For all you anti gun hoplophobes on here

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.

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.

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.

Off the top of my head:

I have talked to a few girls who say they would love a handgun as they would feel safer with it.

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.

I do not feel i was trying to override your opinions simply with my opinions, the larger point was aiming towards implying why perhaps the government doesnt feel it crucial to legalise handguns. Because of these availible and in many cases more practical (be it cheaper or more suited to purpose) alternatives. If someone truly wants a gun collection, they can still have one. If they truly want to survive in the wild and need a gun they can still have one.

I believe it is a tiny minority who truly believe they are safer with a handgun. Increase handguns increase risk of incident. Statistical inevitability.
I do not believe we should risk the majority for the views of a minority.

Im afraid democracy is based on giving up core liberties in order to establish and maintain a functioning society.

Hypothetically what if you could catagorically find more people outright opposed to guns than wanting guns. Why would it be fair to impose the views of a minority onto a majority.

There is no way at all that either the British public or the British government will have any sympathy at all for anyone desiring to own a handgun for the avowed purpose of self defence.

When you say "gun" here, do you mean handguns specifically? As that is the only firearm I am discussing in this thread.

Sorry but it's clearly not a "tiny minority" - in this very thread, there have been many unique voices which support a more liberal approach to gun laws. And I would say that TSR represents a more Conservative, authoritarian view on things than you would typically expect from a random population sample, which would skew things even more towards a more liberal approach to gun laws.

Fine, we can both play the game of copying and pasting. I noticed that you ignored this post of mine earlier, so I will repeat it to you now and attempt to "address" your argument with it.

I did not say self defence, I said that they would feel more safer if they had a handgun, even if they would not use it.

Even if you believe that their opinion is stupid - "lol why wud any1 want to shoot targets, dats a dum sport LoL!21" - does not mean that you can simply override their opinion with your own

I did not say self defence, I said that they would feel more safer if they had a handgun, even if they would not use it.

That's something you authoritarians don't seem to realise. People have unique opinions that may, believe it or not, differ from your own. Even if you believe that their opinion is stupid - "lol why wud any1 want to shoot targets, dats a dum sport LoL!21" - does not mean that you can simply override their opinion with your own.

Please note i said I BELIEVE it to be a tiny minority. This is clearly opinion, do not then post your opinion as fact, ie, 'it is clearly...'.

Again, Hypothetically what if you could catagorically find more people outright opposed to guns than wanting guns. Why would it be fair to impose the views of a minority onto a majority

(Quoting me)

However you missed a key point. They cannot LEGALLY. However, they can ILLEGALLY. There is a well known rough area not far from my house, and I have known of people who simply asked around in the local pub of said area and were soon sorted with a handgun.

(Bull**** that has already been stated by you)

You stated



As I said before, crucially, I believe that making something illegal, because of the actions of a tiny minority, sets a dangerous precedent (I find it funny that none of you have tried to argue with this line at all).

As I said before, crucially, I believe that making something illegal, because of the actions of a tiny minority, sets a dangerous precedent (I find it funny that none of you have tried to argue with this line at all).

You'd need to explain to me how anyone could feel safer by having a weapon that they would never use - such use being self defence. There is no sense in that at all.

I think we probably did a long time ago but you keep repeating it (like the other stuff) and it has become invisible to us. By that logic murder, of course, wouldn't be illegal because only the tiniest minority of people perpetrate it. Yet murder is illegal (and I don't think you'd want to argue that it shouldn't be), and that illegality is based on the "dangerous" precedent of the actions a tiny minority.

That's the point. I don't need to explain, because it is what they told me, and it is their opinion. No matter how much you understand that opinion - whether you know nothing of why they think that way, or every single detail - changes nothing about the fact that it is their opinion.

That is an absolutely null comparison, and you know it. Murder is an act that has already been committed, i.e. the issue with murder is that it in itself is the issue. Handguns are not the issue by themselves - i.e. nobody wants to illegalise handguns simply because of the fact that they are handguns - but what they enable.

When you say tiny minority, it implies, in my mind, a figure of 1 in a 1000. The reality is far more than that.




I will answer this question with questions in the exact format that will hopefully stimulate your mind enough to reach the conclusion yourself.

"Hypothetically what if you could catagorically find more people outright opposed to people practicing Islam. Why would it be fair to impose the views of a minority onto a majority"

"Hypothetically what if you could catagorically find more people who wanted to deport all black people. Why would it be fair to impose the views of a minority onto a majority"

"Hypothetically what if you could catagorically find more people who wanted to bring back witch hunting. Why would it be fair to impose the views of a minority onto a majority"

Hopefully now, you know the answer.