life or death. We are creating many jobs all the time, so again to own weapons that can kill to satisfy an ego trip for people to feel god like, having the power to extinguish life is quite a pathetic past time to be honest

by nicko Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:40 am

we will have to agree to disagree on this didge.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:40 am

nicko wrote:we will have to agree to disagree on this didge.

Agreed Nicko

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:11 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
nicko wrote:a lot of people don't like guns because they are scared of them,they make a loud noise and they kick back.FACT.

Nothing to do with it Nicko, I have fired guns myself abroad years ago, I know what they are capable of and hence I see no reason why in a decent society they should be available and back the laws we have

You back laws that put guns in the hands of criminals and keep they out of the hands of hobbiests and say I am in favour of madness.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:23 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Nothing to do with it Nicko, I have fired guns myself abroad years ago, I know what they are capable of and hence I see no reason why in a decent society they should be available and back the laws we have

You back laws that put guns in the hands of criminals and keep they out of the hands of hobbiests and say I am in favour of madness.

Really since when, since you decided to make this up also because you are getting spanked in a debate?

Again what an absurd statement to make.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:31 pm

N A turf war in Birmingham, the two gangs involved used the same gun for their tit-for-tat shootings, renting it in turn from the same third party, says Martin Parker, head of forensics at the National Ballistics Intelligence Service (NABIS). The paucity of guns in Britain is both testament to the success of its gun-control regime and one of the reasons for it.

Tucked discreetly away on a Birmingham back street, NABIS has become a key weapon in the fight against gun crime. In a nearby laboratory, and in hubs in Glasgow, London and Manchester, the staff of around 40 identify firearms using the marks left on the bullets from them, using a database to determine whether they are from known guns. Where the bullet is found but not the gun, they list it as an “inferred weapon”. When a gun is found, they fire it and check the bullets’ markings to see if they match previous shootings.

Ballistics intelligence has improved recently in two ways. First, it is faster. Previously, months could pass before police officers knew if a gun had been used before, says Iain O’Brien, the head of NABIS. Now NABIS can tell them within 24 hours.

Second, the general intelligence is better. When it is sent a gun, NABIS identifies every occasion it has been used, no matter when or where, and tells all relevant forces. In the past, forensic scientists would tell investigators about recent cases but earlier ones might slip through the net. NABIS has thus been able to put together a national picture of trends in the availability, supply and use of firearms.

Gun crime in Britain was low to start with and is falling. NABIS was set up in 2008 when the police and politicians worried that shootings were on the up. Cases such as the murders of Letisha Shakespeare and Charlene Ellis in Birmingham in 2003 fanned fears. That the police can name such individual victims, however, highlights their rarity. London had 99 fewer shootings in 2012-13 than the previous year, a 20% drop, says detective superintendent Gordon Allison of Trident, the Metropolitan Police’s anti-gang unit.

Shootings are rare because guns are scarce. Some criminals steal legally owned shotguns. Some new ones are posted to Britain using fast-parcel services. Others are smuggled through ports. But the risks are higher and the returns lower than for smuggling drugs. Some crooks also reactivate decommissioned guns. Antique firearms are increasingly popular. During the 2011 riots a 19th-century St Etienne revolver was fired. The use of such heirlooms suggests that it is hard to find new weapons. Bullets are in short supply so volatile homemade ones are often deployed.

Shortages also mean criminals use weapons repeatedly, leaving a useful trail of evidence. Some, like the Birmingham gangsters, hire them from others. Clean guns—ones that have not been used before—are both rare and expensive. Other countries, such as Ireland and Spain, use the same database system, allowing NABIS to share information and track guns beyond Britain’s borders. America uses it too, but tracking the guns used in crimes there would be a Sisyphean task: few guns are used repeatedly there because it is so easy to buy new ones. Gun-starved Britons cannot be so cavalier.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21587270-small-police-agency-helping-keep-gun-crime-low-guns-hire

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 1:17 pm

PhilDidge wrote:N A turf war in Birmingham, the two gangs involved used the same gun for their tit-for-tat shootings, renting it in turn from the same third party, says Martin Parker, head of forensics at the National Ballistics Intelligence Service (NABIS). The paucity of guns in Britain is both testament to the success of its gun-control regime and one of the reasons for it.

Tucked discreetly away on a Birmingham back street, NABIS has become a key weapon in the fight against gun crime. In a nearby laboratory, and in hubs in Glasgow, London and Manchester, the staff of around 40 identify firearms using the marks left on the bullets from them, using a database to determine whether they are from known guns. Where the bullet is found but not the gun, they list it as an “inferred weapon”. When a gun is found, they fire it and check the bullets’ markings to see if they match previous shootings.

