Bring back the Death Sentence

In my opinion the death sentence should be brought back for premeditated murders, mass murderers, drug barons and peadophiles. There are many peadophiles who have ruined people's lives, not just the victims, but their families too.

Why is this idea important?

In my opinion the death sentence should be brought back for premeditated murders, mass murderers, drug barons and peadophiles. There are many peadophiles who have ruined people's lives, not just the victims, but their families too.

GET RID OF LAW OF JOINT ENTERPRISE

The law relating to Joint Enterprise is a mess. Currently, someone who is miles away from the scene of the crime can be convicted of planning and abetting the crime on the "evidence" of the perpetrator and circumstantial evidence. The person who is supposed to have planned the crime can get a sentence equal to or even in excess of the sentence handed to the perpetrator.

There are already existing laws relating to aiding and abetting the commission of a crime or being an accessory. The law relating to Joint Enterprise has led to miscarriages of justice.

Why is this idea important?

The law relating to Joint Enterprise is a mess. Currently, someone who is miles away from the scene of the crime can be convicted of planning and abetting the crime on the "evidence" of the perpetrator and circumstantial evidence. The person who is supposed to have planned the crime can get a sentence equal to or even in excess of the sentence handed to the perpetrator.

There are already existing laws relating to aiding and abetting the commission of a crime or being an accessory. The law relating to Joint Enterprise has led to miscarriages of justice.

Compassion

If you help to end the life of a loved one on compassionate grounds  who is suffering, then surely the law should be able to distinguish the difference between what they have done compared to a cold blooded killer.   Surely the word we all see clearly here is Compassion.  

To judge them on equal terms has always seemed wrong to me and the law is well over due to being changed.

Why is this idea important?

If you help to end the life of a loved one on compassionate grounds  who is suffering, then surely the law should be able to distinguish the difference between what they have done compared to a cold blooded killer.   Surely the word we all see clearly here is Compassion.  

To judge them on equal terms has always seemed wrong to me and the law is well over due to being changed.

Repeal the 70 year security blanket covering the death of Dr David Kelly.

Just what did the Blair Government have to hide?Why the need to keep the conclusions of the Hatton report secret for 70 years?  Was Dr David Kelly murdered or did he actually commit suicide? Lets have a proper inquiry with the results in the open for all to see please. State sponsored murder is not something we should allow to happen in this day and age, if anyone in Blairs government is guilty, lets brin them to justice, including if necessary Blair and Campbell themselves.

Why is this idea important?

Just what did the Blair Government have to hide?Why the need to keep the conclusions of the Hatton report secret for 70 years?  Was Dr David Kelly murdered or did he actually commit suicide? Lets have a proper inquiry with the results in the open for all to see please. State sponsored murder is not something we should allow to happen in this day and age, if anyone in Blairs government is guilty, lets brin them to justice, including if necessary Blair and Campbell themselves.

Adopt Dutch Model for Crime Reporting

Part of the problem of crime in the UK is the perception of it. People believe it is at a worse level than in reality.

This is because the press thrive on crime. They sell papers from it.

The result is that people, particularly women, get unduly scared when going out.

This is not good for the social cohesion in our country.

So I propose we adopt the Dutch model for crime reporting to help quell these false perceptions of crime.

In Holland, when a crime is committed, names of suspects cannot be mentioned. And after conviction, only their initials can be reported.

Why is this idea important?

Part of the problem of crime in the UK is the perception of it. People believe it is at a worse level than in reality.

This is because the press thrive on crime. They sell papers from it.

The result is that people, particularly women, get unduly scared when going out.

This is not good for the social cohesion in our country.

So I propose we adopt the Dutch model for crime reporting to help quell these false perceptions of crime.

In Holland, when a crime is committed, names of suspects cannot be mentioned. And after conviction, only their initials can be reported.

Revoke firearm permits of convicted violent criminals and seize all their weapons

Mr Moult had been convicted of a violent offence, and imprisoned for it. Surely that is a breach of the conditions of whatever law allows the issue of a shotgun licence?

From the moment that someone is charged with a violent offence, there should be an automatic question asked by the police, 'Does this person have legal weapons?' They have access to the firearms register. They should confiscate all weapons at that stage and only return them if they are acquitted or charges are dropped. A caution should not count as an acquittal in this respect.

If convicted of a violent offence their right to own weapons and have permits should be permanently revoked.

Why is this idea important?

Mr Moult had been convicted of a violent offence, and imprisoned for it. Surely that is a breach of the conditions of whatever law allows the issue of a shotgun licence?

