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

      

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:Victor have a good evening have to go, as I say I have no issue really with gun control it is more for the fun in the debate


laters

Are you actually leaving or is this one of your goodbye posts you make repeatedly through out and evening while continuing to post as normal?

No I come back later and post on them, some times I stay and post abit more, ha ha, my someone is getting personal and wound up

Bless, here I will blow you a kiss mwah!

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

See you avoided the next point though as you cannot predict how you would react or if you could not fail to hit an artery, knowing that you know where they are, when the adrenaline kicks in


Laters  

Yeah answered than in a separate post - the one about me being not many. I do not have to predict how I would react I have experience to know how I react - and I would only hit an artery if I wished to - whether I wished to or not would depend on what had caused the adrenaline in the first place.

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Are you actually leaving or is this one of your goodbye posts you make repeatedly through out and evening while continuing to post as normal?

No I come back later and post on them, some times I stay and post abit more, ha ha, my someone is getting personal and wound up

Bless, here I will blow you a kiss mwah!

Dont like the observation that you rarely actually leave when you have claimed to be doing so. Does it make you realize you are taking this forum stuff and getting the last word far too seriously?

By the way do you agree with me that the fishing rod is immoral?

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:




See you avoided the next point though as you cannot predict how you would react or if you could not fail to hit an artery, knowing that you know where they are, when the adrenaline kicks in


Laters  

Yeah answered than in a separate post - the one about me being not many.   I do not have to predict how I would react I have experience to know how I react - and I would only hit an artery if I wished to - whether I wished to or not would depend on what had caused the adrenaline in the first place.

Utter babble, nobody can predict how they will react to any given situation until it happens, to lay claim you do, is utter bullshit. Even trained soldiers do not know how they will act when under fire for the first time.
So you are talking utter gobbledygook on that. If you were in fear of your life you would lash out with the knife not knowing where it was hitting, you do not have the time recognition to think in such a situation unless you are very well trained, and even then training can go out of the window

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


No I come back later and post on them, some times I stay and post abit more, ha ha, my someone is getting personal and wound up

Bless, here I will blow you a kiss mwah!

Dont like the observation that you rarely actually leave when you have claimed to be doing so.  Does it make you realize you are taking this forum stuff and getting the last word far too seriously?

By the way do you agree with me that the fishing rod is immoral?

By serious do you by you getting wound up?


Ha ha, I never took the debate serious as I argue a devil's advocate point of view Sphinx, but if all you have is woeful assumptions about me, please do continue, it proves further you are wound up

 ::D:: 

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Yeah answered than in a separate post - the one about me being not many.   I do not have to predict how I would react I have experience to know how I react - and I would only hit an artery if I wished to - whether I wished to or not would depend on what had caused the adrenaline in the first place.

Utter babble, nobody can predict how they will react to any given situation until it happens, to lay claim you do, is utter bullshit. Even trained soldiers do not know how they will act when under fire for the first time.
So you are talking utter gobbledygook on that. If you were in fear of your life you would lash out with the knife not knowing where it was hitting, you do not have the time recognition to think in such a situation unless you are very well trained, and even then training can go out of the window

Maybe I should be slightly more clear - I know how I would react because it would not be first time under fire as you put it.

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Dont like the observation that you rarely actually leave when you have claimed to be doing so.  Does it make you realize you are taking this forum stuff and getting the last word far too seriously?

By the way do you agree with me that the fishing rod is immoral?

By serious do you by you getting wound up?


Ha ha, I never took the debate serious as I argue a devil's advocate point of view Sphinx, but if all you have is woeful assumptions about me, please do continue, it proves further you are wound up

 ::D:: 

So not leaving then.

What a (non) surprise there.

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


Utter babble, nobody can predict how they will react to any given situation until it happens, to lay claim you do, is utter bullshit. Even trained soldiers do not know how they will act when under fire for the first time.
So you are talking utter gobbledygook on that. If you were in fear of your life you would lash out with the knife not knowing where it was hitting, you do not have the time recognition to think in such a situation unless you are very well trained, and even then training can go out of the window

Maybe I should be slightly more clear - I know how I would react because it would not be first time under fire as you put it.

You have been under threat of life being fired at with your life in danger?

Really?

Still even if we believe you have in one situation again you cannot predict how you would react again.
Again we are talking about your view to your life being in mortal danger to use self defense

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


By serious do you by you getting wound up?


Ha ha, I never took the debate serious as I argue a devil's advocate point of view Sphinx, but if all you have is woeful assumptions about me, please do continue, it proves further you are wound up

 ::D:: 

So not leaving then.

What a (non) surprise there.

Enjoying myself so much, never knew you would want people to leave, talk about sour grapes

victorisnotamused wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote: 

WHILE Sphinxy clumsily attempts to field her sharpened handle ~ presumably holding her chosen Weapon by the pan end...

MEANWHILE, You could smack her in the face and around the head a few times with the pan end of your own weapon, Didge !    

another intelligent offering from the resident village idiot.

