When will they ban guns?

[expat]

Now come on, we can't even drink responsibly, how do you expect us to handle firearms?

This is exactly the result of the said shift from individual to society: politicians now only ask themselves what law they should pass on a given subject, not whether they should pass a law at all.

PS this post is a good match for my sig.

[Churchill]

This is exactly the result of the said shift from individual to society: politicians now only ask themselves what law they should pass on a given subject, not whether they should pass a law at all.

PS this post is a good match for my sig.

Yeah, it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek but...

[PAH]

Violent criminals in the UK can rest easy in the knowledge that their victims will have neither the means nor the right to defend themselves.

I think you are allowed to defend yourself in your own home, but have to be proportional.

Obviously if you bring a knife to a gun fight you're likely to be turned over, but unless they're looking for hostages or it's a big mansion (such as the Liverpool squad that keep getting done over at match times, by Everton fans no doubt ), I doubt most burglars come armed with more than a knife.

[Ardesco]

Yes because if you defend yourself with a firearm the courts will see it as self defense and they won't try to prosecute you for murder will they...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/717511.stm

DOH!

[PAH]

Yes because if you defend yourself with a firearm the courts will see it as self defense and they won't try to prosecute you for murder will they...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/717511.stm

DOH!

That's because it wasn't proportional. Now if farmer giles had had a spare handgun and put it in the scrotes mit after he'd blasted him to hell, he'd probably have gotten away with it.

So the moral of the story is, two guns are better than one. Then you can give one to the other person after he's lost.

[Mailman]

I think that the flaw in the argument here is that making things more expensive only makes the black market more attractive.

What, you mean like how there is a roaring trade in the blackmarket cause cars are so expensive?

There is heaps here the Goobermint could do, gun club membership where you only get your handgun after xmonths/years/decades membership, even then, you gotta still leave your gun in the care of the club for x more months/years/decades...education programs that aim to de-mystify the leetness of guns etc.

Oh, and perhaps an integral part of any strategy would be to have real consequences for those who break the laws? Now theres a thought!

Mailman

[Churchill]

Yes because if you defend yourself with a firearm the courts will see it as self defense and they won't try to prosecute you for murder will they...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/717511.stm

DOH!

He shot him twice, in the back! Shooting someone in the back is revenge, not defence.

[Mailman]

That's because it wasn't proportional. Now if farmer giles had had a spare handgun and put it in the scrotes mit after he'd blasted him to hell, he'd probably have gotten away with it.

Yes because we all know that what the geezer should have done is to have written a strongly worded letter to the scum!

The law should also be changed to take in to account that if you are on someone elses land, trying to ninja stuff, then its open season and suddenly the ban on fox hunting can be ignored!

Mailman

[AtW]

I think you are allowed to defend yourself in your own home, but have to be proportional.

That's rubbish. Usually the attackers are choosing time of attack, prepared for it, can be the kind of guys who are used to violence, could have numeric advantage, so how can a normal citizen have a decent fighting chance? The only way is handgun - it equates chances and raises probability of death for the attackers big time so that they would have to think twice before doing what they do. And if attackers get killed during attack (even if its burglary) then it's fine by me - they should EXPECT to be shot to death if they try something like this.

Gun ownership is one of a few things that are terribly wrong in this country, another is railways.

[AtW]

He shot him twice, in the back! Shooting someone in the back is revenge, not defence.

Depends - if the guy was still inside house then it's fair play, he might have been just running away to be around corner and then pull out his own gun.

Frankly anyone breaking into someone's house like this in the middle of the night should expect to be shot to death. In some states in good old US of A they have good laws about "your house is a castle", so there won't even be criminal case if you shoot attacker who invaded your house like this.