Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Another example of a bigot - guns have other uses that being purely designed to kill.
    Seriously? Get another hobby. If you want to play with guns, go paintballing.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    I ignored the rest of your post as I don't play parley with ad-hominem attacks. I'm glad to see that Good Bloke has managed to move away from simple name-calling, now do the same.

    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 ban all black people from bars?
    If a tiny minority of factory owners pollute the water and kill people, do you ban all factories?
    If a tiny minority of handgun owners misuse their guns and kill people, do you ban all handguns?
    If a tiny minority of aeroplanes suffer malfunctions and kill people, do you ban all aeroplanes?
    If a tiny minority of Muslims are terrorists, do you imprison all Muslims?
    If a tiny amount of people on the internets display flawed logic, do you block all IP addresses?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)


    Yeah, they can tranquilize, stun, wind, maim, dismember, disembowel, eviscerate or explode a target, too!
    (Original post by Rant)
    Seriously? Get another hobby. If you want to play with guns, go paintballing.
    Heh, you see guys? When you actually challenge these bigots with a real argument, they simply crash and burn as is shown above, and their argument is reduced to worryingly posting pictures and videos. They're enemies of freedom, pro-authoritarian who wish to force their opinions down everyone's throats.

    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    If a tiny amount of people on the internets display flawed logic, do you block all IP addresses?
    Cheers, I will incorporate that. Any more ideas?


    For the record, I see your cat and raise you:

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    If a 60 year old chap has a huge enthusiasm for handguns and wants a collection, he cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
    If a young immgrant to the country participated in e.g. handgun shooting for a sport back home, he cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
    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 because of authoritarians such as yourself.
    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 because of authoritarians such as yourself.
    If a survivalist wants a handgun for his survival kit - which is a highly recommended item to have amongst the survivalist community, s/he cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
    If a Muslim woman wants a handgun because her religion encourages holding weaponry, she cannot because of authoritarians such as yourself.
    Add to this list the following:

    If a drug dealer wants a handgun to threaten clients and possibly shoot them for the collection of money, s/he cannot because of people such as ourselves.
    If a rapist wants a handgun to make it more likely that his victim will co-operate, they cannot because of people such as ourselves.
    If a jilted husband wants a handgun to take revenge on his wife and her lover, he cannot because of people such as ourselves.
    If a mentally unstable person wants a handgun so that they can conceal it in public before committing mass murder, they cannot because of people such as ourselves.

    In general, if someone who wants to use a handgun for devious and malicious purposes wants a handgun, they cannot have one because of people such as ourselves. This consideration of the public's safety is much more important than the selfish concerns of minority groups such as those mentioned in your list. It would be lovely if handguns would be made available to all of these people, survivalists et al, so that they can indulge in their hobby in a legal and safe way. But to make handguns widely available you also enable all of the situations in my list to take place, which would not be good.

    Your desire for handguns to use in leisure and sport is fine, and it's unfortunate that you can't do that. But if you want to do sport shooting, you have shotguns and other types of weapon. Why is a handgun absolutely necessary? The safety of the public is more of a priority than you crying because you can't complete your idiotic survival kit. Sorry to put it so bluntly.

    And before you call me authoritarian, I would say that you are the authoritarian because whenever anyone disagrees with you on this particular subject, you automatically judge them and make assumptions about their overall character. It is possible for a liberal person to have a conservative stance on one particular issue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Heh, you see guys? When you actually challenge these bigots with a real argument, they simply crash and burn as is shown above, and their argument is reduced to worryingly posting pictures and videos. They're enemies of freedom, pro-authoritarian who wish to force their opinions down everyone's throats.



    Cheers, I will incorporate that. Any more ideas?


    For the record, I see your cat and raise you:

    You have no real argument, you ****ing fascist troll.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There are several reasons commonly accepted to own a firearm.

    Self defence is not one. It is difficult to accurately fire a handgun past 10m. Collateral damage becomes an increased factor with an increase of guns and the pressure of being in a self defence situation can only reduce accuracy. Unless you are trained to deal with the pressure and scenario involved (aka police/military) you pose an increased threat to others.

