For all you anti gun hoplophobes on here

This has nothing to do with liberty.

If a 60 year old chap has a huge enthusiasm for handguns and wants a collection, he cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
If a young immgrant to the country participated in e.g. handgun shooting for a sport back home, he cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
If a young woman wants a handgun on her possession as she feels safer with it (even if that feeling is incorrect, it is what she feels), she cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
If a person like me wants a handgun to shoot targets on private property and never to have it leave the private property, I cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
If a survivalist wants a handgun for his survival kit - which is a highly recommended item to have amongst the survivalist community, s/he cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
If a Muslim woman wants a handgun because her religion encourages holding weaponry, she cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.

Yes, your views are extreme. However, hoplophobia has been pushed into the skulls of the masses so they simply scream no every time the subject is brought up, and so what a neutral party would see as extremely totalitarian and authoritarian, you simply see as the norm. Think 1984.

Gun laws have increasingly became more authoritarian and extreme. If we lived in a society with no gun control at all, and the current laws were proposed, the proposers would simply be laughed at for their bigotry and intolerance.

^ Most of the above can be done with other guns.

I love the way anyone who disagrees with you and wants a safer world is denigrated as an authoritarian.

I don't give a **** - I'm talking about handguns. You can't just change what I'm saying to suit yourself.

My views are not extreme.
If you knew me you'd know I don't form my opinions just on what I'm told to think. I support/believe in many ideals that are opposed by the majorty or the government.
I just happen to understand that guns being allowed on the streets = more danger. They do not make us safer, as people seem to think.

I don't give a **** - I'm talking about handguns. You can't just change what I'm saying to suit yourself.

We don't want you to hold a weapon that you can easily conceal.

For the love of.. ok. I'm talking about handguns. Get that into your skull.

There's no reason for you to have a handgun that should be allowed (in my opinion).

If a 60 year old chap has a huge enthusiasm for handguns and wants a collection, he cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
If a young immgrant to the country participated in e.g. handgun shooting for a sport back home, he cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
If a young woman wants a handgun on her possession as she feels safer with it (even if that feeling is incorrect, it is what she feels), she cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
If a person like me wants a handgun to shoot targets on private property and never to have it leave the private property, I cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
If a survivalist wants a handgun for his survival kit - which is a highly recommended item to have amongst the survivalist community, s/he cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
If a Muslim woman wants a handgun because her religion encourages holding weaponry, she cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.

So because of your opinion, you would deny all of the above their freedom to engage in something that, in their view, would benefit them/give them pleasure/make them feel better? Even though you would not be affected by any of the above at all, you still deny them it?

and the Dalai Lama and Gandhi were and are pacifists who renounced violence utterly.

It has everything to do with liberty. Bigots oppose gun liberalisation because they themselves have no interest in guns. See the following:

I would be affected by it. Handguns are dangerous to society. It would mean that most criminals would gain access to them, making any encounter with them a LOT or dangerous... I've already explained how it would affect society, I'm not repeating it all.
The presense of these guns WOULD make society more dangerous, which is why YES we should stop it.

Yet they still realised the need for self defence and that violence in self defence is very approriate given the circumstances

I don't want people to drive extremely fast cars which could kill 20 people in a single accident. However, I respect their liberty to do that. Just because I personally don't want something doesn't mean I have the right to deny them their freedom to do it.

Sadly, that's not the case with you authoritarians. You don't want something, therefore, it should be illegal.

I am at pains to point out that there could well be other factors influencing these figures, but frankly it paints a pretty damning picture of lax gun legislation.

Other, valid, uses of handguns are covered by statutory exceptions to the ban.

thats two countries you're comparing. how about the other 190?

bull**** bull**** bull****, society was no more dangerous before 1997, one incident, dunlblane and they were banned. More illegal handguns turned up after the ban. Concealability has nothing to do with it, if someone can get a licence for a .50 cal rifle he should be able to get one for a handgun. You can saw your barrel off a rifle or a shotgun.

these are still legal here but have had the barrel extended to meet length requirements