I'll bet they were glad to have a firearm at home to defend themselves

[Gonzo]

Er, I feel dirty now.

[AtW]

So I don't think that particular change to gun laws in Eire has had a huge impact on the likelyhood of being shot. Especially given the volume of illegal weapons in that part of the world.

Before handgun ban was in effect (this year) they had 5 (not 5%, but 500%) times lower (compared AFTER UK's ban was in effect) firearms homicide ratio. The country is not far away from UK, fairly close in many respects.

As far as I am concerned this has proved that a country with more liberal firearms ownership can have lower firearms homicide ratio than in the UK.

The sad irony is that firearms homocides only increased in the UK after the ban took effect.

Even sadder is that criminals started using knifes more - these have very nasty injuries.

Anyway, what I (sadly) accept is that public opinion in the UK is firmly against firearms and there is a near zero chance of them being legal anytime soon, if at all.

[NickFitz]

You have continued to follow me round all day and post, really, pretty cheap, insults at me, hardly ever trying to engage me in discussion or debate.

I think I always try to discuss the topic at hand, sometimes vehemently, I do admit, but I never get to the level of calling someone a "worthless twonk and a disgrace to the nation"

I will always discuss the topic and never the poster.

call yourself a man of words indeed.

If you recollect, I tried to engage you in discussion or debate, but you were apparently unable to come up with a meaningful reply: you backed down, admitting that the opinions you had been vehemently proclaiming as fundamental truths were just opinions. Yet, strangely, you continued to attack other posters as if these opinions of yours still held some absolute value by which all others must be judged.

For example, you continued to denigrate Fred Bloggs, asserting that his years of experience counted for little or nothing because he didn't have the same pieces of paper as yourself.

You went so far as to throw down a gauntlet: "A test," as you described it, with a specific question.

When Fred responded to your question and threw some tricky questions back at you, you bottled it. You switched to another question and tried to make out that it had been your question all along, although doing so made you look a fool given that the new question was irrelevant to the point you thought (incorrectly) you were making.

And, given the title of the thread, you were off-topic throughout.

As for my calling you "a worthless twonk and a disgrace to the nation": I withdraw the "worthless twonk" comment. You may have many virtues of which I am unaware, or you may not; but either way I should not have resorted to vulgar abuse, and I apologise.

The rancid bigotry displayed by your comments to a fellow citizen who has actually earned his right to citizenship of this nation rather than just getting it by birth means that I still regard you as a disgrace to the nation. This country could do with a lot more AtW's and a lot fewer bigots trumpeting "Here comes a stranger, let's throw a brick at him."

(And no, AtW, this doesn't mean I necessarily agree with you about anything )

P.S. When did I call myself a "man of words"

[Gonzo]

Before handgun ban was in effect (this year) they had 5 (not 5%, but 500%) times lower (compared AFTER UK's ban was in effect) firearms homicide ratio. The country is not far away from UK, fairly close in many respects.

According to these stats http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita the murder rate by all methods in Eire is about 30% lower than the UK not 500%, so I don't think liberal gun laws solve all problems.

As far as I am concerned this has proved that a country with more liberal firearms ownership can have lower firearms homicide ratio than in the UK.

It is questionable whether making comparisons between different countries can tell us much.

There is a very high level of gun ownership in Switzerland. However, military service is compulsary, adult men remain in the reserves until they are in their thirties and when they retire from service they can keep their military issued firearm. This tells me that there is a level of discipline involved that you would not get from the British.

The sad irony is that firearms homocides only increased in the UK after the ban took effect.

What's that statement again, you should never confuse corellation with causation? Something like that.

You could say that homicides increased after the Spice Girls released their first album - what can we infer from that?

Anyway, what I (sadly) accept is that public opinion in the UK is firmly against firearms and there is a near zero chance of them being legal anytime soon, if at all.

I suspect that public opinion is influenced by a deep understanding of the British psyche and we all realise that there would be carnage.

Or possibly a revolution.

Neither would be good for maintaining the status quo.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

...

I will always discuss the topic and never the poster.

.

Hilarious! (and arrant nonesense).

[AtW]

According to these stats http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita the murder rate by all methods in Eire is about 30% lower than the UK not 500%, so I don't think liberal gun laws solve all problems.

It is questionable whether making comparisons between different countries can tell us much.

I used data from this link which I was challenged about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

"firearm homicide" is the one I used.

What's that statement again, you should never confuse corellation with causation? Something like that.

The fact is that gun crime doubled under labour - thats right AFTER the ban on legal firearms which surely was supposed to reduce gun crime? These are not completely unrelated events even though it is hard to prove whether gun crime would not have doubled if firearms were still legal: the matter of fact is that banning did not REDUCE gun crime.

[AtW]

I suspect that public opinion is influenced by a deep understanding of the British psyche and we all realise that there would be carnage.

Firearms were legal here 10-20 years ago. What happened in this time - your balls dropped off? It isn't 100-200 years - this is less than a generation (10 years) period.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Firearms were legal here 10-20 years ago. What happened in this time - your balls dropped off? It isn't 100-200 years - this is less than a generation (10 years) period.

Atw - It's true that handguns were the thing banned (as you know certain firearms are still legal). I thought you were advocating allowing guns to be carried for self defence - this was never allowed. Also there were pretty stringent requirements about guns being kept locked away. Are you in fact just advocating a return to the pre-Dunblane position? If so, I have misunderstood and in general terms, I agree with you - I see no major reason not to return to the pervious position.

IIRC the Dunblane geezer did have a legally held weapon but Police had been warned about him and as usual decided not to bother doing anything.

It may surprise you to know I'm a bit of deadeye with a shotgun myself, and although I don't own a gun, almost all of the rest of my family do.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I used data from this link which I was challenged about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

"firearm homicide" is the one I used.



The fact is that gun crime doubled under labour - thats right AFTER the ban on legal firearms which surely was supposed to reduce gun crime? These are not completely unrelated events even though it is hard to prove whether gun crime would not have doubled if firearms were still legal: the matter of fact is that banning did not REDUCE gun crime.

No - the handgun ban was supposed to stop another nutter running amok and killing numerous schoolkids and so far, it has. However I agree the unintended consequence may have been to increase "gun crime" (which covers a very wide range of crimes by the way) - but it is impossible to know if that would have happened anyway.

[AtW]

Atw - It's true that handguns were the thing banned (as you know certain firearms are still legal). I thought you were advocating allowing guns to be carried for self defence - this was never allowed.

There are different levels of how firearms can be handled - in some countries it is legal to have them in your house (France), that's bare minimum in my view - bearing arms for self defence should require higher standard of training, insurance, checks etc. Maybe this country isn't ready for it - however having handguns at home was legal (as far as I am aware) very recently.

It seems to be that the first step should be to return to that situation.

Also there were pretty stringent requirements about guns being kept locked away. Are you in fact just advocating a return to the pre-Dunblane position? If so, I have misunderstood and in general terms, I agree with you - I see no major reason not to return to the pervious position.

Yes, I do advocate that things should be rolled back to pre-Dunblane. Possibly more liberal laws after X years (maybe 10) - say those who've shown they can show good care of firearms at home, that's something for another debate.

It may surprise you to know I'm a bit of deadeye with a shotgun myself, and although I don't own a gun, almost all of the rest of my family do.

Whether you are a sniper or not doesn't really matter.