    The more guns available the more situations like this have the potential to arise. As in America there is also the question at what point does lethal force constitue justifiable self defence? At what level of threat is it okay to attempt to potentially end a life. If you simply say (when someone is pointing a gun at you) then i dont think having a holstered weapon would help. You would need to have it drawn and sighted before they had the chance to shoot- dont forget handguns are only effective close range. Many states in america mitigate this issue of 'when is lethal force justifiable' somewhat by saying you have to attempt to retreat BEFORE you can open fire or draw weapon, or alternatively even issue a verbal warning that you are armed before your weapon is drawn legitimately in self defence. Not really very effective- a good way to escalate the situation and danger/threat level. If you hold someone up at gun point and they warn you they are armed and will shoot, would you fire? or would you run away (either scenario a gun wasnt in fact necessary for self defence- i realise that this is somewhat a strained figurative and perfect situation)

    If you have an acceptable reason to own a firearm, it is indeed legal. If you want to collect firearms it is indeed possible. If you want to run around and pretend your john wayne get a cap gun.

    As someone who does enjoy shooting as a hobby i see NO reason to derestrict the laws on guns. i am more than able to enjoy my hobby knowing that the people around me are police checked and not in posession of a firearm 'for the sake of it'! Or in self defence (ever contemplating shooting anything other than game, bell targets and paper)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rant)
    You have no real argument, you ****ing fascist troll.
    People on my side:

    Gandhi
    Orwell
    Dalai Lama
    Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison

    People on your side:

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

    But I'm a facist? LMFAO. Bigots are getting stupider every day.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    If a drug dealer wants a handgun to threaten clients and possibly shoot them for the collection of money, s/he cannot because of people such as ourselves.
    If a rapist wants a handgun to make it more likely that his victim will co-operate, they cannot because of people such as ourselves.
    If a jilted husband wants a handgun to take revenge on his wife and her lover, he cannot because of people such as ourselves.
    If a mentally unstable person wants a handgun so that they can conceal it in public before committing mass murder, they cannot because of people such as ourselves.
    This is essentially the crux of your argument. You have no trust, you think everyone on the streets is out to get you, you think that if you give someone a little bit of power in the form of a gun they immediately turn evil (when the opposite is in fact true), you think that by liberalising gun laws a small amount there will be chaos and mass crime. You have no trust for humans.

    You can call yourself a liberal, but in my eyes, you are not. I view you in the same way I view a middle aged racist housewife tutting about how we should jail people for life and stop immigration - Conservative, authoritarian, anti-freedom, and not trusting. If you are truly a liberal then everything you preach would be liberal, not just certain areas which suit you.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    People on my side:

    Gandhi
    Orwell
    Dalai Lama
    Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison

    People on your side:

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

    But I'm a facist? LMFAO. Bigots are getting stupider every day.
    You keep bringing this list out as if it were some kind of trump card, but you don't respond to those that point out why it isn't helpful to you (for instance, that many "on your side" renounced the use of weapons entirely, or that Jefferson isn't a particularly good role model to be associated with). You also keep repeating two other slabs of text despite the fact that we have responded to them. Why? Does repetition somehow make them relevant, or a valid argument? Or do you think the repetition will go unnoticed?

    You have also started complaining that some of us have used ad hominem attacks, yet you have started calling us bigots and authoritarians.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You keep bringing this list out as if it were some kind of trump card, but you don't respond to those that point out why it isn't helpful to you (for instance, that many "on your side" renounced the use of weapons entirely, or that Jefferson isn't a particularly good role model to be associated with). You also keep repeating two other slabs of text despite the fact that we have responded to them. Why? Does repetition somehow make them relevant, or a valid argument? Or do you think the repetition will go unnoticed?

    You have also started complaining that some of us have used ad hominem attacks, yet you have started calling us bigots and authoritarians.
    "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms" -- Adolf Hitler (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944)

    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)


    Sorry but this is a situation of pot calling the kettle black. I make logical, sound arguments advocating freedom, and (maybe not you, but others) simply scream and shout and throw their toys out of the pram in their defence, not addressing anything that has been said.

    Also, "bigot" or "authoritarian" are no more attacks than you calling me "liberal" or "socialist" or "communist". They are purely adjectives.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    This is essentially the crux of your argument. You have no trust, you think everyone on the streets is out to get you, you think that if you give someone a little bit of power in the form of a gun they immediately turn evil (when the opposite is in fact true), you think that by liberalising gun laws a small amount there will be chaos and mass crime. You have no trust for humans.
    It is the crux of my argument, but you are misunderstanding it. I do not by any stretch of the imagination think that everyone is "out to get me". I do not believe that giving someone a gun will turn them evil. By the way, how is the opposite true? Does giving someone a gun turn them immediately into a virtuous person?