Ballistics intelligence has improved recently in two ways. First, it is faster. Previously, months could pass before police officers knew if a gun had been used before, says Iain O’Brien, the head of NABIS. Now NABIS can tell them within 24 hours.

Second, the general intelligence is better. When it is sent a gun, NABIS identifies every occasion it has been used, no matter when or where, and tells all relevant forces. In the past, forensic scientists would tell investigators about recent cases but earlier ones might slip through the net. NABIS has thus been able to put together a national picture of trends in the availability, supply and use of firearms.

Gun crime in Britain was low to start with and is falling. NABIS was set up in 2008 when the police and politicians worried that shootings were on the up. Cases such as the murders of Letisha Shakespeare and Charlene Ellis in Birmingham in 2003 fanned fears. That the police can name such individual victims, however, highlights their rarity. London had 99 fewer shootings in 2012-13 than the previous year, a 20% drop, says detective superintendent Gordon Allison of Trident, the Metropolitan Police’s anti-gang unit.

Shootings are rare because guns are scarce. Some criminals steal legally owned shotguns. Some new ones are posted to Britain using fast-parcel services. Others are smuggled through ports. But the risks are higher and the returns lower than for smuggling drugs. Some crooks also reactivate decommissioned guns. Antique firearms are increasingly popular. During the 2011 riots a 19th-century St Etienne revolver was fired. The use of such heirlooms suggests that it is hard to find new weapons. Bullets are in short supply so volatile homemade ones are often deployed.

Shortages also mean criminals use weapons repeatedly, leaving a useful trail of evidence. Some, like the Birmingham gangsters, hire them from others. Clean guns—ones that have not been used before—are both rare and expensive. Other countries, such as Ireland and Spain, use the same database system, allowing NABIS to share information and track guns beyond Britain’s borders. America uses it too, but tracking the guns used in crimes there would be a Sisyphean task: few guns are used repeatedly there because it is so easy to buy new ones. Gun-starved Britons cannot be so cavalier.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21587270-small-police-agency-helping-keep-gun-crime-low-guns-hire

and that post means what exactly didge???

we are NOT talking about CRIMINAL use of guns...we ar talking about guns in the hands of vetted responsible people...

leaving aside the game hunting for a moment...what about clay shooting...no killing involved...
your sentiments on this subject are exactly that sentimental nonsense...

as I have said elsewhere..are you a veggie???
At least I have the guts to kill my own food.

aside from some vermin..like crows foxes and grey squirrels, anything else i shoot (apart from clays...they are a bit tough) end up in my freezer for meals.. Your problem with that is?????

now for some FACTS

480,000 people shoot live quarry

and many more shoot clay....

Shooting supports the equivalent of 70,000 full-time jobs

I dont see any business providing that amount of jobs anytime soon..I suppose those made unemployed would just become "scroungers wouldnt they" especially since MOST of those jobs are in rural areas where jobs are SCARCE

Shooters spend £2 billion each year on goods and services

I dont know of many hobbies that provide that level of spend....

Shooting is worth £1.6 billion to the UK economy

so you complain about a few million going to what you consider scroungers but would destroy 1.6 BILLION of input...JUST BECAUSE sententious didge doesnt approve Rolling Eyes

Shooting is involved in the management of two-thirds of the rural land area

So stopping shooting would end this land management, which in turn would reduce biodiversity and leave 10.s thousands of acres to be returned to monocrop farming, woodlands left overgrown and predators like crows and magpies (which are destroying songbirds quicker than cats) unchecked?

Two million hectares are actively managed for conservation as a result of shooting

And this is done for free, by folks like me....all the keepering on small shoots is done by shoot members and the big shoots by EMPLOYED people....if you stop shooting this would simply disappear.

Shoot providers spend £250 million a year on conservation
Shooters spend 2.7 million work days on conservation - the equivalent of 12,000 full-time jobs

which is far more by a massive margin..something like 10:1 than is provided by "official bodies" like the RSPB etc....

without shooting conservation in britain would be reduced to a pathetic "notional" attempt by a very few weak and ineffectual organisations who are more interested in profit for a few
fat cat executives than actually DOING anything.....

look here....and before you complain about "it being a report commissioned by a shooting organisation"...pacec is an independant body......

http://www.shootingfacts.co.uk/

and UNLESS you can refute the above facts...with OTHER FACTS..not didge's opinion....That is how the issue breaks down.

by Sponsored content