Should the UK have the right to bear arms?

again, I've mentioned back ground checks, e.g. a lack of a criminal record, requirements of good mental health, etc. and where's your evidence that "criminals" (which, a priori, doesn't make sense here because you need to have committed a crime to be called a criminal) will monopolise the ownership of guns today in this hypothetical case when they never used to before the gun ban? if you make it easier for *law abiding* people to own guns, like in other countries, and make it pretty much just as difficult for criminals as today to own guns (by restricting likely wrong-doers from being able to buy them) you protect them and you protect their rights against others who might want to hold them up or harm them (be it with a gun, knife, baseball bat etc) - and guns are neutral tools - they kill neither innocent people nor people likely to do harm - they are there to protect one's life against outside threats, mostly, and in the cases of their use in crime, the vast minority of people who will have guns will have criminal intents, if you look at the figures of every other society where gun ownership is present. a person who is a weak fighter owning a gun will cause them to not become a target in the case of street crime (e.g. robberies). having a society where any body can own a gun means that a criminal has to risk his life doing petty crimes, pretty much, if he knows that everybody else has a right to have a gun too, and have it on them at the time of a crime. responsible people who own guns are obviously those least at risk from gun violence from others - and I'm referring to the fact that, if you have a society where the only people who have guns are the criminals, you disarm the innocent and practically arm the immoral because they are only ones willing to get the guns. but, again, I can't help but stress it to you that the UK was *fine*, except obviously for the one case of the school shooting which could have been substituted for a school mass-stabbing incident, before guns were banned and gun crime seemed to be even lower back then, so I have no idea how either banning guns or keeping guns banned after a ban is a good idea when the facts seem to be opposed to it, and the only thing you have is rash generalisations based merely on emotions and fears. having knives legal is dangerous in the world to those who have lived in a society where knives are banned. having a society without alcohol is a society that has similar fears for alcohol being legal in relation to its results (e.g. the sharia nations). you're appealing to the same kinds of cultural worries they are to restrict individual liberty.

PS: and aren't you a libertarian socialist? what kind of libertarian wants gun illegal?

I'm not even particularly anti-gun, I'm just anti-reintroducing them.

And no I'm not a libertarian socialist.

what's the difference in this context? would you have been against a ban in 1996?

aren't you? I swear you're something like that after having conservations with you in the past - what are you then?

again, I've mentioned back ground checks, e.g. a lack of a criminal record, requirements of good mental health, etc. and where's your evidence that "criminals" (which, a priori, doesn't make sense here because you need to have committed a crime to be called a criminal) will monopolise the ownership of guns today in this hypothetical case when they never used to before the gun ban? if you make it easier for *law abiding* people to own guns, like in other countries, and make it pretty much just as difficult for criminals as today to own guns (by restricting likely wrong-doers from being able to buy them) you protect them and you protect their rights against others who might want to hold them up or harm them (be it with a gun, knife, baseball bat etc) - and guns are neutral tools - they kill neither innocent people nor people likely to do harm - they are there to protect one's life against outside threats, mostly, and in the cases of their use in crime, the vast minority of people who will have guns will have criminal intents, if you look at the figures of every other society where gun ownership is present. a person who is a weak fighter owning a gun will cause them to not become a target in the case of street crime (e.g. robberies). having a society where any body can own a gun means that a criminal has to risk his life doing petty crimes, pretty much, if he knows that everybody else has a right to have a gun too, and have it on them at the time of a crime. responsible people who own guns are obviously those least at risk from gun violence from others - and I'm referring to the fact that, if you have a society where the only people who have guns are the criminals, you disarm the innocent and practically arm the immoral because they are only ones willing to get the guns. but, again, I can't help but stress it to you that the UK was *fine*, except obviously for the one case of the school shooting which could have been substituted for a school mass-stabbing incident, before guns were banned and gun crime seemed to be even lower back then, so I have no idea how either banning guns or keeping guns banned after a ban is a good idea when the facts seem to be opposed to it, and the only thing you have is rash generalisations based merely on emotions and fears. having knives legal is dangerous in the world to those who have lived in a society where knives are banned. having a society without alcohol is a society that has similar fears for alcohol being legal in relation to its results (e.g. the sharia nations). you're appealing to the same kinds of cultural worries they are to restrict individual liberty.

PS: and aren't you a libertarian socialist? what kind of libertarian wants gun illegal?

No.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28197785- Elliot Rodger case2014
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/26/arizona-girl-shoots-kills-firearms-instructor- little girl accidently shot gun instructor 2014
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25375064- Colorado school shootings December 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20738998- Sandy hook December 2012
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/20/batman-shooting-killed-colorado-cinema- Guy opens fire in cinema July 2012 killing 50 people.

I could find so many more cases of tragic deaths due to people's stupidity with guns. I just don't' think it is worth allowing the general public to have access to long range weapons. Sure most people would be responsible, but what consolation will that be to the family of those that die cause one psycho goes on a killing spree?

You really don't get it do you?

The UK is not the USA. The UK is not Switzerland. The UK is not Canada. There is no precedence set in this country for any form of comparison with other countries on gun ownership.

Nobody here wants guns and those that do can use them under strictly controlled laws.

Nobody gives a flying **** about the 'right to bear arms'. It is simply not an issue and we want it to stay that way.

Democracy rules.

the comparison was the time before guns were banned (-1996), where there was very little gun crime (yet gun availability was liberal), albeit the rate of crime being higher than in other countries didn't mean there was more gun related violence/property crimes



even hand guns? that'll do greatly on my farm



again, you're not looking at this with any objectivity if that's your argument

1) you could say the same thing about cigarettes, alcohol, unprotected sex, dangerous sports, driving cars recklessly, etc. you can't say that just because there is a *risk* that some stupid parents will let their children near their guns, that means that is what the right is - it's not. children shouldn't have the right to bear arms.
2) or we could be like switzerland with very low crime and a lot of guns. how awful would that be?

stupid oxymoron- a safer country with more guns how would that work. Guns have one funiction- to kill, in what way does that equate to low crime

So I assume you are against the police/cops having guns? Less guns = less crime, am I right?

well look at all the wrongful deaths at the hands of trigger happy police

no.. last thing we need is to be more like america

Yes. Then the only solution is to ban guns. Am I rite m8? We don't want to be like murica and have the police shooting innocent people! Ban guns!!!!!!!!

stupid oxymoron- a safer country with more guns how would that work. Guns have one funiction- to kill, in what way does that equate to low crime