For all you anti gun hoplophobes on here

not if we're armed as well

They can't buy a gun til their 18! it just means they can attend clay shoots without an induction everytime or use their parents firearm supervised, stop being so sensationalist

not if we're armed as well

You might want to read what I actually wrote. I'm not familiar with gun laws and I frankly don't care about them, I'm also not trying to imply that a 7 year old using a shotgun is right or wrong. All I'm trying to say is that compared to America, our gun laws are strict, but when a 7 year old can get a shotgun license, they don't seem so strict afterall.

We're still ****ed, because:



In America there is a right to bear arms, and conspiracy theorists are still terrified of the government turning on them. At best, armed civilians would be able to turn a government assault into a brief civil war. Personally I think many would rather co-operate and go quietly than get absolutely owned.

Now I see why you have loads of rep

IMO they are fairly strict, but they could be better

Seriously? I think our armed forces have enough on their hands with conflicts across the globe without them having any intention of turning against their own country. stop being so paranoid. You do know, even in Switzerland people out of the armed forces are not allowed automatic weapons, when they leave the forces if they wish to keep their rifles they have the automatic setting on them disabled.

I didn't know that maybe you could show me a source?

When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In this case of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner. The rifle is then a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle.

As someone who enjoys sport shooting (I do targets only, I have no interest in shooting live animals) and who finds it annoying that we are no longer allowed to have pistols of any sort in this country due to the Dunblane tragedy, I find the OP's stance unhelpful beacuse it portrays all shooters as gun nuts who want the right to have a gun on them at all times. Just as I have no interest in using guns for pest control, I have no interest in using them to shoot criminals. I don't really see how they are linked. Just beacuse someone owns guns, I don't see why they are suddenly on some sort of civilian front line against criminals. I own a car, but I don't use it to drive around and pull over dangerous drivers. That's for the police.

Despite the fact that I am a shooter, I am against the idea of a 'right to bear arms'. I think that licensing is the best way of ensuring that the vast majority of people who get their hands on things which have the potential to become lethal weapons are safe. Personally, I would support an extension of the licensing system to include some sort of medical and psychiatric assessment, as is found in many European countries.

I do think that there is a case for lifting the ban on legally-held pistols, because I cannot see that it was anything other than political by the government of the time who were desperate to divert public attention from the fact that the police had wholeheartedly failed in their responsibilities to the public by not taking the Dunblane shooter's guns off him. This was despite repeated warnings from various gun clubs which he had been kicked out of (the police are supposed to have lines of communication with gun clubs and are supposed to monitor attendance - failure to attend a gun club a certain number of times a year is supposed to result in the loss of permission to keep weapons which you state that you use for target shooting) that he was not sound of mind.

This is the first sensible post from someone on the pro-gun side of the argument - well thought out, analytical, coherent, mature.
The others have done their arguments no favours at all by making the gun lobby appear to be a bunch of gung-ho loonies who want to play cowboys and indians, rescue the free world from the baddies, act as vigilante judge and jury or fight mythical rogue governments - or all of these. Well done.

He waits until someone comes along with a viewpoint that is like his own,

Did you read what he wrote? I don't think you can have as he advocates legalising of pistols in the UK. This is the complete opposite of what I think.

Regardless, his viewpoint is the most similar to your own, and therefore only for that reason you commended his post.

not if we're armed as well

Tanks, aircraft & trained infantry > civilians with guns. Libya kinda proves this.

Tanks, aircraft & trained infantry > civilians with guns. Libya kinda proves this.

No not at all, its best to fight back rather than be sheep to the slaughter, even if you have inferior weapons, like the warsaw ghetto uprising for example

So the crux of your argument is that you want to own a gun so that if the government turns on you (which it won't), you will be able to "fight back"? And even at that you admit that you would be defeated anyway?

That is a ridiculous reason to legalise these kinds of weapons, in the face of all the disadvantages that it would bring.

didn't say we would be defeated did I? when did I say that?