Squirm, Paul, squirm.

Is Mise,

"That is where you said that guns are manufactured for the sole purpose of killing or maiming "...which aren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing or maiming - unlike guns"

Lol!...what a pedantic gun enthusiast you are.

Okay how about 99.9% of guns are manufactured for the sole purpose of killing or maiming.

Or shall we dance around a little more and pretend that they are merely for collectors - or decoration - or for sport.

All those guns being manufactured for collecting - and decorating - and for sport...have apparently been hijacked by stupid humans who seem to want to use them for killing and maiming.

Amazing!

Actually, I think you should pop over to the US and address the nation. You could tell them that they could stop all that killing and maiming in a flash if they only realised that the firearms they're so fond of would be much better off on the wall, in a display cabinet or passed onto a sports shooter.

Problem solved!

Poirot,

Being pedantic is one of my many pastimes!!

How are you on the 64 year old who was attacked by the bloke with the knife and the chain?
Would you think that he should be charged if the Green's fantasies were law?

Toni, I stand corrected, the reports that Ben Batterham was charged with murder after shooting Ricky Slater, is incorrect. Batterham did claim Slater had broken into his house, coreect. Batterham was charged with the murder of Slater correct. Even though he didn't use a gun but his bare hands indicates one must be very careful when claiming self defense. Toni please accept my slight error. Is Mise your claims of self defense as a reason to kill is looking very flimsy indeed.

Poirot, wrong! wrong! wrong! Is Mise will claim it is only 99.8% not 99.9%. Hold any gun with a bullet in it against your temple and pull the trigger Is Mise can tell us what the likely outcome might be.
I certainly understand what you are saying, even if Is Mise and Daffy Duck do not.

Paul,

"Is Mise your claims of self defense as a reason to kill is looking very flimsy indeed."
Where did I claim that?

Must be annoying to be shewn up, or do you stick by Principle 7 and would say that the 64 yo should not have used a gun for self defence.

I must admit one thing however, I thought that the Greens had no principles at all and here it is in black and white on their site; they've got 7 at least, faulty though they may be.
I've always known that they have principals and principal; Dr. Brown got a lot of the latter at one stage.

//Batterham was charged with the murder of Slater correct. Even though he didn't use a gun but his bare hands indicates one must be very careful when claiming self defense.//

Indeed one must. I followed this case with interest, because as I said it was all over the local news. Personally, I believe that the murder charge is unreasonable. Batterham was acting in self-defence, unarmed and did not demonstrate any intent to kill; the charge should have been manslaughter. It may yet be downgraded to manslaughter when the matter goes to court.