The Student Room Group

For all you anti gun hoplophobes on here

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Selkarn
I'd really like to own a handgun, can't though because of the authoritarian state and authoritarians like you..

All of the following did the same (clamped down on guns):

Adolf Hitler
Castro
Gaddafi
Stalin
Idi Amin
Mao Zedong
Pol Pot
Kim Jong-Il
Criminals


Because of people like you who sit back and let the government take away our freedoms in the name of "safety", 6 million Jews probably wouldn't have been slaughtered:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." -- Adolf Hitler (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944)

"It is, of course, no coincidence that the right to have guns is one of the earlier freedoms outlined in U.S.A.'s Bill of Rights. Without guns in the hands of the people, all the other freedoms are easily negated by the State. If you disagree with that statement, ask yourself if the Nazis could have gassed millions of Jews, had the Jews been armed with rifles and pistols--there weren't enough SS troops to do the job. Lest we forget, in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1944, a couple of hundred Jews armed with rifles and homemade explosive devices held off two fully-equipped German divisions (actually about 8,000 men) for nearly two months." -- Abijeet Singh, 2008 http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/


But we don't live in an authoritarian state.
Reply 761
Original post by DorianGrayism
But we don't live in an authoritarian state.


That's your opinion, but certain things about our state are, I believe, undoubtedly authoritarian, a total ban on any form of real handgun being one of them.
Reply 762
Original post by Emaemmaemily
Oh my Jesus.
I don't think I can be bothered with this conversation anymore.


aliens are more believable than Jesus! :mad:
Reply 763
Original post by OriginOfShowbiz
How to make a country safer and protect people from gun crime? Make sure everyone has a gun. Great idea. :rolleyes:


no it has nothing to do with that, I'm a libertarian and should be able to own what I like
Original post by Hardballer
aliens are more believable than Jesus! :mad:


Jesus is armed? :confused:
Reply 765
Original post by Good bloke
Jesus is armed? :confused:


well duhhh

Original post by Hardballer
aliens are more believable than Jesus! :mad:


I'm not religious. It's a figure of speech.

Original post by Selkarn
That's your opinion, but certain things about our state are, I believe, undoubtedly authoritarian, a total ban on any form of real handgun being one of them.


Not really.
Reply 767
Original post by Emaemmaemily

Not really.


This is what happens when you actually attempt to debate with an anti-freedom authoritarian.. "not really".. :rolleyes:
Original post by Selkarn
This is what happens when you actually attempt to debate with an anti-freedom authoritarian.. "not really".. :rolleyes:

I've debating this point a HELL of a lot of times. I just can't be bothered to repeat myself.
Stop giving me labels when you don't even know me.
Reply 769
Original post by Emaemmaemily
I've debating this point a HELL of a lot of times. I just can't be bothered to repeat myself.
Stop giving me labels when you don't even know me.


I'm perfectly entitled to label you as an authoritarian person because that's exactly what you're views are on this subject. Anti-freedom, pro-government control, hence pro-authoritarian. That's undeniable.
Original post by Selkarn
I'm perfectly entitled to label you as an authoritarian person because that's exactly what you're views are on this subject. Anti-freedom, pro-government control, hence pro-authoritarian. That's undeniable.


I'm not anti-freedom - I support society's freedom to life and safety more than someone's right to own a gun.
I'm not pro-government control... I haven't mentioned the government. It just HAPPENS that the government implimented these rules, but I personally actually support marxist ideals in general.

So... no.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 771
Original post by Emaemmaemily
I'm not anti-freecom - I support society's freedom to life and safety more than someone's right to own a gun.


Banning something from the majority just because of a tiny minority is anti-freedom, period.

Original post by Emaemmaemily
I'm not pro-government control... I haven't mentioned the government. It just HAPPENS that the government implimented these rules, but I personally actually support marxist ideals in general.


:rofl: this is possibly the stupidest thing I ever read.. who else is going to implement gun laws? The fairies?

Ultimately: what you are recommending is increasing the control that the government has over people by controlling guns. I, on the other hand, am proposing a relaxation of the government rules, to a less harsh, and less interfering stance. Hence, you are pro-government control. This is undeniable.
Original post by Selkarn
Banning something from the majority just because of a tiny minority is anti-freedom, period.



:rofl: this is possibly the stupidest thing I ever read.. who else is going to implement gun laws? The fairies?

Ultimately: what you are recommending is increasing the control that the government has over people by controlling guns. I, on the other hand, am proposing a relaxation of the government rules, to a less harsh, and less interfering stance. Hence, you are pro-government control. This is undeniable.


