Right or Wrong .

[Aaron_butcher 17]

If someone breaks into your property then fair enough, blow them away but what if that guy in america had missed the mugger and shot a kid. IMO if they're on your land you should be able to do what you like but carrying a gun around the streets will make things worse, maybe carrying a stun gun would be a better law so muggers can be incapacitated.

[JohnGalway 1,043]

The "what if he shot a kid" argument is a bit hysterical. What if he was a father and the muggers kill him then? No more Daddy because he's not allowed to defend his life as someone wanted the $20 in his pocket.

 

As it stands, law abiding people can have guns for sporting uses. Criminals have guns for illegal uses. The LAW doesn't stop criminals having them, so what use is that? Criminals break the law, that's what they do! Law abiding people should be enabled to defend themselves, their family and their property.

 

Massacres etc. are caused by people, for one reason or another, who have a screw loose. So I'm afraid it's back to the saying that guns don't kill people, people (rappers) do!

 

If someone enters my house I want to be able to lawfully defend myself to the best of my ability, currently I cannot do that. And until recently I had to retreat! In the house in which I live!! Madness.

 

The soft headed approach of appeasing criminals from "rights groups" and "interests groups" is what's gotten us to this point.

 

USA has a lot of failings, but this isn't one of them.

[robo-christ 40]

we should have the right to carry fire arms to protect ourselves (with proper weapon handling test's etc)

it also would stop the government from pushing us too far,knowing that if even a small % of the population rose up against them they'd be f****d.

[scothunter 12,609]

cant believe people from this country would like to see people walking about armed.imo that only leaves the door open for accidents.or kids helping themselfs to thier dads arsenal and going out and shooting up schools or settling petty squabbles with guns.i dont know where half of you lot live,but the way you make out your living under seige.id be more prone not to go out if i knew the maj of the public were armed.yes criminals have guns and we have cops with guns whos job is to deal with that,and yes innocent people get shot,but expect a lot more getting shot if guns were freely available to all sundry.our towns and cities every weekend are full of drunks and idiots fighting.yea good idea to allow them to carry shooters. why not go the whole hog and put a sign up in town saying welcome to dodge city.

[scothunter 12,609]

we should have the right to carry fire arms to protect ourselves (with proper weapon handling test's etc)

it also would stop the government from pushing us too far,knowing that if even a small % of the population rose up against them they'd be f****d.

 

thank you for proving my point!

[scothunter 12,609]

The "what if he shot a kid" argument is a bit hysterical. What if he was a father and the muggers kill him then? No more Daddy because he's not allowed to defend his life as someone wanted the $20 in his pocket.

 

As it stands, law abiding people can have guns for sporting uses. Criminals have guns for illegal uses. The LAW doesn't stop criminals having them, so what use is that? Criminals break the law, that's what they do! Law abiding people should be enabled to defend themselves, their family and their property.

 

Massacres etc. are caused by people, for one reason or another, who have a screw loose. So I'm afraid it's back to the saying that guns don't kill people, people (rappers) do!

 

If someone enters my house I want to be able to lawfully defend myself to the best of my ability, currently I cannot do that. And until recently I had to retreat! In the house in which I live!! Madness.

 

The soft headed approach of appeasing criminals from "rights groups" and "interests groups" is what's gotten us to this point.

 

USA has a lot of failings, but this isn't one of them.

 

prob not as hysterical as the parents would be if thier son or daughter was gunned down by some over zealous vigilante.

[JohnGalway 1,043]

prob not as hysterical as the parents would be if thier son or daughter was gunned down by some over zealous vigilante.

 

But it's OK for that man to be assaulted and possibly killed by accident or design by criminals. Glad we sorted out which side yer on then SH

[scothunter 12,609]

prob not as hysterical as the parents would be if thier son or daughter was gunned down by some over zealous vigilante.

 

But it's OK for that man to be assaulted and possibly killed by accident or design by criminals. Glad we sorted out which side yer on then SH

 

lol wait a min mate.im not saying how it is perfect by any means.,butsurely you can see my point.i just think it wouuld be a dangerous path to go down mate.for the very reasons i have given.i dunno the exact statistics on the states but i imagine there are hundreds of innocent people shot every year in america by accidents or by unstable kids and adults who have access to firearms.tbh im happy we have the strict gun laws we have.after dunblane my eyes were opened that a normal member of the public could have handguns in his home.i was ignorant i thought the cops were the only ones who had access to handguns.i thought the sporting lads had to keep them at the club in an armoury.i agree with you we should be allowed to defend our homes and property against intruders.however i cannot agree with you that members of the british public being allowed to walk around with concealerd weapons is the answer.if we did that we would need to arm all cops and tbh there some of those cops i wouldnt allow them to carry a water pistol.

