For all you anti gun hoplophobes on here
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Hardballer
Why the **** should I? authoritarian retard.
Because your hobby is as retarded as you are.
If I said "hey, I like collecting human corpses" you'd probably think that was a little wrong, right? Or wouldn't you?
Original post by Good bloke
I forgot about that other bunch of quotations you keep coming out with. Again, useless in terms of getting your argument over. You are not making "logical, sound arguments advocating freedom" you are merely repeatedly posting these slabs of text and other stuff to which we have responded and await further response form you in development. We haven't had any such development (other than repetition of the same). You simply haven't addressed our rebuttals of what you have posted and this leads to boredom and, in my case, my likely imminent departure from the thread. One can take such repetition only so many times.
Again, pot-kettle. You keep droning on and repeating the fact that I am"droning on" without making any such arguments yourself.
Original post by Good bloke
I wouldn't call you any of those on the evidence of this thread. It isn't liberal to argue in favour of the gun lobby.
I wouldn't call you any of those on the evidence of this thread. It isn't liberal to argue in favour of the gun lobby.
On your side - conservative, anti-freedom, not trusting, wanting stricter government intervention, authoritarian, and endorsed by notable figures such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il
On my side - liberal, pro-liberty, pro-freedom, trusting of the people, wanting less strict government intervention, libertarian, and endorsed by notable figures such as Ghandi, Dalai Lama, even Orwell, one of the "leftist" people ever to walk the Earth.
It's pretty clear cut your argument is placed with the former spectrum.
Original post by L-J-B
I believe the time for anything worthwhile to be gained from this thread has indeed passed.
I don't think there was ever anything worthwhile to be gained from this particular thread.
Original post by Hardballer
I'm a libertarian, not a dumb liberal
Oh for crying out loud.
I detest this muck-racking of the term "liberal". There is nothing wrong with being a liberal and indeed there's an awful lot to be proud of. Liberalism was the driving force behind every major democracy in the West today. You live in a liberal democracy. I live in a liberal democracy. You probably can't even define what a liberal is, it's just anyone left of your political viewpoints. I'm frakking sick of this - it was the liberals who drove the anti-slavery movement, the universal suffrage movement, the gay rights movement, the civil rights movement and the environmental movement all to the benefit of wider society. Liberals balance a deep-rooted belief in individual freedom with a belief in collective responsibility. Liberalism is the politics of sensibility, justice and freedom. You owe virtually every freedom you have to men and women of a liberal persuasion.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Hardballer
I'm a libertarian, not a dumb liberal
Perhaps you should check a dictionary one in a while. I said liberal, not Liberal. A typical dictionary definition would run like:
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Original post by Aphotic Cosmos
Oh for crying out loud.
There comes a point when you realise the game is obviously not worth the candle. I think this may be it.
Original post by Philbert
I don't think there was ever anything worthwhile to be gained from this particular thread.
Maybe im a misty eyed romantic but i couldv sworn a couple of days ago some form of constructed debate flew back and forth of sorts. It was a little ragged and not well put forward but at least it had a little substance. There was some merit in both sides if one was willing to look past a weakly presented view on 'the government taking my f#cking liberties mannnn'
Original post by Good bloke
There comes a point when you realise the game is obviously not worth the candle. I think this may be it.
I am inclined to agree . . .
Original post by L-J-B
Maybe im a misty eyed romantic but i couldv sworn a couple of days ago some form of constructed debate flew back and forth of sorts. It was a little ragged and not well put forward but at least it had a little substance. There was some merit in both sides if one was willing to look past a weakly presented view on 'the government taking my f#cking liberties mannnn'
You're right, I remember reading this thread just after it began. But with the likes of Hardballer and Selkarn (and a few others, probably), it was always going to go tits up in the end.
Original post by Rant
Because your hobby is as retarded as you are.
If I said "hey, I like collecting human corpses" you'd probably think that was a little wrong, right? Or wouldn't you?
If I said "hey, I like collecting human corpses" you'd probably think that was a little wrong, right? Or wouldn't you?
This thread went into decline when comments like this started getting posted. Collecting guns doesn't harm anyone. Collecting human corpses on the other hand, you know what why am I even replying to that comment, its so ****ing retarded that even a facepalm with a cricket bat won't do it justice.
