69% of the UK public support more gun regulations

[k-onmmunist]

For the same reason thinking US gun laws will work in the UK.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Total ban would be the best idea.

Are you really that off the wall?

Haha, that's ironic.

Believe it or not, I enjoy the thought that it is so hard to acquire a gun. The country is far safer for it. This is a country and a culture which has always been hostile to legalised gun ownership. The only people who ought to be allowed guns are the police.

So, you really are that off the wall after all.

Your entire country is off the wall for believing it's okay to give people guns.

Of course it's ok. Why do you hate freedom, anyway? Weren't you a libertarian once?

I don't hate freedom. Quite the opposite. I support the freedom for people to walk the streets safely without the fear of a nutter going round shooting people up.

Right, and you still haven't addressed the points made in my first reply--the bad people are still going to have guns, even if they are illegal. Illegalizing guns, therefore, create the illusion of safer streets when in fact criminals still have guns all along. Why, then, must we make it harder for law abiding citizens to have guns? Gun rights can be abused, just like all other rights, but that doesn't mean that we should ban all guns.

I fail to see any reason why any law abiding person needs a gun.

So now you're saying that things should be legal only if they're "needed"? That's not hating freedom at all....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not what I was saying....

I was making the point that not everyone who buys a gun intends to use it to break the law.

[Earth]

Not everyone who buys a gun legally is law abiding, as the said example has shown. I fail to see any reason why any law abiding person needs a gun.

a) to have one
b) for protection
c) recreation
d) hunt (larger firearms)

Was that hard to figure out?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

UK-style gun laws would never ever work in the US. States would waste millions trying to enforce them unsuccessfully and a lot more cops would be killed than are now ("from my cold, dead hands" being such a popular bumper sticker slogan.) You can't compare it to countries like Japan or the UK where there is simply very little interest in guns and gun culture to begin with. You can't eradicate gun culture through laws. It'd be about as successful as current US alcohol laws have been in preventing minors and 18-20 year olds from drinking alcohol.

[Joe Republic]

This has been another excellent example of why Americans should stay away from debates on gun rights in the UK.  (I had to learn it the hard way myself several years ago.)

[dead0man]

I don't hate freedom. Quite the opposite. I support the freedom for people to walk the streets safely without the fear of a nutter going round shooting people up.

Do you really think people in America are afraid to walk the streets for fear of being shot?

Suburbanites basically are. They seem to think cities are basically daily gun battles and residents have to wear bullet proof vests to survive.

Maybe, but most people...I'd assume somewhere north of 99% of us, are NOT afraid to walk the streets around our own neighborhoods.  Yeah, we might not want to go walk around that neighborhood across town because it's full of people that don't look like the people in my neighborhood, but I bet that's just as true in England as it is Texas.  I wouldn't be shocked if it was worse there even.  At least Texans have a history of living and working with each other, it's kind of new phenomenon in Europe.

That said, why the hell should I care what gun laws people in the UK have or want?  I feel for those there that love both liberty and guns and wish them the best in their fight with the Nancys in the majority, but it's not my fight.  It's much less of a big deal than, say, how women are treated in S.Arabia.

[Franzl]

I'm quite annoyed at the idea of making the granting of rights subject to proving a "need" to have said rights.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm quite annoyed at the idea of making the granting of rights subject to proving a "need" to have said rights.

But no one here thinks that owning a gun is a right or has anything to do with rights. As I've argued (endlessly, I'll admit) before, gun issues are cultural issues in the clearest way that anything can be a cultural issue.

[Franzl]

I'm quite annoyed at the idea of making the granting of rights subject to proving a "need" to have said rights.

But no one here thinks that owning a gun is a right or has anything to do with rights. As I've argued (endlessly, I'll admit) before, gun issues are cultural issues in the clearest way that anything can be a cultural issue.

Which is alright, I suppose.....even though I'm quite sceptical that gun ownership is really a huge influence in crime. Look at Austria, for example.

