Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    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.
    Are you joking? Talk about reductio ad Hitlerum.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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'm a libertarian, not a dumb liberal
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I believe the time for anything worthwhile to be gained from this thread has indeed passed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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'
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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 . . .
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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 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?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    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
    The Mail - known for its ability to create an unbiased and undistorted report on an event.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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'
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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 like carrot cake?
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.