From the moment that someone is charged with a violent offence, there should be an automatic question asked by the police, 'Does this person have legal weapons?' They have access to the firearms register. They should confiscate all weapons at that stage and only return them if they are acquitted or charges are dropped. A caution should not count as an acquittal in this respect.

If convicted of a violent offence their right to own weapons and have permits should be permanently revoked.

Right to Die with Dignity

As it is possible to benefit from "assisted suicide" in Switzerland, why must a British Citizen leave their homeland?

Medical advances have enabled life to prolonged beyond that which only 50 years ago, would have been unimaginable. 

It follows that life may be prolonged into circumstances that are beyond those which a given individual wishes to endure.

Surely this is akin to medical experimentation. How long can we keep this person alive, not how long can we help this person to live his/her life?

Why is this idea important?

As it is possible to benefit from "assisted suicide" in Switzerland, why must a British Citizen leave their homeland?

Medical advances have enabled life to prolonged beyond that which only 50 years ago, would have been unimaginable. 

It follows that life may be prolonged into circumstances that are beyond those which a given individual wishes to endure.

Surely this is akin to medical experimentation. How long can we keep this person alive, not how long can we help this person to live his/her life?

Repeal the Firearms Amendment Act of 1996

This Act was made in haste following the terrible events at Dunblane. An election was forthcoming and each of the political parties was trying to show how tough they could be.

Despite the observations of Lord Cullen, who did not advocate the banning of all handguns, the Government of the day decided to ban all larger calibre pistols, the incomoing Government banned all of them.  In effect they punished some 60,000 law abiding citizens for another mans crime.  Very few polititians listened to the target shooters, who were being vilified almost on a daily basis by the media and the Government in general.

As a result, pistols were only available to the criminals and the police. As I recall, in the first year since the ban statistics indicated that gun crime had increased fourfold, and has continued to rise each year.

Therefore, all the act has done is to prevent the law abiding citizen to enjoy the sport of target pistol shooting, The National teams of England and Scotland have to train abroad for Commonwealth Games and Olympics.  It was a sport that enabled the aged and the infirm to compete on a level with able people, what other sport could accomplish this?

It's about time that common sense prevailed and target pistol shooting could again be practised in this country.

Why is this idea important?

This Act was made in haste following the terrible events at Dunblane. An election was forthcoming and each of the political parties was trying to show how tough they could be.

Despite the observations of Lord Cullen, who did not advocate the banning of all handguns, the Government of the day decided to ban all larger calibre pistols, the incomoing Government banned all of them.  In effect they punished some 60,000 law abiding citizens for another mans crime.  Very few polititians listened to the target shooters, who were being vilified almost on a daily basis by the media and the Government in general.

As a result, pistols were only available to the criminals and the police. As I recall, in the first year since the ban statistics indicated that gun crime had increased fourfold, and has continued to rise each year.

Therefore, all the act has done is to prevent the law abiding citizen to enjoy the sport of target pistol shooting, The National teams of England and Scotland have to train abroad for Commonwealth Games and Olympics.  It was a sport that enabled the aged and the infirm to compete on a level with able people, what other sport could accomplish this?

It's about time that common sense prevailed and target pistol shooting could again be practised in this country.

Don’t bring back the death sentence.

While I sympathise with those who have lost loved ones through murder and so on. Bringing back the death sentence will not reduce crime. It hasn't reduced the amount of murders in America. Also it is open to abuse and there are innocents in jail who would have been executed if the death penalty was still in use.

Why is this idea important?

While I sympathise with those who have lost loved ones through murder and so on. Bringing back the death sentence will not reduce crime. It hasn't reduced the amount of murders in America. Also it is open to abuse and there are innocents in jail who would have been executed if the death penalty was still in use.