I guess my problem is....if a strong argument can't be found to ban posession of something....I tend to oppose the government regulating whéther it can be bought and sold and under what conditions.

Even if we don't view it as a "right"....that in itself is not a reason to ban it.

[Earth]

I'm quite annoyed at the idea of making the granting of rights subject to proving a "need" to have said rights.

But no one here thinks that owning a gun is a right or has anything to do with rights. As I've argued (endlessly, I'll admit) before, gun issues are cultural issues in the clearest way that anything can be a cultural issue.

Being a cultural issue doesn't exclude it from being considered a right, or that it shouldn't be legislated as such. Gay rights, for example.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm quite annoyed at the idea of making the granting of rights subject to proving a "need" to have said rights.

But no one here thinks that owning a gun is a right or has anything to do with rights. As I've argued (endlessly, I'll admit) before, gun issues are cultural issues in the clearest way that anything can be a cultural issue.

Being a cultural issue doesn't exclude it from being considered a right, or that it shouldn't be legislated as such. Gay rights, for example.

I thought you disagreed with the entire concept of rights?

[Earth]

I'm quite annoyed at the idea of making the granting of rights subject to proving a "need" to have said rights.

But no one here thinks that owning a gun is a right or has anything to do with rights. As I've argued (endlessly, I'll admit) before, gun issues are cultural issues in the clearest way that anything can be a cultural issue.

Being a cultural issue doesn't exclude it from being considered a right, or that it shouldn't be legislated as such. Gay rights, for example.

I thought you disagreed with the entire concept of rights?

I do, if we're talking about "natural", or inalienable rights. Legal rights are the ones we actually have.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I do, if we're talking about "natural", or inalienable rights. Legal rights are the ones we actually have.

Right. Thought so. Well, there is no right to own a gun in the UK and there is no cultural assertion (for want of a better phrase) that there is such a right either. I don't doubt that the concept (and language, and legal reality) of 'rights' comes into play wrt guns in the US, but it doesn't here.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'm quite annoyed at the idea of making the granting of rights subject to proving a "need" to have said rights.

But no one here thinks that owning a gun is a right or has anything to do with rights. As I've argued (endlessly, I'll admit) before, gun issues are cultural issues in the clearest way that anything can be a cultural issue.

     Doesn't that underscore the sheer pointlessness of gun control? The lack of gun culture in the UK means that gun violence would be rare even without all of the laws that are put into place. On the other hand, the existence of a gun culture in the US means that gun control would have essentially no impact on the incidence of gun crime, & in fact strict control would probably lead to a surge in terrorism perpetrated by right-wing extremists.

[k-onmmunist]

Total ban would be the best idea.

Are you really that off the wall?

Haha, that's ironic.

Believe it or not, I enjoy the thought that it is so hard to acquire a gun. The country is far safer for it. This is a country and a culture which has always been hostile to legalised gun ownership. The only people who ought to be allowed guns are the police.

So, you really are that off the wall after all.

Your entire country is off the wall for believing it's okay to give people guns.

Of course it's ok. Why do you hate freedom, anyway? Weren't you a libertarian once?

I don't hate freedom. Quite the opposite. I support the freedom for people to walk the streets safely without the fear of a nutter going round shooting people up.

Right, and you still haven't addressed the points made in my first reply--the bad people are still going to have guns, even if they are illegal. Illegalizing guns, therefore, create the illusion of safer streets when in fact criminals still have guns all along. Why, then, must we make it harder for law abiding citizens to have guns? Gun rights can be abused, just like all other rights, but that doesn't mean that we should ban all guns.

I fail to see any reason why any law abiding person needs a gun.

So now you're saying that things should be legal only if they're "needed"? That's not hating freedom at all....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not what I was saying....

I was making the point that not everyone who buys a gun intends to use it to break the law.

