How do you logically justify owning a gun for self defense?

That is one point, if your country actually enforces penalties for criminals in possession of firearms, because our country does not.

You don't need a gun to kill the most people, all you need is a Renault Assault Van.

Then of course you have Whitman with a bolt action rifle and the VA tech shooter with a .22 and a 9mm with 10 round mags.

Not having the right to defend yourself is more deadly than an AK.

 

No mate. That is to misunderstand the society I live in. Everyone here can have a gun. It's easy to get one. People just don't want them. If you are reading it any other way than this you haven't got it yet. That's the culture here.

And yes it is a burden to not pay for your petrol, still you can always break the law. Who is to know.

 

As far as I know it does. A friend got prison for having a pistol in his car.
Our countries firearms laws are not confined to firearms at all but also air weapons and toys.
If anything they take it too far.

Everyone here has the right to defend themselves.
83 year old shot a burglar in the foot the other day. Through his car door by the sounds of it. He was cleared.

We get society gone mad stories in the news of course. Everyone does. But it usually hasn't.
Use a gun to defend yourself and you should expect to get arrested and given the full treatment. Last time I did, they upped my gun licence.

 

What you say applies in theory rather than in actual practice. Not everyone in your nation can own a firearm, since there are so many arbitrary and capricious requirements that must be met beforehand.

Pray tell what are you even attempting to say with the above statement? The entire presentation suggests you see no problem with putting firearm owners in the position of breaking some law or another if they have to stop for fuel.

 

Why should the victim of a violent crime be arrested?

I'd think someone trying to kill you is bad enough in and of itself, isn't it?

Arresting someone forced to defend themselves when the government failed to protect them isn't very logical.

 

You are making a whole lot of whole lot of assumptions there.

We have a process to assess if that is indeed the case. It starts with the police and can end in prison but usually, it ends with the police. Starts there, they yank your chain for a bit... ends there.

 

Requirements are pretty simple. No drugs convictions, no violent convictions (for any person living at your address), a doctor's name to give reference to your sanity, a character reference and a safe to store it in.
Oh yes and a photo or two and £50.

There isn't even an age limit. I got my license at 14.

For a rifle licence, the same, one extra character witness and written permission form the owner or renter of a suitable area of land to shoot on/gun club.

 

Along with being able to demonstrate a legitimate need for ownership of a particular firearm in a particular caliber, meaning you cannot legally own something simply because you wish to.

 

Who would want the ability to own something just because you wanted to?

 

I can own a shotgun simply because I wish to. That applies to all calibres up to and including a punt gun which is an artillery piece.

For a rifle I must show good reason, where good reason is not allowed to be "self defence" but is for example allowed to be "plinking". Rabbits. Foxes. Range use. If I give the example of range use, ammo is expected to be stored at the range and not in the home and no hollow points are allowed. Silencers must be asked for. But everyone who asks receives. They offer in fact, since most people here use them.
With a rifle I am only allowed one rifle per purpose. So one rabbit rifle. One range rifle. One fox rifle. Effectively one per calibre.
But I could have two similar rifles of similar calibre, both for rabbits perhaps if one was set up for night sights and the other for day.

 

Is the above question serious or rhetorical?

 

Wanting something, is the concept most commercial advertising is based on and why companies spend countless Millions of Dollars every year.

The Original question was silly.

 

EVERY human being.

 

I will give up my guns when the government can demonstrate it can keep me and mine safe. I will begin to listen when there is no longer a need for the secret service. Until then, I will keep my fangs ready tor those that would tread on me or mine.

 

The latter.

 

In the US, 70% of violent crime does not involve a firearm.
Thus, a firearm kept and/or carried for self-defense has a significant change of thwarting said violent crime.

 

Here, such a thing violates our constitution.

 

*******************

Also a significant chance your assailants might soil themselves requiring a change !

 

As Xenanmes said the data you presented was debunked.

 

How do you logically justify NOY owning a gun for self-defense?

http://graphics.nra.org/ac/ac-59.html

No brainer...unless your a gun hating dem.

 

**********

That statement makes no sense, it is illogical, prove that firearms in general have the capability of action without a person or "other" actioner causing it to fire, your evidence is lacking.

 

You seem to forget, in England, there is no such thing as Legal concealed carry of a handgun or Legal possession of a handgun capable of being concealed.

Why would you keep a Gun under your
bed ???
Sounds a bit daft to me.

 

Things must have changed, are handgu bc a legally allowed now ?

How is it Legal to posses a loaded handgun outside a Range ?

 

***Edited for typos.****

 

I would like to take this opportunity to say that I am truly blessed to live in a nation which recognizes the RKBA, and which does not require me to provide any justification to any irritated governmental minister either before, during, or after I choose to exercise it.