[Born Hunter 17,820]

prob not as hysterical as the parents would be if thier son or daughter was gunned down by some over zealous vigilante.

 

But it's OK for that man to be assaulted and possibly killed by accident or design by criminals. Glad we sorted out which side yer on then SH

 

lol wait a min mate.im not saying how it is perfect by any means.,butsurely you can see my point.i just think it wouuld be a dangerous path to go down mate.for the very reasons i have given.i dunno the exact statistics on the states but i imagine there are hundreds of innocent people shot every year in america by accidents or by unstable kids and adults who have access to firearms.tbh im happy we have the strict gun laws we have.after dunblane my eyes were opened that a normal member of the public could have handguns in his home.i was ignorant i thought the cops were the only ones who had access to handguns.i thought the sporting lads had to keep them at the club in an armoury.i agree with you we should be allowed to defend our homes and property against intruders.however i cannot agree with you that members of the british public being allowed to walk around with concealerd weapons is the answer.if we did that we would need to arm all cops and tbh there some of those cops i wouldnt allow them to carry a water pistol.

 

Would you agree then that we should at least be able to own a shotgun/pistol for the protection of our property and family? Assuming similar licencing laws to a FAC but also possibly a handling test also. Purely to be kept to protect against people breaking in. To say in this circumstance that the police are there to protect against intruders is utter bollocks, as they are not in our homes when we are at threat! They are there half an hour after if you are lucky!

[scothunter 12,609]

prob not as hysterical as the parents would be if thier son or daughter was gunned down by some over zealous vigilante.

 

But it's OK for that man to be assaulted and possibly killed by accident or design by criminals. Glad we sorted out which side yer on then SH

 

lol wait a min mate.im not saying how it is perfect by any means.,butsurely you can see my point.i just think it wouuld be a dangerous path to go down mate.for the very reasons i have given.i dunno the exact statistics on the states but i imagine there are hundreds of innocent people shot every year in america by accidents or by unstable kids and adults who have access to firearms.tbh im happy we have the strict gun laws we have.after dunblane my eyes were opened that a normal member of the public could have handguns in his home.i was ignorant i thought the cops were the only ones who had access to handguns.i thought the sporting lads had to keep them at the club in an armoury.i agree with you we should be allowed to defend our homes and property against intruders.however i cannot agree with you that members of the british public being allowed to walk around with concealerd weapons is the answer.if we did that we would need to arm all cops and tbh there some of those cops i wouldnt allow them to carry a water pistol.

 

Would you agree then that we should at least be able to own a shotgun/pistol for the protection of our property and family? Assuming similar licencing laws to a FAC but also possibly a handling test also. Purely to be kept to protect against people breaking in. To say in this circumstance that the police are there to protect against intruders is utter bollocks, as they are not in our homes when we are at threat! They are there half an hour after if you are lucky!

 

well lets put it this way if a scenario where someone or some persons broke into my house and threatned me and my family and i considered the threat to be as serious where our lifes were in danger.i wouldnt think twice about pointing a shotgun at them and if they still didnt leave then yes i would pull the trigger.should i be prosecuted for my actions.i think not.should we be allowed to keep handguns in the bedside cabinet?IMO no.i dont think anyone should be allowed to keep handguns other than cops and security forces.does that make me a liberal person or a sensible person i dunno its one to ponder.

[Ideation 8,216]

When will people realise that letting folk carry guns about for personal protection DOES NOT reduce gun crime. If you look at the countries such as the USA that allow their citizens to legally carry a gun and shoot home invaders, they tend to have a very high rate of gun crime. People will always want to rob people, crime will always happen. Yes home owners can defend themselves against the robber because they have a gun. . . . . but seeing as the robber knows this - when he jacks your car / house etc then he usually comes packing a gun also. So you get a shotgun, then they get a machine gun. . . . . and so it continues.