A few things to ponder

1. Stop migrants and asylum seekers entering the country until it’s in a better state financially.
2. Stop outsourcing work from within the public sector to the private sector. The companies that are handed the work are not trained, do not know what they’re doing and often ends up with the same thing being done twice.
3. Increase the salary of the public sector (non-managerial posts) employees in line with those within the private sector doing the same job. Public sector AO earns 15000 approx whereas the average salary for the same job within the private sector is approx 18000.
4. Put a stop to bumper bonuses for high paid bankers – those same bankers responsible for destroying the economy of the country.
5. Collect the £100+ million owed from tax evasion/avoidance and jail those who fail to pay (take not Mr H Redknapp).
6. Castrate all convicted paedophiles when there is no doubt to the crime committed. Simple really, to prevent the urge remove the source of it.
7. On a more serious note, prevent Katie ‘Whoredon’ Price from appearing on a television.
8. Name, shame and maim rapists – see action re paedophiles.
9. Limit each average household to 2 cars.
10. I don’t divulge myself but enough people do… Legalise marijuana and tax it. People smoke it anyway so there may as well be a bonus from it.
11. Legalise prostitution. Protect the vulnerable who are forced into it, health checks on a weekly basis and make it harder for the underage to become involved.
12. Murder – life means life. Consider re-introducing the death penalty for serial and child killers.
13. Scrap the human rights bill – it only serves to protect those who don’t deserve it.
There may be more… I’ll be back

Why is this idea important?

1. Stop migrants and asylum seekers entering the country until it’s in a better state financially.
2. Stop outsourcing work from within the public sector to the private sector. The companies that are handed the work are not trained, do not know what they’re doing and often ends up with the same thing being done twice.
3. Increase the salary of the public sector (non-managerial posts) employees in line with those within the private sector doing the same job. Public sector AO earns 15000 approx whereas the average salary for the same job within the private sector is approx 18000.
4. Put a stop to bumper bonuses for high paid bankers – those same bankers responsible for destroying the economy of the country.
5. Collect the £100+ million owed from tax evasion/avoidance and jail those who fail to pay (take not Mr H Redknapp).
6. Castrate all convicted paedophiles when there is no doubt to the crime committed. Simple really, to prevent the urge remove the source of it.
7. On a more serious note, prevent Katie ‘Whoredon’ Price from appearing on a television.
8. Name, shame and maim rapists – see action re paedophiles.
9. Limit each average household to 2 cars.
10. I don’t divulge myself but enough people do… Legalise marijuana and tax it. People smoke it anyway so there may as well be a bonus from it.
11. Legalise prostitution. Protect the vulnerable who are forced into it, health checks on a weekly basis and make it harder for the underage to become involved.
12. Murder – life means life. Consider re-introducing the death penalty for serial and child killers.
13. Scrap the human rights bill – it only serves to protect those who don’t deserve it.
There may be more… I’ll be back

self-defence

In dealing with personal defence the questions to be answered are such as:  ‘What are you going to do if – you have intruders in the house – a gang is damaging your property – armed intruders break into your house, cinema, shop, school?’ etc. 

The police have no legal obligation to protect individuals from violence.  You alone are responsible for dealing with such incidents in the first instance.  In addition you have a civic and moral duty to be prepared to protect yourself and others.  All laws relating to assault and the carrying of weapons must thus be amended to allow citizens to act in such situations without fear of prosecution.  

Reasonable force.  This term should be abandoned – it is a contradiction in terms. Personal violence is inherently unreasonable because it is always life-threatening and automatically invokes our ‘flight or fight’ survival response.  Our bodies change involuntarily to protect us and our minds  focus solely on what we can do to survive – we become less human.  Given that few of us experience violence, the idea that the righteousness of our actions in a few frenzied seconds of terror and panic can be determined calmly in a court of law is both ludicrous, offensive and an asset to the criminal.  

Weapons.  The current laws forbidding the carrying of weapons should be repealed and replaced by one relating to their use:  brandishing one in public would be an automatic offence (fine) and also make the brandisher a legitimate self-defence target for other citizens;  threatening with one would be an automatic jail sentence.

The law banning the carrying of knives has not prevented any killings but has had law-abiding people prosecuted for carrying multi-tools and Swiss Army knives etc.  90 years of very strict firearms ‘control’ legislation has not prevented spree killings, or a relentless increase in firearms crime.  It has however, given criminals a cast-iron. Government-backed guarantee that their victims will be defenceless. 

To claim that the availability of weapons encourages their use is not supported by evidence and, in a politician, shows a profound lack of trust in the people.  The Swiss have more firearms per head of population than the US and very little armed crime and even in the ‘infamous’ US itself, burglary and house invasions are quite rare.   

The only thing that might have stopped Michael Ryan at Hungerford, Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane, Derrick Bird in Cumbria or so-called terrorists taking to our streets as in Mumbai is the possibility that any citizen, anywhere, might be in a position to return fire. 

Incidentally, being safe with a firearm is blissfully easy – well within the intellectual compass of the average six-year old.

See also http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-terrorism-laws

Source:  http://www.alternativeparty.org.uk

Why is this idea important?

