Should gun ownership be legalised?

Alex McKee · 19-02-2007, 01:04 AM

I understand the case for legalising guns. There are some strong arguments to support it. At any rate, ownership of a weapon is not the problem - what is done with guns is the problem.

However I think that making weapons more readily available is not a sensible idea. So no, no gun legalisation. I don't think this country is ready for it.

mkpdavies · 19-02-2007, 08:04 AM

Under license.

Seeing as the police and the criminals have them, I don't see why I should be left out.

tammy_cat · 19-02-2007, 11:42 AM

I don't think the proverbial 'man in the street' should be allowed guns, but I do think that two types of people should be allowed guns:

1. Gun club members. The guns should be stored on the club premises and the members should be allowed to shoot guns on the club premises. I don't think our sportsmen should have to go abroad and practise in order to enter shooting competitions.

2. People, who have a valid reason for using a gun, e.g. gamekeepers and farmers. There are probably others, but I don't know about them.

22ANDUK · 19-02-2007, 12:04 PM

I always thought 'gun ownership' was legal?

I'm a pro, but I have a lot of criteria that would need to be met, these include:

1 year waiting list
kept in two locked safes bolted to wall (ammunition in one, weapon in other)
annual to bi-annual checks by authorities
only certain weapons allowed i.e. nothing like a 'sawn-off' shotgun

I support the introduction of a form of voluntary national service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscri...y#Alternatives) and I believe that on completion of this one of the perks should be the right to own a gun.

harryaldridge · 19-02-2007, 12:12 PM

I kind of support most of what the Libertarian Alliance says here on gun ownership.
Restricting gun ownership clearly does not help reduce gun crime as has been pointed out - some countries with more liberal laws have fewer gun crimes and some have more. So the real cause of gun crime has nothing to do with access to guns but something else. Therefore guns should not be targetted but rather the cause behind the crimes.

The right to self defence is a natural liberty that should be protected by Government.

blank_frackis · 19-02-2007, 09:02 PM

I've always found the logic that guns should be legal because criminals have them a little bizarre. Let's say we had a playground at a school and boy A picked up a stick and started hitting some of the other children with it. Is the answer to this problem to give all of the children sticks? Sure it might make for a fairer fight between boy A and boy B, but you'd also have boys C, D, E, F (who wouldn't have had sticks) bashing each others heads in over minor squabbles. I think the answer to gun crime is to police the laws we have more effectively, not to give everyone guns.

On the other hand I think those who have legitimate reasons for using guns should be allowed to have them under a proper licensing system.

Besoeker · 19-02-2007, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 22ANDUK

I support the introduction of a form of voluntary national service and I believe that on completion of this one of the perks should be the right to own a gun.

What kind of gun?
And for what purpose?

Internationalist · 19-02-2007, 10:01 PM

I would not like to see people walking the streets with guns, but having a gun in your own home is a different matter. What right has the state got to disarm innocent people and prevent them from protecting themselves?

It is fair enough in a public place to assume that the police are there to protect you - however tenuous that may be sometimes - but when an intruder breaks into your home you do not have the luxury of waiting for the police.

brian lee · 19-02-2007, 11:22 PM

A gun is not a defensive weapon. The positioning of armed police at airports, etc. just gives a false sense of security. In fact innocent people are far more likely to be killed by them than by anybody else because they have their weapons at the ready. Those with army training know that he who shoots first lives. In other words it is essential that you fire the first shot. If you wait until you are shot at, you may well not be able to fire back because you could be dead. The danger from armed police is that they will shoot anybody with a rucsack or even carrying a table leg.

Imagine you are in a crowd, foolishly wanting to see the Prime Minister. You reach into your pocket for your camera. A bodyguard sees this move, thinks you are an assassin reaching for a gun and bang.

There never was any justification for the banning of handguns after the Dunblane massacre. It was simply a knee jerk reaction to show that the government was doing something. Legally held guns were always strictly controlled as opposed to the illegal weapons that have now multiplied. You cannot legislate for lunatics with guns, driving cars or piloting planes if they have a mind to kill people.

Since Dunblane there have been numerous killings of unarmed civilians by members of the police force. I don't think any one of them has been charged with murder or even suffered long term loss of pay, etc. even though the civilians were not actually threatening anybody. You are far safer when there isn't an armed bobby about.

Generally speaking, legally held guns by civilians for shooting at targets or killing vermin were never a problem. Gun toting cops are.

This-England · 20-02-2007, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harryaldridge

I kind of support most of what the Libertarian Alliance says here on gun ownership.
Restricting gun ownership clearly does not help reduce gun crime as has been pointed out - some countries with more liberal laws have fewer gun crimes and some have more. So the real cause of gun crime has nothing to do with access to guns but something else. Therefore guns should not be targetted but rather the cause behind the crimes.

