Man of Honour
He was still acquitted on the grounds of reasonable force. I think that needs repeating.
Your views on gun laws in the UK
- Thread starter rz30
- Start date
He was still acquitted on the grounds of reasonable force. I think that needs repeating.
Man of Honour
And it does. Any intruder in a home is deemed an immediate threat simply by their presence and you can attack them on sight. They don't need to explicitly threaten you. They don't even need to know you are there.
People should look at what UK law really is. They'd be surprised. There have only been a handful of convictions of people who claimed defence and that was for things such as beating the **** out of a burglar, throwing him in a pit and setting fire to him. There is now a legal precedent that attempted murder in revenge is reasonable force! How bloody far do you want to go, seriously?
Man of Honour
i) You are allowed to use reasonable force in defence of possessions.
ii) You are allowed to use reasonable force to stop a crime in progress.
iii) An intruder in a home is legally defined as an immediate threat anyway, regardless of what they do or don't do.
So you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Are you being deliberately stupid
Both the 1997 acts regarding the banning of handguns WERE NOT introduced to reduce generic gun crime, they were a direct result of massacres like Hungerford and Dunblane where LEGALLY HELD firearms were used and therefore by definition the acts CANNOT fail!
Funnily enough criminals/gangs committing crimes don't use licensed traceable guns
So people saying the 1997 gun law was stupid are making themselves look really foolish, it's a law that simply cannot fail at achieving what it set out to
But they did fail.
The laws bought in after Hungerford did nothing to stop Dunblane. The laws bought in after Dunblane did nothing to stop Cumbria.
Soldato
Stupid analogy.
If it did stop X amount of murders since we would not know about them (because they didn't happen).
The unfortunate truth is that 90% of the population lacks either the discipline or the self control required to handle a firearm.
The pro-gun people are looking at it wrong, I know you think you are trustworthy enough to handle a gun - but do you think the general public is?.
Do you really think the average mouth-breather can be trusted with a deadly weapon?.
I really don't, not with our binge drinking, low-self esteem, miserable culture.
Regarding the 2mil figure (that's total weapons count & meaningless), I put the actual data earlier in the thread, it's about 750k licences, most of which are related to work (Farming areas with the greatest proportion).
Fallacies. Fallacies everywhere...
Then contact gunpolicy.org and tell them they're wrong and you know better. Don't forget to provide them with your sources so they can amend the details.
Soldato
Care to point them out?.
It's already proven that a vast majority of drivers speed, unable to even follow simple driving guidelines - what makes you think it would be any different?.
My source?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbcGhOdG0zTG1EWkVPdmFISlFXSTNwYlE&hl=en#gid=1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/gun-ownership-firearms-certificates#data
Look at column D (Total certificates firearms plus shotguns, 2011) - look at the bottom.
From the official police report displaying how many licences are currently active on the Guardian website provided by all of the local police forces - they even have an export function based off 2011 data.
I said active licence holders (people), not total firearms (weapons).
I don't need to look at some third party website, I've got the data from the actual source.
2/10 for effort.
Last edited:
Re-read what you wrote.
Another fallacy.
2010 data is out of date.
And that number is for England/Wales. It does not include Scotland and Northern Ireland. Here is a more recent article with the relevant data that shows it's only England and Wales. Now include Scotland and Northern Ireland and it's up to 800k I mentioned earlier which is covered by the gunpolicy.org website.
Soldato
I said it was 2011 (when I updated the post) - hardly massively out of date to now either.
What point are you trying to make?, that 800k is considerably more than 750k?.
Besides, if you have some hard evidence that relaxing gun controls has a true benefit let's hear it - because at the moment you sound like a 15 year old gun nut desperately trying to argue a losing battle (and resorting to being picky & calling out fallacies because you lack any evidence or reasonable arguments to back your cause).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy - FYI.
I didn't catch the update. So cool your jets.
Only that you were incorrect. Which you were.
Straw man fallacy.
Straw man fallacy using fallacy from fallacy to insinuate that the statements that you made were not fallacies.
It is just as valid (or invalid if you prefer) as saying that the laws have worked.
Equally because such shootings are so incredibly rare we cannot say that the laws have had any impact at all. What we can say is that the changes after Hungerford didn't stop Dunblane and the changes after Dunblane didn't stop Cumbria.