I appologise Didge...I considered YOU to be the village idiot...but you are not...you are just 'ornery as out colonial cousins would say.

that specimen above ...now THAT'S the village idiot..... I have not seen one post from THAT , which actually adds anything of value to any thread here so far....just idiotic comment.

  

Hello ?  That is Drinky, isn't it ??? Or another fellow Flophead..

FUCK OFF, you senile and useless old fool - run along and play with yourself, now...    

It is Victor, who has you well sussed.

Sassy wrote:
It is Victor, who has you well sussed.

  

YOU fuck off too, you horrible little sociopath...

AND stop stalking me, you deranged weirdo..

       

Says the man who chases people all over the boards, hurling abuse like a deranged nutter. Then again, I don't thing the words 'like a' belong in that sentence.

Didge wrote:Thanks for that Victor it made me laugh, yet more babble

But no answer didge...

JUST........ANSWER......THE .....QUESTIONS......

Lone Wolf wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

another intelligent offering from the resident village idiot.

I appologise Didge...I considered YOU to be the village idiot...but you are not...you are just 'ornery as out colonial cousins would say.

that specimen above ...now THAT'S the village idiot..... I have not seen one post from THAT , which actually adds anything of value to any thread here so far....just idiotic comment.

  

Hello ?  That is Drinky, isn't it ??? Or another fellow Flophead..

FUCK OFF, you senile and useless old fool - run along and play with yourself, now...    

no it aint drinky you antipodean pillock....bow take your meds and lie down in a darkened room, the sun has obviously got to you again....

At the risk of getting back on topic,no gun laws should not be relaxed. It is a very irresponsible stupid idea.

More guns..more people using guns..more access to guns..will just lead to more death and injuries,accidental or not.

We don't pass poisons around and just hope no one will drink them.

FluffyBunny wrote:At the risk of getting back on topic,no gun laws should not be relaxed. It is a very irresponsible stupid idea.

More guns..more people using guns..more access to guns..will just lead to more death and injuries,accidental or not.

We don't pass poisons around and just hope no one will drink them.

Except that the actual figures and facts show that is not the case - deaths due to guns went up when hand guns were banned.

If someone is going to commit a robbery the fact that handguns are illegal is not going to stop them.

Criminals were unaffected by the law.

Victims were unaffected by the law (they still died)

The only people affected with those who had been shooting legally and who stayed legal by giving their hobby up to the extent that we now have Olympic athletes forced to live in foreign countries in order to be able to practice their sport because it is illegal in the country they represent.

sphinx wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:At the risk of getting back on topic,no gun laws should not be relaxed. It is a very irresponsible stupid idea.

More guns..more people using guns..more access to guns..will just lead to more death and injuries,accidental or not.

We don't pass poisons around and just hope no one will drink them.

Except that the actual figures and facts show that is not the case - deaths due to guns went up when hand guns were banned.

If someone is going to commit a robbery the fact that handguns are illegal is not going to stop them.

Criminals were unaffected by the law.

Victims were unaffected by the law (they still died)

The only people affected with those who had been shooting legally and who stayed legal by giving their hobby up to the extent that we now have Olympic athletes forced to live in foreign countries in order to be able to practice their sport because it is illegal in the country they represent.

Do you want people to be able to have guns for home protection then?

FluffyBunny wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Except that the actual figures and facts show that is not the case - deaths due to guns went up when hand guns were banned.

If someone is going to commit a robbery the fact that handguns are illegal is not going to stop them.

Criminals were unaffected by the law.

Victims were unaffected by the law (they still died)

The only people affected with those who had been shooting legally and who stayed legal by giving their hobby up to the extent that we now have Olympic athletes forced to live in foreign countries in order to be able to practice their sport because it is illegal in the country they represent.

Do you want people to be able to have guns for home protection then?

People never did have guns for home protection in this country - this is not the US nor is it a clone of the US.

Hand guns in this country were generally either collectors or target shooters. Seeing as the law required and requires all guns to be kept locked in a gun cabinet (with specifications as to the strength of said cabinet and where and how it was mounted) and the ammunition to be kept locked in a separate place home protection was never going to come into it as the average burglar is not going to stand there while the occupant finds their keys, retrieves their gun, finds their other keys, retrieves the ammunition and loads.

The actual fact of the story is that licences were on occasion granted to those they should never have been granted to and a couple of these individuals went on the rampage. The only area that needed tightening was licence checks to make sure the checks were doing what they should have been - but the knee jerk reaction was ban handguns outright.

It would be like a driving licence being given to constantly drunk alcoholic who then goes out and runs a load of people down with his convertible and the response being to ban all convertibles.

so called "experts" on this forum know fcuk all about guns and would shit themselves if faced by one!

nicko....most would crap themselves if they were given one to hold.

Dont forget the comment "but its so heavy...."

nicko wrote:so called "experts" on this forum know fcuk all about guns and would shit themselves if faced by one!

The problem is most people have to face a gun without having one themselves.

I've said it before - let us all have one.

What's the very old saying - God made man, Colt made men equal... - something like that.

disagree, i don't think legally held guns are not the problem at all