RayC

You don't seriously consider that article to be a credible piece of research and, in any way, offer evidence to support unrestricted gun ownership, do you? One need go no further than the following statement to dismiss its' findings as unreliable, "Defensive gun use has no singular definition. Some researchers refer to the individual's feelings about the situation ..." The fact that the author cannot define her terminology is bad enough; to compound matters by effectively saying any definition will do, beggars belief. Example: I shoot someone because they looked at me the wrong way and felt threatened by the situation. That meets the author's "definition" of 'defensive gun use'. Add another number to the stats. As I say, this approach beggars belief.

Do you really think that politicians actually physically draft legislation? It's a rhetorical question: The answer is 'No'. Legislation is drafted by civil servants who are subject matter and legal experts. Politicians sign off the end product: The "EU shill, Catherine Barnard" - actually Professor of European Law at Cambridge - almost certainly knows more about the legal minutiae of the ECHR and HRA than Jack Straw. The accusation of fear mongering coming from you would be laughable if it wasn't so misplaced and sad. The uninformed reading many of your posts would be forgiven for thinking that the UK was a tinderbox on the brink of anarchy and civil war: It's not. Anyway, thanks for - once again - proving my point: You don't do nuance.

Yes, the similarities with Brexit are plain to see. Brexiters had little idea of the consequences of leaving the EU - which can hardly be called a success - and equally little idea of implications of leaving the ECHR on the Good Friday Agreement. The fact that Farage admits this gives an indication of what his premiership might mean for the country. I know that you don't do nuance, but here's a more nuanced view of what leaving the ECHR might mean https://ukandeu.ac.uk/leaving-the-echr-and-the-refugee-convention/

So in other words, a return to the UK wouldn't be 'wonderful'.

'Project Fear' may have overstated the effects but the downsides of Brexit are clear for all to see. On the other side of the coin to 'Project Fear', how about David Davis' 'no downside to Brexit'? https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/regular-features/the-davis-downside-dossier/ And to think that he was Brexit Secretary🤦

You could try Sunderland, Hull, Stoke and a number of other places. Houses are available within your budget. Under 2% of the local population are Muslim in Sunderland.

"Project Fear" may have been overstated but, like many things, the "Sunlit Uplands" were a figment of Johnson's imagination.

If you objected to the Belfast Agreement at the time of its' signature, then you were in a very small minority: It was lauded by almost everyone, no matter what nationality or political persuasion. The UK was not forced to leave the EU; it chose to do so of its' own volition. Wrt N.Ireland and RoI, the onus was therefore on the UK to propose solutions that were acceptable to both Brussels and Dublin. Requiring 27 other EU member states to amend the rules of the Single Market and/or Customs Union to facilitate the UK's exit was quite obviously - and quite correctly - unacceptable to Brussels. Likewise, requiring the RoI to change its' relationship with the rest of the EU was quite obviously - and quite correctly - unacceptable to Dublin. That London could not find any acceptable solution(s) to the problem has nothing to do with intransigence on the part of Brussels or Dublin and everything to do with the fact that no solution exists: You cannot have a border and no-border simultaneously. It is as simple as that. This problem created by Brexit is insoluble, a fact that Brexiters either refuse to admit and/or fraudulently try to blame on the EU* Like many other issues, it displays a lack of accountability and responsibility on the part of Brexiters. * Imo the 'Windsor Framework' is a decent work-around, but many loyalists in Northern Ireland don't share my view. A fact that should - and does - concern London, Brussels and Dublin.

There is very little evidence to support your claims While there may be many anti-EU parties, the overwhelming majority of governments of the member states are pro-EU. Moreover, although public support for the anti-EU parties might be growing, polls still show close to 60% support among the public for the EU: There is nothing inevitable about the EU's demise.

Quick way to reduce the population. Everyone is a potential enemy. Better I shoot first and ask questions later. Works a treat until someone beats me to the draw.

I can't apologise for using a ridiculous Strawman argument to counter the morally corrupt proposition that the boats are sunk mid-Channel. It is more than it deserves. However, I am disappointed that I have offended your sensitivities and spoilt what otherwise would have been a rare moment of agreement between us: Oh well, never mind.

And guns make it a damn sight easier for people to kill people.

Actually you do unless you think that your constitution is unamenable. One definition of a right is that, 'a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something' Many (most?) Individuals in the US certainly currently have the legal entitlement to own a gun. However, to state the blindingly obvious, laws can, and are, amended. Is there a moral right to own a gun? Good luck with trying to use that line of argument to justify gun ownership.

Good. Then we both agree that sinking the boats in mid-Channel is a morally corrupt act. Which begs the question: Why do you choose to reply to my comment in the first place if you agree with my position.

Then they haven't committed a crime. Ergo, they should not be punished.

Strawman, yes. Silly, no. What's the argument for sinking boats carrying illegal immigrants in the Channel? Presumably, that it will act as a deterrent to others. No doubt those who support this measure will argue that any victims only have themselves to blame. A similar argument can be applied to any other crime. So consideration also has to be given to 1) proportionality and 2) the moral justification for taking an action. Do you consider it proportionate to risk killing someone for illegally entering a country? Do you think it morally justifiable to do so? I'd answer 'No' to both questions.

Nothing you have said goes anywhere close to making a convincing case for largely unrestricted gun ownership.

So a document written +/-240 years ago should be unamenable?

Maybe if you read the whole thread before replying you'd realise that my comment was laced with sarcasm.

Indeed. How can one truly consider oneself a free man without the ability to own a gun without restriction.

Good question. Maybe the offence should be de-criminalised? However, in the meantime in order to be consistent the answer has to be 'Yes'. Perhaps, a more humane method of execution could be used for this offence? Single shot to the head rather than a public stoning?

Thanks mate. As a full-blooded indigenous Brit I can't tell you how cheesed off I am with all these Romans coming over here with their talk of one true God. Mark my words, they'll be forcing us to give up all our Gods and convert. Who knows what they'll do if we refuse? I wouldn't put it past them to set us on fire. All the best, Pete the Pict

Are you against gun control? If so, can you please explain what benefits unrestricted gun ownership gives to society?

Why not go the whole hog and publicly execute anyone who commits any crime in the UK? I'm sure all law abiding people will be only too willing to dispose of the bodies and help with the general clean-up afterwards.

Can you explain in what ways Brexit was brilliant and how we got our country back? Btw: Maybe 71% of Britons polled suggested that Starmer was doing a bad job, but I very much doubt that 71% of the survey stated that he was left-wing.