You're just ignoring me now.
No, I'm not anti-freedom... I just think certain freedoms are a lot more important. People's life and saftey is more important than the freedom to own a non-essential object.

As I said, I support marxist ideals, so I don't actually believe governments should exist in that sense at all. I'm not "proposing" anything. I'm explaining why guns would be detrimental to our soceity and well-being if they were allowed today... that is all.
Reply 773
Original post by Emaemmaemily
I'm not religious. It's a figure of speech.


"oh my dawkins" would be more appropriate :biggrin:
Original post by Hardballer
"oh my dawkins" would be more appropriate :biggrin:


Except that figure of speech doesn't exist.
Reply 775
Original post by Emaemmaemily
Except that figure of speech doesn't exist.


it does now
Reply 776
Original post by Emaemmaemily
You're just ignoring me now.
No, I'm not anti-freedom... I just think certain freedoms are a lot more important. People's life and saftey is more important than the freedom to own a non-essential object.

As I said, I support marxist ideals, so I don't actually believe governments should exist in that sense at all. I'm not "proposing" anything. I'm explaining why guns would be detrimental to our soceity and well-being if they were allowed today... that is all.


Heh.. Try explaining that to 6 million dead Jews who would be here today if they had resisted the government imposing strict gun regulation on them :rolleyes:
Original post by Selkarn
Heh.. Try explaining that to 6 million dead Jews who would be here today if they had resisted the government imposing strict gun regulation on them :rolleyes:


Some of the Jews being armed wouldn't have stopped hitler. Do you know how far his army got?!
It's stupid to think having a couple of guns will protect you from something as huge and dramatic as that.

There is next to no possibility of that happening in the UK, at this time... Therefore, the cons of making society a lot more dangerous and causing a lot more deaths isn't justified.
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


I hold a gun license myself and I stand by the gun laws in our country. In fact they should be stricter. This sad event just illistrates how our laws need tightening. Geting rid of the laws, laws which ensure that competent and hopefully mentally stable individuals are able to hold firearms rather than (as we can see in this case) immature youths who clearly don't understand the consequences of their actions, is totally illogical.

Look at the mortality rates from gun crime in the US compared to the UK:
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sc.pdf
14 in 2002 in the UK compared to 9,369 in the US in the same year. Thats 0.02 per 100 000 people in the UK compared to 3.25 per 100 000 people in the US.

I use a gun for clay pigeon shooting, and game sports, same as you. However, the data and evidence stands; free rights to firearms is an unreliable method of controlling gun crime.

Most firearms mortalities in the UK are the result of imported illegal firearms, such as hand guns which were probably used in this case. Getting rid of the laws that govern firearms would be illogical.
I wonder if the shooter had a licence for his gun, yeh......****ing.......right

It says in the article that the culprits were 'aged between 14 and 17' so although by law they can hold a firearms certificate, I doubt that they would be able to show good reason for holding one, and 'self defence' certainly isn't a good reason.
Reply 779
Original post by Emaemmaemily
Some of the Jews being armed wouldn't have stopped hitler. Do you know how far his army got?!
It's stupid to think having a couple of guns will protect you from something as huge and dramatic as that.

There is next to no possibility of that happening in the UK, at this time... Therefore, the cons of making society a lot more dangerous and causing a lot more deaths isn't justified.


Guerrilla fighting is a hugely effective deterrent.. in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1944, a couple of hundred Jews armed with rifles and homemade explosive devices held off two fully-equipped German divisions (actually about 8,000 men) for nearly two months.


If the Jews had resisted the stricter gun laws, the job would have undeniably been much more difficult for Hitler. It's all fine and dandy for you in your (I'm guessing) cushy White middle class lifestyle, but can you imagine people who may have lost relatives in Nazi germany, and the knowledge that if they had resisted gun laws, they would still be alive, and yet they are faced with authoritarians such as yourself to further clamp down on guns? I see extreme gun laws as Hitler's last legacy. I particularly follow JFPO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership).



PFO is noted for producing materials (bumper stickers, posters, billboards, booklets, videos, etc.) with messages that equate gun control with totalitarianism. The most famous of these are the "All in favor of Gun Control raise your right hand" materials, which features a drawing of Hitler giving a Nazi salute.[2] The organization also attempts to prove that genocide is linked to gun control, by showing that most countries where genocide has taken place have also had gun control.[3]


All in all.. I believe in freedom, and have trust with society that liberalising gun laws slightly won't cause chaos, no more than introducing a minimum wage caused mass-unemployment. The liberty of the individual must be defended to the last step, and I will always fight totalitarians and authoritarians such as yourself, tooth and nail, to defend that liberty.
(edited 12 years ago)

Quick Reply