RayC

All of which - many would argue - are present in the UK. (I'd imagine that some would say the same of Australia?)

Such as? That requires elaboration. That still doesn't explain why an American criminal underclass should be more 'scummy' than their Australian or UK counterparts. I do agree that focussing on the root causes of the problem is paramount, but the firearms hidden under the beds of criminals cannot be dismissed as unimportant.

Of course there are cultural and economic differences between Australia, the UK and the US but probably less than there are between many other nations. Much of our background and culture is shared, not least a shared language which helps avoid misunderstandings. In any event, if true, why would the US have a more violent underclass than either Australia and/or the UK? Assuming that it is true, I'd suggest that it was all the more reason to try and ensure that guns don't fall into the hands of this underclass.

More deflection. I have no idea what relevance your comment has to a discussion on gun ownership but - to avoid you making a song-and-dance about nothing - for the record I've paid tax in every country in which I have worked (and in others where I have/ had assets).

It does indeed but neither partner is obliged to dance

Then he was a fool for allowing himself to be put in that position. There's a host of other evidence to support my view that Davis was clueless, not least, his statement that, there were no downsides to Brexit. 👍

You're clutching at another straw. I don't know as I haven't looked at the data but if a comparison was made between gun ownership legislation in Australia and the UK and the incidence of gun related deaths and injuries then drawing conclusions would, perhaps, be more difficult. But that is, once again, deflection. We are not talking about two countries where the differences are (relatively) nuanced; we are talking about a comparison between nations with fundamentally different legislation. You're right, I don't get a say in US affairs and I avoid commenting on domestic US matters. If you want to keep your existing laws that's up to you, however, what I object to is the idea that less restrictive gun ownership legislation is a good thing. Btw: In a similar vein, you don't get a say in European issues. Maybe you should bear that in mind when commenting on domestic European matters.

I was afraid that you would say that

Just to be clear: I was being sarcastic.

Therein lies the problem. It's not a question of 'winning' and 'losing', it's a question of 'good' and 'bad' legislation. All the data suggests that in countries where gun ownership laws are stricter (and enforced) e.g. Australia, the UK the number of deaths and injuries from gun-related incidents are reduced compared with nations with less restrictive laws. In what way, can it be possible that a higher incident of death/ injury - often of innocent bystanders - is good for society? Fact: Guns kill

Funnily enough, those in possession of illegal firearms don't usually participate in surveys about the subject, so data is somewhat hard to come by. In the UK, estimates of the number of illegal firearms in circulation range from several hundred thousand to over a million. Not small numbers but much fewer than the numbers there would be if restrictions on gun ownership were relaxed. You are becoming increasingly desperate in your attempts to avoid admitting what is staring you in the face: Less restrictive gun ownership regulations results in more gun related deaths (and injuries).

Look back through this thread and consider the data on the number of deaths caused by firearms. You will notice that in countries where they are tighter regulations on gun ownership, there are fewer deaths by gunshot. (Admittedly, this proves correlation not causation. I can't be bothered to search for a study proving a casual link). This would suggest that on an aggregated, societal level the idea that arming citizens saves lives is - being generous - flawed. That straw has just snapped.

My bad: "I can't claim that the idea that restricting gun ownership is detrimental to society is one of them." Better? You are clinging to an ever-thinning straw.

No I am not saying that but it is almost certainly more difficult for criminals to obtain guns in countries where their ownership is banned - or severely restricted - compared with nations where they are relatively freely available. That much should be intuitive. Your position is untenable. Your comment is, once again, just an attempt at defection.

Because you cited the article as evidence to support your point of view which I disagree with. For the umpteenth time, the onus is you to justify your position. I don't require English lessons.

I do have ideas of my own but I can't claim that the idea that unrestricted gun ownership is detrimental to society is one of them. There are numerous other posters in this thread who share that belief and have supplied evidence to support this contention. So far, I've seen nothing to dissuade me from the view that we are correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=In the United Kingdom%2C gun,separate system for Northern Ireland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_of_Australia#:~:text=The states issue firearms licences,sport or target shooting competitions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States#:~:text=In the United States%2C the,v. These links give a overview of gun ownership legislation in Australia, the UK and the US. There is a rather nice phrase which sums up the difference between Australia/UK and the US. In Australia and the UK, gun ownership is a privilege, in the US it is a right. A more practical example. Someone who does not have a criminal record, is mentally capable, but is not a hunter or a member of a gun club In Australia or the UK would almost certainly be refused a licence to own a gun; in the US such a individual would almost certainly be allowed a licence. The question I posed to @Yagoda (p11 of this thread). "You don't seriously consider that article (from ammo.com) to be a credible piece of research and, in any way, offer evidence to support unrestricted gun ownership, do you?" Have a go at answering it yourself.

Potentially. However, in instances where the perpetrator of the crime is himself armed it begs the question, would the situation have arisen if there had been stricter gun ownership rules in place? How can I answer that? You haven't supplied a definition of what constituted a "defensive gun action". Yes. I would imagine that I would be able to do so. And? Yes. And? Once again. You supplied the article. rIt's up to justify its' contents and define the terminology. Conclusion: Nothing in your post offers a credible case to support the idea that the (virtually) unregulated right to gun ownership is anything but a bad thing for society as a whole.

@Will B Good and others have spelt out many specific changes that could be made. Maybe the US could use the Gun Ownership laws in Australia and the UK as templates.

Davis was clueless. The infamous picture of him and Barnier posing before the first negotiating session said it all It was no secret that Olly Robbins was pro-EU, so he should probably have been removed from the direct negotiations; another mistake by the UK government of the day. However, Robbins' early removal probably wouldn't have made much difference; the anti-EU Lord Frost fared no better in the negotiations. The truth of the matter is that the UK had a bad hand and played it badly. Agreed.

I'd also be very critical of Blair for many things e.g. the Iraq war, but it is overly harsh to criticise him for not foreseeing problems caused by Brexit and illegal migration in 1998. Neither problem was a distinct possibility back then. The frustration in Brussels during the Brexit negotiations was that the UK was unable - or unwilling - to state what it wanted. Once again, you try to lay the blame at the feet of the EU (plus Tony Blair on this occasion) when the truth is, once again, that it is (proposed) UK action which is the root cause of any potential problems. The EU is not placing its' rules above peace. If the existing legislation in both the EU and UK remains unchanged, then there is no threat to the Belfast Agreement. Perhaps, UK withdrawal from the ECHR would have no effect on the Belfast Agreement but, if it does, the onus is on the UK to find a solution which satisfies the RoI and the EU. The question remains the same: Why should the EU and any of the individual member states have to make potentially major changes to EU or national legislation to facilitate the smooth transition of domestic UK law?

Humanity, eh? Who needs it.

The paranoid, delusional conspiracy theorists are taking the air today. Don't forget to look under your beds for the reds, fellows.

The catalyst for the formation of Belgium was a revolution against Dutch rule. The Flemish people do not want reunification with the Netherlands, although a significant number favour the formation of an independent Flemish state.

Deflection. You have not addressed my questions. The whole article lacks context. It is just a series of random statements. What is the premise of this article? And the conclusion: That looser gun ownership regulations save lives? You posted the link. It's up to you to explain what this report is meant to prove and the terminology used not me.

The indigenous people of Britain, such as Cheddar Man, were failed by their governments who allowed themselves to be conquered and subsequently pandered to the needs of the later illegal immigrants such as the Romans, Vikings, Normans, etc.