[scothunter 12,609]

kinda like the death sentence in countrys that still practice it.it does not stop murders or crime.

[matt_hooks 188]

does that make me a liberal person or a sensible person i dunno its one to ponder.

 

Hmmm, interesting take on the word "liberal" there.

 

So you espouse the restriction of peoples ability to carry out perfectly safe practices, and yet you claim to be liberal?

 

Prior to Dunblane and the buggers muddle of legislation that followed it, thousands of people throughout the country quite legally kept, and used, pistols. The level of pistol crime was very low, and legally held weapons were almost never used.

 

Now I'm not saying that Dunblane wasn't tragic, but if the guy hadn't had access to pistols, he could quite easily have done as much damage with a set of kitchen knives.

 

The restriction of legal practices due to the actions of one madman is, in my opinion, nonsensical and an unwarranted limitation on liberty. Surely someone claiming to be a liberal should defend liberty, not support it being removed?

[artic 595]

prob not as hysterical as the parents would be if thier son or daughter was gunned down by some over zealous vigilante.

 

But it's OK for that man to be assaulted and possibly killed by accident or design by criminals. Glad we sorted out which side yer on then SH

 

lol wait a min mate.im not saying how it is perfect by any means.,butsurely you can see my point.i just think it wouuld be a dangerous path to go down mate.for the very reasons i have given.i dunno the exact statistics on the states but i imagine there are hundreds of innocent people shot every year in america by accidents or by unstable kids and adults who have access to firearms.tbh im happy we have the strict gun laws we have.after dunblane my eyes were opened that a normal member of the public could have handguns in his home.i was ignorant i thought the cops were the only ones who had access to handguns.i thought the sporting lads had to keep them at the club in an armoury.i agree with you we should be allowed to defend our homes and property against intruders.however i cannot agree with you that members of the british public being allowed to walk around with concealerd weapons is the answer.if we did that we would need to arm all cops and tbh there some of those cops i wouldnt allow them to carry a water pistol.

 

Would you agree then that we should at least be able to own a shotgun/pistol for the protection of our property and family? Assuming similar licencing laws to a FAC but also possibly a handling test also. Purely to be kept to protect against people breaking in. To say in this circumstance that the police are there to protect against intruders is utter bollocks, as they are not in our homes when we are at threat! They are there half an hour after if you are lucky!

 

well lets put it this way if a scenario where someone or some persons broke into my house and threatned me and my family and i considered the threat to be as serious where our lifes were in danger.i wouldnt think twice about pointing a shotgun at them and if they still didnt leave then yes i would pull the trigger.should i be prosecuted for my actions.i think not.should we be allowed to keep handguns in the bedside cabinet?IMO no.i dont think anyone should be allowed to keep handguns other than cops and security forces.does that make me a liberal person or a sensible person i dunno its one to ponder.

 

From what you have written, then yes.

 

It would be very difficult to justify in a court of law shooting a burgular if he has only threatened you, and has refused to leave your location. Ok, you honestly believe that he will carry the threat and harm yourself and others, BUT, pointing the weapon is already an intention.

 

That's why members of the public here in the UK will never be authorised to carry firearms.

[scothunter 12,609]

does that make me a liberal person or a sensible person i dunno its one to ponder.

 

Hmmm, interesting take on the word "liberal" there.

 

So you espouse the restriction of peoples ability to carry out perfectly safe practices, and yet you claim to be liberal?

 

Prior to Dunblane and the buggers muddle of legislation that followed it, thousands of people throughout the country quite legally kept, and used, pistols. The level of pistol crime was very low, and legally held weapons were almost never used.

 

Now I'm not saying that Dunblane wasn't tragic, but if the guy hadn't had access to pistols, he could quite easily have done as much damage with a set of kitchen knives.

 

The restriction of legal practices due to the actions of one madman is, in my opinion, nonsensical and an unwarranted limitation on liberty. Surely someone claiming to be a liberal should defend liberty, not support it being removed?

 

i never said i was liberal mate.just i think on this particular topic and my answer could be said as being liberal.would he have managed to kill all those kids and teacher with a knife.possibly,but having guns certainly made sure that the maj in that primary school class had no chance.not hear to upset anyone its just my take on the whole gun issue.i see no good ever coming from allowing any tom dick or harry to be allowed to carry guns in shoulder holsters like wanna be jack bauers.