    Giving people guns will not turn them evil. But giving people guns will inevitably mean that some evil people (there are evil people in society, in case you never noticed) will be much more able to carry out their evil deeds. You, by contrast, are very naive in thinking that making guns available to the public will not lead to an increase in gun crime. There are evil people out there who would use a gun in a malicious way, if you deny that you are very naive.

    I would also argue that I am not paranoid and I do not believe everyone is out to get me. In fact, as I remember, it was the pro-gun activists on this thread who said the government might try to kill us all? And that guns are necessary for self-defence? :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Selkarn)
    You can call yourself a liberal, but in my eyes, you are not. I view you in the same way I view a middle aged racist housewife tutting about how we should jail people for life and stop immigration - Conservative, authoritarian, anti-freedom, and not trusting. If you are truly a liberal then everything you preach would be liberal, not just certain areas which suit you.
    Did you not read my post? It is possible to be a liberal person who is conservative regarding one particular issue. I support gay marriage, euthanasia, drug legalisation (for soft drugs), abortion, and countless other liberal things. This issue is not the same as those ones, therefore I take a different viewpoint. Making handguns widely available will have an adverse affect on society. It will be a good thing for survivalists and so on, of course, but a bad thing for victims of crime who are in the instance of handgun legalisation more likely to come face to face with a shooter. You come across as very self-centred, unwilling to actually take into account the opposing argument, repetitive in terms of what you say even when it has already been refuted by evidence, and basically as having the attitude of a baby throwing his toys out of the pram because he cannot get what he wants. Even though allowing him to have that thing would have a terrible effect on the rest of us.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    People on my side:

    Gandhi
    Orwell
    Dalai Lama
    Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison

    People on your side:

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

    But I'm a facist? LMFAO. Bigots are getting stupider every day.
    Stupid? Really? So, you'd rather live in the US of A than the UK? **** off there, then, if you haven't already. I hope you get shot.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rant)
    Seriously? Get another hobby. If you want to play with guns, go paintballing.
    Why the **** should I? authoritarian retard.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rant)
    Stupid? Really? So, you'd rather live in the US of A than the UK? **** off there, then, if you haven't already. I hope you get shot.
    Rant you're not adding much more to this debate and come across like a self rightious ****wit with the IQ of a 7 year old
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't believe guns should exist, let's go back to arrows.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    Rant you're not adding much more to this debate and come across like a self rightious ****wit with the IQ of a 7 year old
    MAJA LOLZ IQ doesn't change with age. Ergo, you are dumb
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Also, "bigot" or "authoritarian" are no more attacks than you calling me "liberal" or "socialist" or "communist". They are purely adjectives.
    "Bigot" is definitely an attack, it it hard to construe it otherwise.

    All the other words you've mentioned are mere adjectives, yes, but particularly in an American context where politics is remarkably more incendiary than it is in the UK they are highly charged adjectives that often trigger wars of words across the political spectrum, mostly from Democrats seeking to distance themselves from the "liberal" label and other such terms due to it's increasing use by Republicans as an attack.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rant)
    Stupid? Really? So, you'd rather live in the US of A than the UK? **** off there, then, if you haven't already. I hope you get shot.
    Typical bigot attidue: "I DON'T LIKE HIS OPINION, SO HE SHOULD GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY HURR DURR HOPE YOU GET SHOT". :rolleyes:

    Thankfully some of your anti-gun comrades - whilst I strongly disagree with them - are more worthy opponents.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms" -- Adolf Hitler (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944)

    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)


    Sorry but this is a situation of pot calling the kettle black. I make logical, sound arguments advocating freedom, and (maybe not you, but others) simply scream and shout and throw their toys out of the pram in their defence, not addressing anything that has been said.
    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.

    Also, "bigot" or "authoritarian" are no more attacks than you calling me "liberal" or "socialist" or "communist". They are purely adjectives.
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    has strict gun laws really worked in this country?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...iminately.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
    So I suppose if you had been carrying a hand gun with you in this shop shooting as soon as the boys started shooting you would have whipped it out yelling "LEEEEEROY JEEEEENKINS!" and lit them up like a christmas tree?

    Get real, this would have been over in a few seconds and your body would have forced you to dive for cover. If you'd ever actually been shot at with anything you would know that. The best you could have done is pulled it out by the time they were done.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 21, 2011
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.