In dealing with personal defence the questions to be answered are such as:  ‘What are you going to do if – you have intruders in the house – a gang is damaging your property – armed intruders break into your house, cinema, shop, school?’ etc. 

The police have no legal obligation to protect individuals from violence.  You alone are responsible for dealing with such incidents in the first instance.  In addition you have a civic and moral duty to be prepared to protect yourself and others.  All laws relating to assault and the carrying of weapons must thus be amended to allow citizens to act in such situations without fear of prosecution.  

Reasonable force.  This term should be abandoned – it is a contradiction in terms. Personal violence is inherently unreasonable because it is always life-threatening and automatically invokes our ‘flight or fight’ survival response.  Our bodies change involuntarily to protect us and our minds  focus solely on what we can do to survive – we become less human.  Given that few of us experience violence, the idea that the righteousness of our actions in a few frenzied seconds of terror and panic can be determined calmly in a court of law is both ludicrous, offensive and an asset to the criminal.  

Weapons.  The current laws forbidding the carrying of weapons should be repealed and replaced by one relating to their use:  brandishing one in public would be an automatic offence (fine) and also make the brandisher a legitimate self-defence target for other citizens;  threatening with one would be an automatic jail sentence.

The law banning the carrying of knives has not prevented any killings but has had law-abiding people prosecuted for carrying multi-tools and Swiss Army knives etc.  90 years of very strict firearms ‘control’ legislation has not prevented spree killings, or a relentless increase in firearms crime.  It has however, given criminals a cast-iron. Government-backed guarantee that their victims will be defenceless. 

To claim that the availability of weapons encourages their use is not supported by evidence and, in a politician, shows a profound lack of trust in the people.  The Swiss have more firearms per head of population than the US and very little armed crime and even in the ‘infamous’ US itself, burglary and house invasions are quite rare.   

The only thing that might have stopped Michael Ryan at Hungerford, Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane, Derrick Bird in Cumbria or so-called terrorists taking to our streets as in Mumbai is the possibility that any citizen, anywhere, might be in a position to return fire. 

Incidentally, being safe with a firearm is blissfully easy – well within the intellectual compass of the average six-year old.

See also http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-terrorism-laws

Source:  http://www.alternativeparty.org.uk

Murder

As recent events in Northumbria have shown, the law against murder is extremely costly to implement. It can also make criminals of ordinary people, including the police on occasion. There is also little evidence that a ban on murder makes any difference to the overall rate, and can actually drive murderers underground, literally speaking in the case of Raoul Moat!

I therefore suggest scrapping the ban on murder. All existing prisoners serving sentences for this crime could be released, and given alternative employment in A4E and other "welfare-to-work" organisations, as well as the government's putative boot camps for the unemployed.

What could possibly go wrong?

Why is this idea important?

As recent events in Northumbria have shown, the law against murder is extremely costly to implement. It can also make criminals of ordinary people, including the police on occasion. There is also little evidence that a ban on murder makes any difference to the overall rate, and can actually drive murderers underground, literally speaking in the case of Raoul Moat!

I therefore suggest scrapping the ban on murder. All existing prisoners serving sentences for this crime could be released, and given alternative employment in A4E and other "welfare-to-work" organisations, as well as the government's putative boot camps for the unemployed.

What could possibly go wrong?

Review of Firearms legislation

Why not repeal the ban on handguns?

Seems a shame that the British shooting team must practice in Switzerland when the very hub of marksmanship was Bisley. It's also a shame that this elite class will always remain elite if competitors are effectively selected out by legislation rather than their skill level.

Why is this idea important?

Why not repeal the ban on handguns?

Seems a shame that the British shooting team must practice in Switzerland when the very hub of marksmanship was Bisley. It's also a shame that this elite class will always remain elite if competitors are effectively selected out by legislation rather than their skill level.

Life without the posibility of parole.

Crimes which constitute a 'Life' sentence as imposed by a Judge should have the option to impose a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Crimes such as murder should be catagorised as per the United States of America … and if an offender is convicted of Murder in the First Degree a sentence of 'Life without the possibility of parole' should be enforced. It's not fair on society that the judiciary can send someone to prison only for the probation service to say 'yes this individual is safe to be released' only for that offender to offend again. For people who cause the most heinous of crimes should not be given the possibility of parole and by doing so society will be safe in the knowledge such characters will be safely kept behind bars.

Why is this idea important?

