RayC

"Banksy's mural at the Royal Courts of Justice is being removed due to the building's listed status"

But adding the little crown to the glass has made the beer taste so much better. It's the Brexit benefit everyone keeps searching for.

And you think that justified the initial action? Do you think that more powerful nations - or those with powerful allies - should have carte blanche to act as they like, when they like, where they like, and the rest of the world should just keep quiet about it?

Well said. I knew very little about Mr. Kirk but what I have learnt in the last hour was that he was a married man with two young kids. His wife is now a widow and his kids now lack a father. That is the tragedy. Those pointing the finger and trying to score political points might do well to remember that.

The US has encouraged Putin to end this war and talk to Zelenskyy but to no avail. What makes you think that Putin will be inclined to take any more notice of European leaders?

Bombing buildings within Qatar might suggest otherwise

Why do you keep insisting that you know better than me what I mean and continually attempt to put words in my mouth? I have acknowledged that introducing tighter gun control legislation will (almost) certainly result in taking some people's guns away. HOWEVER, as I have already stated, THAT IS A BY-PRODUCT. THE OBJECTIVE IS TO SAVE LIVES, IN PARTICULAR, THE DEATHS OF INNOCENT BYSTANDERS. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU? (Shouting is obviously sometimes necessary). Maybe reducing speed limits and taking alcohol off the markets wouldn't be such a bad idea, however, I am not that naive to believe that the latter has any chance of happening. However, these are poor analogies. Firstly, very few deaths by reckless driving are pre-meditated homicides - yes, I'm aware that cars have by driven into crowds in Europe but these are very isolated incidents - and secondly, alcohol and - to a large extent - car related deaths are self-inflicted. Moreover, in the case of alcohol abuse death is an unfortunate, involuntary end result. Because it is a potentially lethal weapon that in the wrong hands can cause untold damage. I would have thought that much at least would be intuitively obvious. Are you now arguing that I should be able to pop down to the local corner shop and buy an AK-47 at the same time as I purchase a pint of milk? Why mention this? I know that, and never suggested otherwise. I suppose I should be grateful that it is something we agree upon. Correlation has been established, causation has not. Not for the first time, you are repeating yourself. I have already addressed this matter. The studies compared seven developed nations and therefore have validity. At best, you are misinterpreting what I say, at worst it is another example of misplaced arrogance in trying to tell me that you know me better than I do so myself! I work on the premise that rational people would like to eliminate unnecessary deaths. However, your incessant pedantic objections do lead me to question that premise. This exchange has long since lost any meaning it might possibly once have had so I'm done with it. Believe what you will and call yourself the winner if it makes you feel good.

None of that makes any sense whatsoever

So are you saying that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was an illegal act and therefore it actually still exists? In that case, presumably you believe that the declaration of sovereignty by a number of the other republics of the Soviet Union e.g. Georgia was also illegal? Presumably you also believe that this can be used by Russia as a justification for any future invasions?

Completely irrelevant. If you would to go down that road, the most important FACTS are that 1) the Soviet Union no longer exists 2) Its' former republics did not become satellite states of Russia but instead 3) became sovereign states in their own right. "The Soviet Union was formally dissolved as a sovereign state and subject of international law on 26 December 1991 by Declaration No. 142-N of the Soviet of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union" (Source: Wikipedia)

Well said. When one cuts through all the nonsensical justification for this war offered by the Putin apologists e.g. ridding Ukraine of Nazis, Russia protecting its' borders, etc, those are the two most pertinent FACTS.

I preferred him in 'Planet of the Apes'.

I've no what you are jabbering on about. The word you are searching for is, 'No'.

Is that what it's called? In that case, I'm so pleased that I'm not an intellectual.

You: Do you agree there is a correlation between strict gun laws/bans and the murder of innocent citzens by governments, like Socialist countrys such as China, Russia and Germany? Me: I've no idea. Link to some data on the subject. You: Got it. So you ignore the death toll of National Socialist Germany, Socialist China and Russia. And you think that yours is a logical conclusion? Maybe, I'm partly to blame for your faulty reasoning. I should said, "Link to some data on the subject (and then I'll let you know)". My apologies.

You may think that my opinion is wrong. Fine that is your prerogative. However, nothing that you or any other pro-gun posters has offered has persuaded me to change my opinion.

There's a wealth of data which shows correlation but not causation. So - as I have said repeatedly - currently it comes down to a value judgement: Does an individual believe that this correlation is coincidental? I don't. On the other side of the coin. I find the argument that freedom can be (partially, at least) defined by the ability to own a gun, frankly ridiculous.

I've no idea. Link to some data on the subject. Off the top of my head, I'd say that was probable (especially in the US). I don't know but there may well be. Depends what you define as minimal but, for sale of argument, I'll say 'Yes'. Right now that I have answered your questions what was the point that you were trying to make?

Almost certainly I would imagine. However, that is a by-product not the objective; the objective would be to save lives. The law should be made in such a way that individuals who can prove that they need a gun can obtain one (Before you ask. I am not going to produce a draft law here. Refer to the UK laws (link previously supplied) for an outline template if needs be). Agreed and I have stressed the use of the word correlation and not causation. It is extremely difficult to prove causation when researching societal issues. As I said numerous times, if you wish to dismiss this correlation as coincidental that's up to you. No I'm not. It was my turn to be pedantic which it is why I deliberately chose the word, 'may'. Good then at least we agree about that.

What does that even mean? Where - and how - have I lied about you? You are either trolling, being pedantic or both.

No I do not. For the umpteenth time, what I - and others - have done throughout is offer evidence which shows the relationship between looser gun ownership laws and the incident of gun related deaths/ injuries. Now personally I think that reducing the number of deaths/ injuries would be a good thing. You may disagree. I also think that - given the correlation outlined above - maybe, just maybe, tighter gun ownership laws might reduce the number of gun-related deaths/ injuries. Again, I think that this would be a good thing. You may disagree.

The first link has embedded articles which show the link between gun ownership and gun mortality rates. There are +/-200 nations in the world. I am not going to search for data on each and every one just to satisfy you. I would say that data from seven comparable developed nations was reasonably compelling evidence. You win, although quite what you think that you've achieved I don't know. As I have said on more occasions than I care to remember, if you want to believe that the inverse relationship between the ease of legally obtaining a gun and the number of deaths/ injuries from firearms is purely coincidental that's up to you.

I don't have to as - fortunately - we don't have that many people wandering around London taking potshots at passerbys. Strange kind of freedom: Freedom to blow some one's brains out Normally, I don't like people putting words into my mouth, but on this occasion I couldn't have put it better myself. Thanks. No I do not. Perhaps you should read all the preceding posts before commenting. If you had done so, you would have seen that I made the following comment in reply to Mike Hunt: "If you want to re-enact 'Gunfight at the OK Corral' with an enlarged cast of millions, you crack on with it". No matter how deeply you bury your head in the sand, two facts remain: 1) A majority of your compatriots favour tighter restrictions on gun ownership (see previous post in this thread for links) and 2) there is a correlation between the laws governing gun ownership and the number of deaths/ injuries resulting from gunshot i.e. the looser the restrictions, the higher the number the number of deaths/ injuries from firearms. To repeat (yet again), if you want to cling to the belief that this correlation is coincidental - and not causal - that's up you.

There is plenty of data to be found within this thread but if you want additional ready material try some of the following links: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/5504#:~:text=A higher number of firearm,As ou … https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons#:~:text=Japan,see no need for firearms.

😂 But no point in doing so. No room for the exit stamp.