The right to self defence is a natural liberty that should be protected by Government.

We know the cause but can not say.

View Poll Results: Should gun ownership be legalised?
Yes	10	50.00%
No	10	50.00%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll

19-02-2007, 08:04 AM	#12 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,112 Party: Libertarian Party	Under license. Seeing as the police and the criminals have them, I don't see why I should be left out. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

19-02-2007, 09:02 PM	#16 (permalink)
blank_frackis Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 314 $blank_frackis is just starting out$	I've always found the logic that guns should be legal because criminals have them a little bizarre. Let's say we had a playground at a school and boy A picked up a stick and started hitting some of the other children with it. Is the answer to this problem to give all of the children sticks? Sure it might make for a fairer fight between boy A and boy B, but you'd also have boys C, D, E, F (who wouldn't have had sticks) bashing each others heads in over minor squabbles. I think the answer to gun crime is to police the laws we have more effectively, not to give everyone guns. On the other hand I think those who have legitimate reasons for using guns should be allowed to have them under a proper licensing system.
$blank_frackis is offline$

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

19-02-2007, 01:04 AM	#11 (permalink)
Alex McKee Moderator Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Gloucester Posts: 6,666	I understand the case for legalising guns. There are some strong arguments to support it. At any rate, ownership of a weapon is not the problem - what is done with guns is the problem. However I think that making weapons more readily available is not a sensible idea. So no, no gun legalisation. I don't think this country is ready for it.

19-02-2007, 11:42 AM	#13 (permalink)
tammy_cat Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Nottinghamshire Posts: 69	I don't think the proverbial 'man in the street' should be allowed guns, but I do think that two types of people should be allowed guns: 1. Gun club members. The guns should be stored on the club premises and the members should be allowed to shoot guns on the club premises. I don't think our sportsmen should have to go abroad and practise in order to enter shooting competitions. 2. People, who have a valid reason for using a gun, e.g. gamekeepers and farmers. There are probably others, but I don't know about them.

19-02-2007, 12:04 PM	#14 (permalink)
22ANDUK Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,438	I always thought 'gun ownership' was legal? I'm a pro, but I have a lot of criteria that would need to be met, these include: 1 year waiting list kept in two locked safes bolted to wall (ammunition in one, weapon in other) annual to bi-annual checks by authorities only certain weapons allowed i.e. nothing like a 'sawn-off' shotgun I support the introduction of a form of voluntary national service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscri...y#Alternatives) and I believe that on completion of this one of the perks should be the right to own a gun.

19-02-2007, 12:12 PM	#15 (permalink)
harryaldridge Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: West Sussex Posts: 1,912	I kind of support most of what the Libertarian Alliance says here on gun ownership. Restricting gun ownership clearly does not help reduce gun crime as has been pointed out - some countries with more liberal laws have fewer gun crimes and some have more. So the real cause of gun crime has nothing to do with access to guns but something else. Therefore guns should not be targetted but rather the cause behind the crimes. The right to self defence is a natural liberty that should be protected by Government.

19-02-2007, 10:01 PM	#18 (permalink)
Internationalist Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,101	I would not like to see people walking the streets with guns, but having a gun in your own home is a different matter. What right has the state got to disarm innocent people and prevent them from protecting themselves? It is fair enough in a public place to assume that the police are there to protect you - however tenuous that may be sometimes - but when an intruder breaks into your home you do not have the luxury of waiting for the police.

19-02-2007, 11:22 PM	#19 (permalink)
brian lee Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: South Essex Posts: 613	A gun is not a defensive weapon. The positioning of armed police at airports, etc. just gives a false sense of security. In fact innocent people are far more likely to be killed by them than by anybody else because they have their weapons at the ready. Those with army training know that he who shoots first lives. In other words it is essential that you fire the first shot. If you wait until you are shot at, you may well not be able to fire back because you could be dead. The danger from armed police is that they will shoot anybody with a rucsack or even carrying a table leg. Imagine you are in a crowd, foolishly wanting to see the Prime Minister. You reach into your pocket for your camera. A bodyguard sees this move, thinks you are an assassin reaching for a gun and bang. There never was any justification for the banning of handguns after the Dunblane massacre. It was simply a knee jerk reaction to show that the government was doing something. Legally held guns were always strictly controlled as opposed to the illegal weapons that have now multiplied. You cannot legislate for lunatics with guns, driving cars or piloting planes if they have a mind to kill people. Since Dunblane there have been numerous killings of unarmed civilians by members of the police force. I don't think any one of them has been charged with murder or even suffered long term loss of pay, etc. even though the civilians were not actually threatening anybody. You are far safer when there isn't an armed bobby about. Generally speaking, legally held guns by civilians for shooting at targets or killing vermin were never a problem. Gun toting cops are.