(June 1, 2016 at 9:05 pm)dom.donald Wrote:

(June 1, 2016 at 9:00 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: I am 17.

Not from Manchester.

But that's got nothing to do with anything.

Bloody hell, that was a good guess. Your views indicate your age.  All this naïve bravado about what you would and wouldn't do if someone walked up your driveway. So, I have to ask, why don't you get a gun and defend yourself then? Because you're scared of prison?

I would rather not go to prison, yeah.

Un-banning guns doesn't mean you'd be free to wave them around and shoot people for committing minor civil offences. I guess you're too young to remember this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

But you're changing the subject. Oh, I'm young so my views automatically mean nothing? Piss off. It would be nice if guns were legal, but if they're not..oh well. *shrugs*

(June 1, 2016 at 9:09 pm)dom.donald Wrote: Un-banning guns doesn't mean you'd be free to wave them around and shoot people for committing minor civil offences. I guess you're too young to remember this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

Quote:Martin did not hold a valid shotgun certificate (licence), let alone the more restrictive Firearms Certificate he would have needed to possess the Winchester pump-action shotgun that held a maximum of five rounds.

I told you. I support regulation and licensing. He was in the wrong and deserved his sentence. No sympathy for the burglar though.

No, I didn't say your views mean nothing. I just think they are naïve. You said that I obviously "don't *like* guns". I think it's pretty clear that guns shouldn't be legalised for use in the way you describe, just because people *like* them. It is still legal in the UK to kill someone in self defence, if a jury judges that to be a reasonable action. You're talking about using a gun to defend yourself when your life isn't in imminent danger. And common sense should tell you that the likelihood of having a loaded gun at the ready *exactly* at the moment when your life is in imminent danger, is so small as to be non-existent. Besides, your life may only be in danger because everyone else is allowed to walk around with a gun too.

I support guns for self-defence, you don't or at least don't agree with me. That's fine. I honestly couldn't care less. The likelihood of the gun laws changing in any way is slim. Handguns would be nice, but it's no biggie if they remain illegal.

Britain is a vastly different culture to the US. I accept that we aren't going to become a nation of gun-lovers. And some of the gun freedoms in the US go a little too far in my opinion. Nobody needs to openly carry an assault rifle in the streets.

(June 1, 2016 at 9:09 pm)dom.donald Wrote: Un-banning guns doesn't mean you'd be free to wave them around and shoot people for committing minor civil offences. I guess you're too young to remember this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

Fortunately, Texas laws protect the homeowner.

(June 1, 2016 at 9:38 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(June 1, 2016 at 9:09 pm)dom.donald Wrote: Un-banning guns doesn't mean you'd be free to wave them around and shoot people for committing minor civil offences. I guess you're too young to remember this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

Fortunately, Texas laws protect the homeowner.

True, but this is Texas. Which isn't exactly representative of the rest of the civilised world, when it comes to its views on guns.

You say 'fortunately'. But there is a justice system and a series of punishments that are generally proportionate to the crime. Does someone deserve to be killed (by you) for stepping on your lawn? In the UK (and plenty of other western countries), killing in self defence is legal. My problem is with particularly the American view of what constitutes self defence. Now we already know that the US government is a proponent of pre-emptive aggression in self defence, so it's hardly a surprise that many of its citizens feel the same way. Is stealing some furniture to fuel a drug habit worthy of the death penalty? It seems to me that nothing good ever comes out of having guns around. You try to pretend that it's always a 'him or me' scenario, but I would hazard a guess that this isn't the case 99% of the time.

(June 1, 2016 at 9:38 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(June 1, 2016 at 9:09 pm)dom.donald Wrote: Un-banning guns doesn't mean you'd be free to wave them around and shoot people for committing minor civil offences. I guess you're too young to remember this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

Fortunately, Texas laws protect the homeowner.

Tony Martin didn't possess a basic shotgun certificate, or the extended certificate which allowed him to keep a gun that stores more rounds. I sympathise with him in regards to protecting his property, but he kept illegal weapons. That's wrong.

He was also arrested in 2015 again for suspicion of illegal weapons.

(June 1, 2016 at 9:47 pm)Bella Morte Wrote:

(June 1, 2016 at 9:38 pm)IATIA Wrote: Fortunately, Texas laws protect the homeowner.

Tony Martin didn't possess a basic shotgun certificate, or the extended certificate which allowed him to keep a gun that stores more rounds. I sympathise with him in regards to protecting his property, but he kept illegal weapons. That's wrong.

Um.. he was done for murder.