Crimes which constitute a 'Life' sentence as imposed by a Judge should have the option to impose a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Crimes such as murder should be catagorised as per the United States of America … and if an offender is convicted of Murder in the First Degree a sentence of 'Life without the possibility of parole' should be enforced. It's not fair on society that the judiciary can send someone to prison only for the probation service to say 'yes this individual is safe to be released' only for that offender to offend again. For people who cause the most heinous of crimes should not be given the possibility of parole and by doing so society will be safe in the knowledge such characters will be safely kept behind bars.

replica fire arms

get rid of stupid law which means replica must have various parts painted bright orange green red etc so that the public know they are not real. dah! if you wanted to use them for illegal reasons you would spray over this stupid paint with gun metal paint. so whats the point of the exercise. nanny state yet again.  there are plenty of REAL fire arms for sale in our inner cities so why punish collectors and retailers it is legal to buy a REAL decommisioned fire arm so how would public know that this wasnt working if it was waved in their face? 

Why is this idea important?

get rid of stupid law which means replica must have various parts painted bright orange green red etc so that the public know they are not real. dah! if you wanted to use them for illegal reasons you would spray over this stupid paint with gun metal paint. so whats the point of the exercise. nanny state yet again.  there are plenty of REAL fire arms for sale in our inner cities so why punish collectors and retailers it is legal to buy a REAL decommisioned fire arm so how would public know that this wasnt working if it was waved in their face? 

Murdering Scotsmen

'In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow.'

This law needs to be scarpped as it's not really very friendly.

Plus I'm sure it must be a contravention of a tiny thing called human rights.

Why is this idea important?

'In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow.'

This law needs to be scarpped as it's not really very friendly.

Plus I'm sure it must be a contravention of a tiny thing called human rights.

New Firearms Licensing system

My idea is this, the replacement of the current firearms licensing system with a more simple and effective system that does not make criminals out of those who make a small mistake. eg owning 600 rounds of ammunition when allowed to only have 500.

Remove the need to name each calibre and action when gaining a Firearms certificate (FAC) and simply add new weapons and calibres to the FAC upon purchasing them and hence retaining the registration of all firearms.  Thus saving a huge amount of paperwork and unnecesary costs and allowing the person to have their license far faster, as it can take months in somecases for the police department to carry out the paperwork.

Remove ammunition limits, currently the system states on an individual basis how much of each calibre a person can own and purchase at any time, this is something which does nothing other than increase the frequency at which a firearms owner must visit the gun shop or produce his own ammunition via handloading. So long as all ammunition can be stored correctly in an ammunition cabinet there is no reason to limit the quantity of ammunition a firearms owner has, especially given that he can buy the components to produce his own ammunition without any limit or records. To claim that someone may break into the house and steal the weapons and ammunition would be incorrect and ignorant of just how well firearms/ammunition cabinets are fitted.

Remove the ban upon semi automatic centrefire rifles and handguns, the removal of semi automatic rifles from law abiding good people has lead to quite literally nothing positive, it has caused the practical rifle sport to diminish greatly and removed a great number of people from being interested in shooting. If a person has been proven to to be of good personality and responsability there is no reason to prevent them from owning such a firearm. Likewise with handguns which made up a large number of British shooters and was a fast growing sport there is again no reason to prevent a proven person to own these firearms.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

My idea is this, the replacement of the current firearms licensing system with a more simple and effective system that does not make criminals out of those who make a small mistake. eg owning 600 rounds of ammunition when allowed to only have 500.

Remove the need to name each calibre and action when gaining a Firearms certificate (FAC) and simply add new weapons and calibres to the FAC upon purchasing them and hence retaining the registration of all firearms.  Thus saving a huge amount of paperwork and unnecesary costs and allowing the person to have their license far faster, as it can take months in somecases for the police department to carry out the paperwork.

Remove ammunition limits, currently the system states on an individual basis how much of each calibre a person can own and purchase at any time, this is something which does nothing other than increase the frequency at which a firearms owner must visit the gun shop or produce his own ammunition via handloading. So long as all ammunition can be stored correctly in an ammunition cabinet there is no reason to limit the quantity of ammunition a firearms owner has, especially given that he can buy the components to produce his own ammunition without any limit or records. To claim that someone may break into the house and steal the weapons and ammunition would be incorrect and ignorant of just how well firearms/ammunition cabinets are fitted.