You hate freedom too. Like women's reproductive rights. So don't preach to me like that. Conservatives are the worst offenders when it comes to encroaching on freedom.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Total ban would be the best idea.

Are you really that off the wall?

Haha, that's ironic.

Believe it or not, I enjoy the thought that it is so hard to acquire a gun. The country is far safer for it. This is a country and a culture which has always been hostile to legalised gun ownership. The only people who ought to be allowed guns are the police.

So, you really are that off the wall after all.

Your entire country is off the wall for believing it's okay to give people guns.

Of course it's ok. Why do you hate freedom, anyway? Weren't you a libertarian once?

I don't hate freedom. Quite the opposite. I support the freedom for people to walk the streets safely without the fear of a nutter going round shooting people up.

Right, and you still haven't addressed the points made in my first reply--the bad people are still going to have guns, even if they are illegal. Illegalizing guns, therefore, create the illusion of safer streets when in fact criminals still have guns all along. Why, then, must we make it harder for law abiding citizens to have guns? Gun rights can be abused, just like all other rights, but that doesn't mean that we should ban all guns.

I fail to see any reason why any law abiding person needs a gun.

So now you're saying that things should be legal only if they're "needed"? That's not hating freedom at all....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not what I was saying....

I was making the point that not everyone who buys a gun intends to use it to break the law.

You hate freedom too. Like women's reproductive rights. So don't preach to me like that. Conservatives are the worst offenders when it comes to encroaching on freedom.

Go away.

[k-onmmunist]

Glad you heeled.

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope. Factually untrue. Not true (to anything like the US extent, that is) anywhere in Western Europe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually... the guy in question here was law-abiding until he wasn't anymore. As is commonly the case with non-gang crime-related murderers all over the world.

[??????????]

in fact strict control would probably lead to a surge in terrorism perpetrated by right-wing extremists.

It wouldn't be "terrorism" at that point. Sorry, try again. If the government tries to remove ones God given rights it is the right of the people to do whatever necessary to sustain said right.

[Associate Justice PiT]

in fact strict control would probably lead to a surge in terrorism perpetrated by right-wing extremists.

It wouldn't be "terrorism" at that point. Sorry, try again. If the government tries to remove ones God given rights it is the right of the people to do whatever necessary to sustain said right.

     I suppose the word terrorism was a poor choice, since these persons might decide to pursue more tactical goals in their operations. That said, I dislike the negative connotations of the word terrorism, since inducing fear in the enemy is a perfectly valid aspect of warfare (provided that you aren't committing war crimes in the process of doing so). Still, I suspect that you will also take issue with my use of the word "extremists".

[??????????]

in fact strict control would probably lead to a surge in terrorism perpetrated by right-wing extremists.

It wouldn't be "terrorism" at that point. Sorry, try again. If the government tries to remove ones God given rights it is the right of the people to do whatever necessary to sustain said right.

     I suppose the word terrorism was a poor choice, since these persons might decide to pursue more tactical goals in their operations. That said, I dislike the negative connotations of the word terrorism, since inducing fear in the enemy is a perfectly valid aspect of warfare (provided that you aren't committing war crimes in the process of doing so). Still, I suspect that you will still take issue with my use of the word "extremists".

In such an unlikely event as a total gun ban then they wouldn't be any more extreme then our founding fathers.

[Earth]

The only people who ought to be allowed guns are the police.

Can someone explain to me how this is in any way a good idea?

I defer to Mr. B:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lief 🗽]

in fact strict control would probably lead to a surge in terrorism perpetrated by right-wing extremists.

It wouldn't be "terrorism" at that point. Sorry, try again. If the government tries to remove ones God given rights it is the right of the people to do whatever necessary to sustain said right.

Using religion to legitimize violence? You're right, that doesn't sound like terrorism at all.

[??????????]

Nothing different then what the founders thought.

[Lief 🗽]

Weren't you complaining the other day that Muslims are uncivilized and backwards? And then you go around pretending you live in the 18th century.