Why don't we just leave it at this.
I like guns, some of you guys don't. I'm half contempt with owning a shotgun until I move to the states but wouldn't mind having the handgun laws reversed so I can acquire one and target shoot with that as well. Rant over a million people shoot for sport in this country. They must be all retarded, not like you of course, that was sarcasm by the way if your dumbass couldn't work it out.
Original post by Philbert
You're right, I remember reading this thread just after it began. But with the likes of Hardballer and Selkarn (and a few others, probably), it was always going to go tits up in the end.
Ad hominem attacks get us nowhere, you know.
If anyone is actually interested in a real debate, without the childish name calling, I will sum up my opinion on handguns, and handguns alone, below:
I believe that handguns were banned from a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic event, in 1996, perhaps in an effort to dampen down the flames and divert attention away from policing failures. Crucially: I believe that making something illegal, because of the actions of a tiny minority, sets a dangerous precedent. If a tiny minority of people misuse their car and kill people, do you ban cars? If a tiny minority of black people walk into a bar and kill people, do you imprison all black people? I believe it is exactly the same as the previous 2 examples. The handgun ban, I believe, is simply tyranny of the majority, and is an authoritarian law that has no place in our society. I describe myself as a liberal Libertarian, and although I do see clearly the dangers of going too far in the legalisation of handguns, my principles of liberty and freedom, along with what we have learnt from history (for example, Hitler took guns off all the Jews before massacring them), mean that I must defend the abolishment of the handgun ban and, after stringent checks, allow citizens to have the freedom to purchase such items once more.
Original post by Selkarn
Ad hominem attacks get us nowhere, you know.
If anyone is actually interested in a real debate, without the childish name calling, I will sum up my opinion on handguns, and handguns alone, below:
I believe that handguns were banned from a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic event, in 1996, perhaps in an effort to dampen down the flames and divert attention away from policing failures. Crucially: I believe that making something illegal, because of the actions of a tiny minority, sets a dangerous precedent. If a tiny minority of people misuse their car and kill people, do you ban cars? If a tiny minority of black people walk into a bar and kill people, do you imprison all black people? I believe it is exactly the same as the previous 2 examples. The handgun ban, I believe, is simply tyranny of the majority, and is an authoritarian law that has no place in our society. I describe myself as a liberal Libertarian, and although I do see clearly the dangers of going too far in the legalisation of handguns, my principles of liberty and freedom, along with what we have learnt from history (for example, Hitler took guns off all the Jews before massacring them), mean that I must defend the abolishment of the handgun ban and, after stringent checks, allow citizens to have the freedom to purchase such items once more.
If anyone is actually interested in a real debate, without the childish name calling, I will sum up my opinion on handguns, and handguns alone, below:
I believe that handguns were banned from a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic event, in 1996, perhaps in an effort to dampen down the flames and divert attention away from policing failures. Crucially: I believe that making something illegal, because of the actions of a tiny minority, sets a dangerous precedent. If a tiny minority of people misuse their car and kill people, do you ban cars? If a tiny minority of black people walk into a bar and kill people, do you imprison all black people? I believe it is exactly the same as the previous 2 examples. The handgun ban, I believe, is simply tyranny of the majority, and is an authoritarian law that has no place in our society. I describe myself as a liberal Libertarian, and although I do see clearly the dangers of going too far in the legalisation of handguns, my principles of liberty and freedom, along with what we have learnt from history (for example, Hitler took guns off all the Jews before massacring them), mean that I must defend the abolishment of the handgun ban and, after stringent checks, allow citizens to have the freedom to purchase such items once more.
If we look at shooting recreationally (and for this argument ignore self defence because as an argument we have exhausted it) handguns represent a tiny minority of the sport. This has been true long before any tightening of laws regarding handguns and can also be seen in countries where long arms and short arms can be gained equally.
Shooting a handgun is usually limited (as a rule of thumb) to 10m which rules it as generally ineffective for hunting and somewhat pointless? for target shooting (in many eyes).
Many people find many of the qualities that make shooting enjoyable are missing from shooting handguns.
The most popular form of handgun sport is shooting sillouette targets (usually a hostage has negative points and the hostage taker is positive) which is intended to replicate shooting people. The event is often timed to give additional pressure. Many who compete do so as enthusiasts of handguns RATHER THAN shooting as a sport.
Match target shooting with a pistol is even less popular (probably because the pistols do not replicate what we associate with pistols. Often with long barrels and brightly coloured parts) This is seen as true pistol shooting. Funnily enough when it isnt a glock it doesnt appear very popular. Also the price of a true match pistol is often equal or more than a decent sporting rifle. The price has nothing to do with government taxes (all guns taxed equally). Why buy a pistol that wont shoot very far accurately. A rested rifle can shoot hundreds of metres.
The primary purpose of handguns is to inflict damage. This is the reason it was invented. Unlike the rifle however it has not taken off as a sporting weapon with anywhere near the same conviction.
The biggest advantage of a handgun is its size.
It is easily concealed. Its biggest disadvantage is its accuracy.
One of the things you dont worry about when shooting for sport is your ability to conceal the weapon on you. The one thing you DO worry about is the accuracy.
The amount of people who would potentially cause harm (i would argue) is greater than the amount of people who even take pistol shooting seriously. What majority is the law stopping?
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Selkarn
Ad hominem attacks get us nowhere, you know.
If anyone is actually interested in a real debate, without the childish name calling, I will sum up my opinion on handguns, and handguns alone, below:
I believe that handguns were banned from a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic event, in 1996, perhaps in an effort to dampen down the flames and divert attention away from policing failures. Crucially: I believe that making something illegal, because of the actions of a tiny minority, sets a dangerous precedent. If a tiny minority of people misuse their car and kill people, do you ban cars? If a tiny minority of black people walk into a bar and kill people, do you imprison all black people? I believe it is exactly the same as the previous 2 examples. The handgun ban, I believe, is simply tyranny of the majority, and is an authoritarian law that has no place in our society. I describe myself as a liberal Libertarian, and although I do see clearly the dangers of going too far in the legalisation of handguns, my principles of liberty and freedom, along with what we have learnt from history (for example, Hitler took guns off all the Jews before massacring them), mean that I must defend the abolishment of the handgun ban and, after stringent checks, allow citizens to have the freedom to purchase such items once more.
If anyone is actually interested in a real debate, without the childish name calling, I will sum up my opinion on handguns, and handguns alone, below:
I believe that handguns were banned from a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic event, in 1996, perhaps in an effort to dampen down the flames and divert attention away from policing failures. Crucially: I believe that making something illegal, because of the actions of a tiny minority, sets a dangerous precedent. If a tiny minority of people misuse their car and kill people, do you ban cars? If a tiny minority of black people walk into a bar and kill people, do you imprison all black people? I believe it is exactly the same as the previous 2 examples. The handgun ban, I believe, is simply tyranny of the majority, and is an authoritarian law that has no place in our society. I describe myself as a liberal Libertarian, and although I do see clearly the dangers of going too far in the legalisation of handguns, my principles of liberty and freedom, along with what we have learnt from history (for example, Hitler took guns off all the Jews before massacring them), mean that I must defend the abolishment of the handgun ban and, after stringent checks, allow citizens to have the freedom to purchase such items once more.
There are plenty of people who tried to have a "real debate" with you and you ended up repeating the same thing over and over in lieu of an actual argument. Calling people authoritarians and stupid bigots is hardly productive to an adult discussion. You insult other people while completely ignoring their arguments, which makes you both idiotic and hypocritical. Nobody can be bothered any more. The vast majority of people are happy with the way gun law in this country stands. Get over it.
Original post by Hardballer
has strict gun laws really worked in this country?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371371/Stockwell-shop-shooting-Girl-5-critical-condition-gunman-fires-indiscriminately.html
**** no they haven't, we need our right to bear arms now, how was anyone on this street meant to defend themselves? and how does making it harder for law abiding sports shooters like me prevent shootings like this? I wonder if the shooter had a licence for his gun, yeh......****ing.......right
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371371/Stockwell-shop-shooting-Girl-5-critical-condition-gunman-fires-indiscriminately.html
**** no they haven't, we need our right to bear arms now, how was anyone on this street meant to defend themselves? and how does making it harder for law abiding sports shooters like me prevent shootings like this? I wonder if the shooter had a licence for his gun, yeh......****ing.......right
The Mail - known for its ability to create an unbiased and undistorted report on an event.
Original post by L-J-B
If we look at shooting recreationally (and for this argument ignore self defence because as an argument we have exhausted it) handguns represent a tiny minority of the sport. This has been true long before any tightening of laws regarding handguns and can also be seen in countries where long arms and short arms can be gained equally.
Shooting a handgun is usually limited (as a rule of thumb) to 10m which rules it as generally ineffective for hunting and somewhat pointless? for target shooting (in many eyes).
Many people find many of the qualities that make shooting enjoyable are missing from shooting handguns.
The most popular form of handgun sport is shooting sillouette targets (usually a hostage has negative points and the hostage taker is positive) which is intended to replicate shooting people. The event is often timed to give additional pressure. Many who compete do so as enthusiasts of handguns RATHER THAN shooting as a sport.
Match target shooting with a pistol is even less popular (probably because the pistols do not replicate what we associate with pistols. Often with long barrels and brightly coloured parts) This is seen as true pistol shooting. Funnily enough when it isnt a glock it doesnt appear very popular. Also the price of a true match pistol is often equal or more than a decent sporting rifle. The price has nothing to do with government taxes (all guns taxed equally). Why buy a pistol that wont shoot very far accurately. A rested rifle can shoot hundreds of metres.
The primary purpose of handguns is to inflict damage. This is the reason it was invented. Unlike the rifle however it has not taken off as a sporting weapon with anywhere near the same conviction.
The biggest advantage of a handgun is its size.
It is easily concealed. Its biggest disadvantage is its accuracy.
One of the things you dont worry about when shooting for sport is your ability to conceal the weapon on you. The one thing you DO worry about is the accuracy.
The amount of people who would potentially cause harm (i would argue) is greater than the amount of people who even take pistol shooting seriously. What majority is the law stopping?
Shooting a handgun is usually limited (as a rule of thumb) to 10m which rules it as generally ineffective for hunting and somewhat pointless? for target shooting (in many eyes).
Many people find many of the qualities that make shooting enjoyable are missing from shooting handguns.
The most popular form of handgun sport is shooting sillouette targets (usually a hostage has negative points and the hostage taker is positive) which is intended to replicate shooting people. The event is often timed to give additional pressure. Many who compete do so as enthusiasts of handguns RATHER THAN shooting as a sport.
Match target shooting with a pistol is even less popular (probably because the pistols do not replicate what we associate with pistols. Often with long barrels and brightly coloured parts) This is seen as true pistol shooting. Funnily enough when it isnt a glock it doesnt appear very popular. Also the price of a true match pistol is often equal or more than a decent sporting rifle. The price has nothing to do with government taxes (all guns taxed equally). Why buy a pistol that wont shoot very far accurately. A rested rifle can shoot hundreds of metres.
The primary purpose of handguns is to inflict damage. This is the reason it was invented. Unlike the rifle however it has not taken off as a sporting weapon with anywhere near the same conviction.
The biggest advantage of a handgun is its size.
It is easily concealed. Its biggest disadvantage is its accuracy.
One of the things you dont worry about when shooting for sport is your ability to conceal the weapon on you. The one thing you DO worry about is the accuracy.
The amount of people who would potentially cause harm (i would argue) is greater than the amount of people who even take pistol shooting seriously. What majority is the law stopping?
You have honed in on shooting handguns for sport, and simply invalidated the whole concept of handguns for sport because of your own personal opinion. There are many reasons why a person may want a handgun. Off the top of my head:
If a 60 year old chap has a huge enthusiasm for handguns and wants a collection, he cannot
If a young immgrant to the country participated in e.g. handgun shooting for a sport back home, he cannot
If a young woman wants a handgun on her possession as she feels safer with it (even if that feeling is incorrect, it is what she feels), she cannot
If a person like me wants a handgun to shoot targets on private property and never to have it leave the private property, I cannot
If a survivalist wants a handgun for his survival kit - which is a highly recommended item to have amongst the survivalist community, she cannot
If a Muslim woman wants a handgun because her religion encourages holding weaponry, she cannot
As I said before, crucially, I believe that making something illegal, because of the actions of a tiny minority, sets a dangerous precedent.
Original post by Philbert
There are plenty of people who tried to have a "real debate" with you and you ended up repeating the same thing over and over in lieu of an actual argument. Calling people authoritarians and stupid bigots is hardly productive to an adult discussion. You insult other people while completely ignoring their arguments, which makes you both idiotic and hypocritical. Nobody can be bothered any more. The vast majority of people are happy with the way gun law in this country stands. Get over it.
Above user has made no attempt at all to raise any points relating to the argument, only focussed on ad-hominem technique. Post discarded.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Selkarn
You have honed in on shooting handguns for sport, and simply invalidated the whole concept of handguns for sport because of your own personal opinion. There are many reasons why a person may want a handgun. Off the top of my head:
If a 60 year old chap has a huge enthusiasm for handguns and wants a collection, he cannot
If a young immgrant to the country participated in e.g. handgun shooting for a sport back home, he cannot
If a young woman wants a handgun on her possession as she feels safer with it (even if that feeling is incorrect, it is what she feels), she cannot
If a person like me wants a handgun to shoot targets on private property and never to have it leave the private property, I cannot
If a survivalist wants a handgun for his survival kit - which is a highly recommended item to have amongst the survivalist community, she cannot
If a Muslim woman wants a handgun because her religion encourages holding weaponry, she cannot
As I said before, crucially, I believe that making something illegal, because of the actions of a tiny minority, sets a dangerous precedent.
Above user has made no attempt at all to raise any points relating to the argument, only focussed on ad-hominem technique. Post discarded.
If a 60 year old chap has a huge enthusiasm for handguns and wants a collection, he cannot
If a young immgrant to the country participated in e.g. handgun shooting for a sport back home, he cannot
If a young woman wants a handgun on her possession as she feels safer with it (even if that feeling is incorrect, it is what she feels), she cannot
If a person like me wants a handgun to shoot targets on private property and never to have it leave the private property, I cannot
If a survivalist wants a handgun for his survival kit - which is a highly recommended item to have amongst the survivalist community, she cannot
If a Muslim woman wants a handgun because her religion encourages holding weaponry, she cannot
As I said before, crucially, I believe that making something illegal, because of the actions of a tiny minority, sets a dangerous precedent.
Above user has made no attempt at all to raise any points relating to the argument, only focussed on ad-hominem technique. Post discarded.
Once again, you have repeated yourself. Do you understand that repeating yourself will get you nowhere?
People have been dancing around the main point for too long. At the end of the day: you want a gun for target practice/a survivalist kit/in case the government turns on you. To sum up the arguments against you:
1. In target practice, a pistol is useless in comparison to other guns such as rifles which are ALREADY LEGAL. Therefore, who do you require a pistol for target practice?
2. A survivalist kit is something that not many people take an interest in. If you feel you are being oppressed by authoritarians just because people won't let you add a handgun to your kit, I'm sorry but that's just too bad. The safety of the public is paramount, and much more important than your ****ing kit. Nobody is going to say "Handguns being illegal makes is much less likely that innocent civillians are going to be shot. But wait! Maybe we should make them legal so that these poor survivalists can add one to their stupid kit! Of course this may mean that the public is in more danger... but we would rather shed our authoritarian image than protect the public!"
3. The government is not likely to turn on you, and even if they do the vast likelihood is that they will succeed in killing you, whether you are armed or not. And even if handguns are made legal, how will a handgun be of any use against tanks, automatic weapons and explosives?
If you choose to respond to this post, I urge you to come up with something new and relevant to my points. If you repeat anything you have already posted, or call me an authoritarian again simply for having common sense, logical views, this will constitute you being repetitive and I will then see you as a failure in terms of debating. If you want to have a discussion, we will have a discussion. If you want to repeat yourself again, then I would suggest you stop posting in this thread, as everyone is getting tired of it and you are convincing nobody.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Selkarn
You have honed in on shooting handguns for sport, and simply invalidated the whole concept of handguns for sport because of your own personal opinion. There are many reasons why a person may want a handgun. Off the top of my head:
If a 60 year old chap has a huge enthusiasm for handguns and wants a collection, he cannot
If a young immgrant to the country participated in e.g. handgun shooting for a sport back home, he cannot
If a young woman wants a handgun on her possession as she feels safer with it (even if that feeling is incorrect, it is what she feels), she cannot
If a person like me wants a handgun to shoot targets on private property and never to have it leave the private property, I cannot
If a survivalist wants a handgun for his survival kit - which is a highly recommended item to have amongst the survivalist community, she cannot
If a Muslim woman wants a handgun because her religion encourages holding weaponry, she cannot
If a 60 year old chap has a huge enthusiasm for handguns and wants a collection, he cannot
If a young immgrant to the country participated in e.g. handgun shooting for a sport back home, he cannot
If a young woman wants a handgun on her possession as she feels safer with it (even if that feeling is incorrect, it is what she feels), she cannot
If a person like me wants a handgun to shoot targets on private property and never to have it leave the private property, I cannot
If a survivalist wants a handgun for his survival kit - which is a highly recommended item to have amongst the survivalist community, she cannot
If a Muslim woman wants a handgun because her religion encourages holding weaponry, she cannot
I do not believe it is singuarly my opinion that handguns are ineffective for sport. The fact that so few people chose to shoot handguns, either air or live would perhaps support this view.
Enthusiasts can have collections of guns, and i would also suggest that perhaps he collected replicas unless he intended to shoot them (for sport) in which case he is covered by what i mentioned in my last post (people who shoot pistols for the love of pistols rather than shooting).
I would not regard a handgun as highly regarded amongst the survivalist community. They are terribly inacurate, a carbine rifle would almost certainly suit their needs better. it does what a pistol does and more. You can legally own one of these with apropriate licenses. I know many people who hunt, either for pest control or sport. They often spend several days constructing hides away from society and living rough. None have ever complained they need a pistol.
To shoot targets in your backgarden i suggest you purchase an airpistol, perhaps c02 powered. It gives you the same effective range as a real pistol if we are talking targets. A RAM co2 pistol (used to train military and police) is an exact replica of a real gun and functions the same. The recoil is exactly the same. It fires .43 rubber balls (or paintball markers for live training). Other than the fact that it is massively less lethal you can shoot targets the same as with a real pistol. Therefor to own something as dangerous and expensive as a real pistol (malfunctions can be dangerous to sporting users) is a moot argument.
As i mentioned i do not wish to again get into self defence, iv already posted several posts regarding it.
I personally am not of the mind that English Law should necesarially be changed to suit the need of ANY religion. Whilst our Laws may have stemmed alongside Christianity (and mainly common sense) we are neither obliged to go to church nor to learn to shoot bows on a sunday so we can launch crusades. We have distinguished Law and Religion.
To take arms i believe could be interpreted rather less radically than owning a handgun. I do not believe it talks solely of owning a handgun and that if you cannot have a handgun you are a 'bad muslim'
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by WeekendOffender
Once again, you have repeated yourself. Do you understand that repeating yourself will get you nowhere?
People have been dancing around the main point for too long. At the end of the day: you want a gun for target practice/a survivalist kit/in case the government turns on you. To sum up the arguments against you:
1. In target practice, a pistol is useless in comparison to other guns such as rifles which are ALREADY LEGAL. Therefore, who do you require a pistol for target practice?
2. A survivalist kit is something that not many people take an interest in. If you feel you are being oppressed by authoritarians just because people won't let you add a handgun to your kit, I'm sorry but that's just too bad. The safety of the public is paramount, and much more important than your ****ing kit. Nobody is going to say "Handguns being illegal makes is much less likely that innocent civillians are going to be shot. But wait! Maybe we should make them legal so that these poor survivalists can add one to their stupid kit! Of course this may mean that the public is in more danger... but we would rather shed our authoritarian image than protect the public!"
3. The government is not likely to turn on you, and even if they do the vast likelihood is that they will succeed in killing you, whether you are armed or not. And even if handguns are made legal, how will a handgun be of any use against tanks, automatic weapons and explosives?
If you choose to respond to this post, I urge you to come up with something new and relevant to my points. If you repeat anything you have already posted, or call me an authoritarian again simply for having common sense, logical views, this will constitute you being repetitive and I will then see you as a failure in terms of debating. If you want to have a discussion, we will have a discussion. If you want to repeat yourself again, then I would suggest you stop posting in this thread, as everyone is getting tired of it and you are convincing nobody.
People have been dancing around the main point for too long. At the end of the day: you want a gun for target practice/a survivalist kit/in case the government turns on you. To sum up the arguments against you:
1. In target practice, a pistol is useless in comparison to other guns such as rifles which are ALREADY LEGAL. Therefore, who do you require a pistol for target practice?
2. A survivalist kit is something that not many people take an interest in. If you feel you are being oppressed by authoritarians just because people won't let you add a handgun to your kit, I'm sorry but that's just too bad. The safety of the public is paramount, and much more important than your ****ing kit. Nobody is going to say "Handguns being illegal makes is much less likely that innocent civillians are going to be shot. But wait! Maybe we should make them legal so that these poor survivalists can add one to their stupid kit! Of course this may mean that the public is in more danger... but we would rather shed our authoritarian image than protect the public!"
3. The government is not likely to turn on you, and even if they do the vast likelihood is that they will succeed in killing you, whether you are armed or not. And even if handguns are made legal, how will a handgun be of any use against tanks, automatic weapons and explosives?
If you choose to respond to this post, I urge you to come up with something new and relevant to my points. If you repeat anything you have already posted, or call me an authoritarian again simply for having common sense, logical views, this will constitute you being repetitive and I will then see you as a failure in terms of debating. If you want to have a discussion, we will have a discussion. If you want to repeat yourself again, then I would suggest you stop posting in this thread, as everyone is getting tired of it and you are convincing nobody.
I read your last paragraph before I read the rest of your post, and I'm extremely glad I did. To sum up, what he's saying, guys, is as follows:
"I cannot argue against you, therefore I will tell you that you cannot repeat something you have already said after I ignore it."
As I said before, crucially, I believe that making something illegal, because of the actions of a tiny minority, sets a dangerous precedent.
Original post by L-J-B
I do not believe it is singuarly my opinion that handguns are ineffective for sport. The fact that so few people chose to shoot handguns, either air or live would perhaps support this view.
Enthusiasts can have collections of guns, and i would also suggest that perhaps he collected replicas unless he intended to shoot them (for sport) in which case he is covered by what i mentioned in my last post (people who shoot pistols for the love of pistols rather than shooting).
I would not regard a handgun as highly regarded amongst the survivalist community. They are terribly inacurate, a carbine rifle would almost certainly suit their needs better. it does what a pistol does and more. You can legally own one of these with apropriate licenses. I know many people who hunt, either for pest control or sport. They often spend several days constructing hides away from society and living rough. None have ever complained they need a pistol.
To shoot targets in your backgarden i suggest you purchase an airpistol, perhaps c02 powered. It gives you the same effective range as a real pistol if we are talking targets. A RAM co2 pistol (used to train military and police) is an exact replica of a real gun and functions the same. The recoil is exactly the same. It fires .43 rubber balls (or paintball markers for live training). Other than the fact that it is massively less lethal you can shoot targets the same as with a real pistol. Therefor to own something as dangerous and expensive as a real pistol (malfunctions can be dangerous to sporting users) is a moot argument.
As i mentioned i do not wish to again get into self defence, iv already posted several posts regarding it.
I personally am not of the mind that English Law should necesarially be changed to suit the need of ANY religion. Whilst our Laws may have stemmed alongside Christianity (and mainly common sense) we are neither obliged to go to church nor to learn to shoot bows on a sunday so we can launch crusades. We have distinguished Law and Religion.
To take arms i believe could be interpreted rather less radically than owning a handgun. I do not believe it talks solely of owning a handgun and that if you cannot have a handgun you are a 'bad muslim'
Enthusiasts can have collections of guns, and i would also suggest that perhaps he collected replicas unless he intended to shoot them (for sport) in which case he is covered by what i mentioned in my last post (people who shoot pistols for the love of pistols rather than shooting).
I would not regard a handgun as highly regarded amongst the survivalist community. They are terribly inacurate, a carbine rifle would almost certainly suit their needs better. it does what a pistol does and more. You can legally own one of these with apropriate licenses. I know many people who hunt, either for pest control or sport. They often spend several days constructing hides away from society and living rough. None have ever complained they need a pistol.
To shoot targets in your backgarden i suggest you purchase an airpistol, perhaps c02 powered. It gives you the same effective range as a real pistol if we are talking targets. A RAM co2 pistol (used to train military and police) is an exact replica of a real gun and functions the same. The recoil is exactly the same. It fires .43 rubber balls (or paintball markers for live training). Other than the fact that it is massively less lethal you can shoot targets the same as with a real pistol. Therefor to own something as dangerous and expensive as a real pistol (malfunctions can be dangerous to sporting users) is a moot argument.
As i mentioned i do not wish to again get into self defence, iv already posted several posts regarding it.
I personally am not of the mind that English Law should necesarially be changed to suit the need of ANY religion. Whilst our Laws may have stemmed alongside Christianity (and mainly common sense) we are neither obliged to go to church nor to learn to shoot bows on a sunday so we can launch crusades. We have distinguished Law and Religion.
To take arms i believe could be interpreted rather less radically than owning a handgun. I do not believe it talks solely of owning a handgun and that if you cannot have a handgun you are a 'bad muslim'
Can't you see that all you are doing here, is seeing reasons that people may want a handgun, and overriding them with your own opinion, and acting as though that means their opinion is invalid? I have talked to a few girls who say they would love a handgun as they would feel safer with it. Even if you believe that is a null reason, it still does not discard the fact that it is their opinion.
As I said before, crucially, I believe that making something illegal, because of the actions of a tiny minority, sets a dangerous precedent.
Original post by Selkarn
I read your last paragraph before I read the rest of your post, and I'm extremely glad I did. To sum up, what he's saying, guys, is as follows:
"I cannot argue against you, therefore I will tell you that you cannot repeat something you have already said after I ignore it."
As I said before, crucially, I believe that making something illegal, because of the actions of a tiny minority, sets a dangerous precedent.
"I cannot argue against you, therefore I will tell you that you cannot repeat something you have already said after I ignore it."
As I said before, crucially, I believe that making something illegal, because of the actions of a tiny minority, sets a dangerous precedent.
The last sentence of your post is literally copied and pasted from a previous post of yours. Thank you for proving my point that you are incapable of debating properly and have to resort to blatantly lifting and reciting points that have already been refuted. I did not "ignore" your points, in fact I have addressed each one of them in other posts that once again you clearly neglected to read.
In addition, you do not have to tell anyone "what I'm saying". If anyone wants to know objectively what I'm saying, they can read my post for themselves... something you are too lazy to bother doing. What I actually did in my post was address your reasons for wanting to own a gun, and systematically tell you why each one of them is not a sufficient reason for handgun legalisation.
In short, you are a useless debater. If you came to this thread to prove your point and convince people to support handgun legalisation, you have categorically failed. You made a few weak points and repeated them throughout the rest of the thread, even after they were shown to be weak by the opposition.
If you are not willing to actually make an argument for your cause, then don't join in the debate. You make yourself, and your cause, look farsical. I actually had sympathy before for the fact tha you want to own a handgun for private use, but now I have none. You are acting like a spoilt child - demanding a handgun and offering no strong reasons as to why this privilege should be granted to you.
That is the end of my contribution to this thread.
(edited 13 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- can you put in your own earring straight after it has been pierced
- Rust trial: Armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was 'sloppy' before Alec Baldwin gun fired
- Anyone like punk rock (green day RHCP blink 182 ect)
- edexcel alevel English lit predictions 2023
- A Level Literature Coursework; Catch-22
- 2023 Edexcel English Lit A Level
- UK professor suffered discrimination due to anti-Zionist beliefs, tribunal rules
- english shooting an elephant
- GCSE Year 10 - Speaking & Listening Examination
- Trump ineligible to run for president in Colorado and Maine in 2024 Election
- Help with bioinformatics
- english literature edexcel a level
- firing a cannon
- Radiography Reading lists 2024
- Can someone please grade this for me?
- Do better when I ignore A-Level teachers.
- 2023 Edexcel English Lit A Level - Predictions
- Went 34 in a 30 past a speed gun
- Anyone else not get boycotting brands or even countries trend?
- Edexcel A Level English Literature Paper 3 (9ET0 03) - 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