Remove the ban upon semi automatic centrefire rifles and handguns, the removal of semi automatic rifles from law abiding good people has lead to quite literally nothing positive, it has caused the practical rifle sport to diminish greatly and removed a great number of people from being interested in shooting. If a person has been proven to to be of good personality and responsability there is no reason to prevent them from owning such a firearm. Likewise with handguns which made up a large number of British shooters and was a fast growing sport there is again no reason to prevent a proven person to own these firearms.

 

 

Make Judges responsible for their mistakes in courtrooms.

Give victims the right of appeal when something goes wrong.  I sat through my brothers murder and heard lie after lie, I heard the thing that brutally stabbed my brother to death tell the court he was not provoked by anything my brother said or did, So why did a High Court Judge give the jury an option of Provocation?  Why was it allowed.  He stood in court and admitted killing my brother in an unprovoked attack, how can this be allowed, and then a jury return a verdict of manslaughter with provocation?

Why is this idea important?

Give victims the right of appeal when something goes wrong.  I sat through my brothers murder and heard lie after lie, I heard the thing that brutally stabbed my brother to death tell the court he was not provoked by anything my brother said or did, So why did a High Court Judge give the jury an option of Provocation?  Why was it allowed.  He stood in court and admitted killing my brother in an unprovoked attack, how can this be allowed, and then a jury return a verdict of manslaughter with provocation?

with the comming of the 2012 Olympics and the hand gun ban

Yes this will creat some remarks,after the Dunblaine shootings the then goverment organised a report on the use of all firearms at a cost of I beleave 5 -6 £ millions and then took no notice of the Cullen report, who stated that small calibre hand guns that are used on ranges could still be used under strict controls as we are now. What I would like is the Cullen report inplimemted and allow us british shooters to have the same right as our cousins in europe enjoy and can practice for sporting events

Why is this idea important?

Yes this will creat some remarks,after the Dunblaine shootings the then goverment organised a report on the use of all firearms at a cost of I beleave 5 -6 £ millions and then took no notice of the Cullen report, who stated that small calibre hand guns that are used on ranges could still be used under strict controls as we are now. What I would like is the Cullen report inplimemted and allow us british shooters to have the same right as our cousins in europe enjoy and can practice for sporting events

Review of UK Firearms Law

A few years ago hand the firearms acts were tightned, now I know that because of the gun attacks in the Lake District and northumbria there are I am sure going to people who want all guns banned. But the banning of handguns hasn't worked infact it did exactly what I am I am sure many other said at the time. It made things worse not better, there are still handguns being used by criminals but where as before the police could take any gun that was found after a murder and check it against a database to see who owned it last now they only have an outdated database.

Before the ban on handguns was introduced there had only been maybe a hundred deaths caused by people with handguns since the 2nd world war but since the ban there has been upto 20 a year. Tighten Gun Laws add restictions but don't ban.  The UK used to have a firearms manufacturing sector which built some to the best guns in the world now even the replica firearms industry is being put out of buiness by laws. 

Guns don't kill people the man or woman who points and the fires the gun is the one whose doing the killing.  I mean if we banned everything that killed more than 20 people a year then the Cars, Buses, Lorries, Trains and even aeroplanes would have been banned years ago!

And cars are one of the most dangerous weapons there is! "Not only can they kill but while a bullet can only go in one direction a car can have its direction changed, guarenteing that it hits and kills a victim.  And you can't just ban something bacause it might be dangerous.

Why is this idea important?

A few years ago hand the firearms acts were tightned, now I know that because of the gun attacks in the Lake District and northumbria there are I am sure going to people who want all guns banned. But the banning of handguns hasn't worked infact it did exactly what I am I am sure many other said at the time. It made things worse not better, there are still handguns being used by criminals but where as before the police could take any gun that was found after a murder and check it against a database to see who owned it last now they only have an outdated database.

Before the ban on handguns was introduced there had only been maybe a hundred deaths caused by people with handguns since the 2nd world war but since the ban there has been upto 20 a year. Tighten Gun Laws add restictions but don't ban.  The UK used to have a firearms manufacturing sector which built some to the best guns in the world now even the replica firearms industry is being put out of buiness by laws. 

Guns don't kill people the man or woman who points and the fires the gun is the one whose doing the killing.  I mean if we banned everything that killed more than 20 people a year then the Cars, Buses, Lorries, Trains and even aeroplanes would have been banned years ago!

And cars are one of the most dangerous weapons there is! "Not only can they kill but while a bullet can only go in one direction a car can have its direction changed, guarenteing that it hits and kills a victim.  And you can't just ban something bacause it might be dangerous.