I am assuming you can back that statistic up? As you are so keen on evidence?
Which is where the current laws surrounding licences come in.
750,000 still seems to be a large enough number to count as "plenty".
Soldato
I was incorrect?.
Ok, let's break it down for you.
I gave a figure of 750k, which was just England & Wales - you "corrected me" with the 800k figure.
Let's look at the 50k licence holders in scotland/Northern Ireland
Scotland = 5,222,100
N.I = 1,685,000
Total = 6,907,100
Total guns = 50,000
Percent of gun owners = 0.72%
Hardly, I made an observation & gave an impression on how you come across - I never said what you said was false because you sound like a 15 year old gun-nut who masturbates over weapons magazines.
You are wrong because you have no evidence to back up the stupid material you keep spewing out - I mean seriously?, how can you not know they don't adjust figures for population in statistics?, I can see why you failed maths.
I'm yet to hear an argument that's worth anything from you for lighter gun controls.
But hey, keep dodging the issue if it makes you feel better.
Where are you getting the 50k figure from for Northern Ireland / Scotland? Gunpolicy has the number of civilian licensed firearms holders at 76k alone...
Sorry. With all the fallacies, I'm getting muddled. I should have said Ad hominem. You resorted to a limp insult. And you did it again. Then you claimed I was arguing argument from fallacy, when I never actually said anything about you being right or wrong, only said that your statements were full of fallacies.
I'm wrong? I've provided my source... You're choosing to ignore the source.
Soldato
I agree - but you can't say that it's failed either.
And?.
I never said that it was a research paper, it was an estimate.I am assuming you can back that statistic up? As you are so keen on evidence?
But what do you think the results of the test would be if it was issued? (by speeding I mean going over the legal limit - not getting fined for it).
The current laws are fine, but we don't need to relax them.
Subjective.
If you have any reasoned argument/evidence to push for the gun controls in the UK to be relaxed - I'd be very interested in hearing them.
Soldato
You said my 750k figure was incorrect & it was 800k.
What is the 800k figure for you keep referencing?.
Some of us work, so gun related websites are not open to us.
Yawwnnnnn...................
Yawwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn...........
I don't really care if we have 750k or 950k licence holders in the UK, I fail to see how the amount of licence holders has anything to do with wanting lighter gun controls.
Put some evidence in here that contributes towards relaxing our gun controls . (not gun related websites if possible, some of us work).
One question,
What evidence could be provided to you which would make you change your mind on this issue?.
If the answer is "none" - then I'm done listening to this dribble.
If you have peer reviewed studies which conclusively proved that lightening gun controls resulted in fewer deaths PA & a higher quality of life I'd change my mind.
I have a feeling nothing would change yours, because... "you want guns".
Last edited:
By estimate you actually mean "completely made up guess" don't you?
Not really sure what speeding has got to do with it to be honest or how it relates to your assertion that 90% of people cannot be trusted. Just because someone speeds doesn't mean they will be foolish with other things. I am incredibly careful with my bow whilst on the shooting line but may well have exceeded the speed limit on the odd occassion. Should I give up archery having proven myself to be so irresponsible with something so completely unrelated?
The only change I would like to see would be a reversal on the ban on handguns. It was a knee jerk reaction to a freak tragedy and has adversely affected many people that enjoyed pistol target shooting as a sport or pass time. Contrary to your rather bizarre views on who wants changes to gun laws I don't own any samurai swords, own no camoflauge and have never read a gun magazine never mind masturbated over one. Nor would I apply for a firearms licence if the law was changed.
The 800k is the number on the gun policy website. If you're at work and can't access it that's your problem not mine.
Spiffing.
Well when one considers the amount of legally registered civilian firearm holders and the amount of legally held civilian weapons in circulation, then considers the fact that there has only ever been three massacres carried out by legally held civilian weapons in the UK (not taking into consideration the legally held weapons of the British government forces who turned their weapons on the public), relaxing our gun controls might not be so bad. Personally, I'm of the opinion that people should be allowed to be armed so that in instances were government forces turn their weapons on their own people, you can retaliate. Of course this is fallacious to think, but another fallacious train of thought would say that because gun laws are relaxed, gun massacres would go up.
See above.
Last edited: