For all you anti gun hoplophobes on here

Perhaps you trust the opinion of fellow authoritarian Good Bloke over my own:

So the crux of your argument here rests upon the fact that somewhere, you draw a line based on subjectivity regarding the trade off of usefulness vs side effects.

Fair enough, I would say. What I would also say is that I would draw the line closer to a more liberal approach than you, in that, as I believe people can generally be trusted more, and that the "pleasure"/usefulness gained is more than what many believe, and also the fact that I take a liberal/pro-liberty perspective on virtually all things, and also that I believe it's dangerous to set the precedent of persecuting something because of the actions of a tiny minority, then the line on handguns can be shifted a little leftwards towards the more liberal end.

Gangbangs are a good thing for nine out of ten people

It is not subjective. If cars were banned, there would be chaos. The economy would collapse due to the dissolution of car manufacturing and people's inability to get to work. Public transport would be unable to cope with the influx of users and it too would shut down. Effectively, people would be stranded. A great number of people would continue to use their cars regardless, and the judicial system would be unable to fine/imprison them all.

If guns were banned, a small minority of the population would be displeased at not being able to use a gun in their survival kit. Some hunters and target shooters would be displeased as well. However, people would still be able to add a more effective gun which is already legal to their survival kit, or hunt more effectively with a gun that is already legal. Society would continue as normal.

Objectively, cars are more important to society than guns. Cars are in fact essential. To ban cars is ridiculous; to ban guns has no effect other than a positive one on society as a whole.

You could apply your argument to almost anything:

A minority of people want to be able to rape their wives. Although this is harmful to the wives, liberty and freedom means that these men should not be stopped.

A minority of people want handguns legalised. Although this is harmful to the population at large, liberty and freedom means that these people should recieve their wish. Anyone who tries to stop them due to concern for the public is an authoritarian.

Gangbangs are a good thing for nine out of ten people

Precisely. Good to see that you finally realised the fallacy with your "majority=always correct" argument.

Sigh. You still don't understand that you are therefore drawing the line somewhere.

Correct. Someone with that view could say that. However, I certainly would not say that argument. Would you?

Obviously I would not advocate men raping their wives. The purpose of that was to serve as a comparison to your gun argument. Making something legal despite the fact that it harms people who are opposed to its legalisation, or people who are oblivious/ambivalent towards the issue, simply to please a minority is anarchist. It is not liberal. You are effectively crossing the line between liberalism and anarchism by saying that people should be able to do whatever they want, whether it has a harmful effect on others or not.

You are now simply taking things to extremes, I am afraid. I am not an advocate of people walking the streets with assault rifles, I am not an advocate of handing out shotguns like candy like they do in some states of the US. I am purely interested in the removal of the total handgun ban, which simply exists purely to satisfy the crazed bloodthirst of the public after Dunblane, and is crazily illogical, highly authoritarian, and anti-libertarian.

# Do not spam.

This includes posts:
Which boil down to "God doesn't exist LOL!" when for the purpose of the argument the OP has assumed that God does.

WRONG. If someone had a hangdun, and kept it in a sealed box in my bedroom, and were not affected by it, then you are not affected by it in any way.

No way man, I believe in science and evolution not dumb thousand year old superstitions or religion. I was in Montana 2 months ago and shot a handgun for the first time. I shot my first rifle when I was 14. Shooting a handgun is a very different disipline as you're holding the gun differently, recoil is absorbed by your wrists rather than your shoulder etc. Sure its concealable but like I said if someone can be licenced to own a .50 cal rifle in this country then they should be able to own a handgun as well.

Except, as we've said numberous times... There is a good use for a rifle and many restrictions on having it. There is no good use for a handgun but hurting people, and you could conceal it walking down the street.
Owning a rifle is compeltely different to owning a handgun, as you yourself have said... Allowing one doesn't mean you should allow the other.

handguns are useful for some aspects of hunting, such as humane killing. admittedly you can acquire a handgun for humane killing in this country under special circumstances but you can't deny it can be used for target shooting. I've already stated that a criminal can saw the barrel off a longer barrelled weapon if he wants to. But you have to remember why handguns were banned in the first place and that hamilton could easily have done the massacre with a shotgun or waited til after shcool and ran a load of kids down with his car.

You didn't mention any uses for it that can't be covered by other guns.
It doesn't matter if a criminal could saw off the barrel of another gun to ban it... That doesn't mean you should allow a gun designed for concelment, making it easier for them and more common.
I don't really care what spurred on the decision to ban them... I'm talking about why they shouldn't be allwoed in general. We seem to be going in circles.

but your reasons for not allowing them seem unjustified since I've already mentioned that target shooting with a rifle is different from a pistol in the way that you hold it and absorb the recoil. Its like the difference between nascar and formula one for example. making them legal again wouldn't increase availabilty to criminal gangs as they would be store in the same way as they used to and able to be owned by fac owners, who have to go through alot of red tape to own them like they do now

I've already stated my opinion on this and really don't want to go round in circles again, and I'm going to bed. I'm giving up on this conversation... I answered that question days ago, by the way.
But never mind, I may join the conversation again another time.