Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    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.
    I read your last paragraph before I read the rest of your post, and I'm extremely glad I did. To sum up, what he's saying, guys, is as follows:
    "I cannot argue against you, therefore I will tell you that you cannot repeat something you have already said after I ignore it."

    As I said before, crucially, I believe that making something illegal, because of the actions of a tiny minority, sets a dangerous precedent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L-J-B)
    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'
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    I read your last paragraph before I read the rest of your post, and I'm extremely glad I did. To sum up, what he's saying, guys, is as follows:
    "I cannot argue against you, therefore I will tell you that you cannot repeat something you have already said after I ignore it."

    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    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.
    Yet again, 100% of this post is simply ad-hominem, false and not offering any substance at all to the thread. All you did in the above quoted post was drone on about things which did not actually input any fresh material into the discussion. By the way, I repeat things because I believe the things have not been addressed.

    As I said before, crucially, I believe that making something illegal, because of the actions of a tiny minority, sets a dangerous precedent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    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.
    Strong words, but, Here! Here!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Off the top of my head:
    You have done it yet again! This wasn't off the top of your head - you have posted it several times in this thread and we have become frustrated with the futility of it.

    I have talked to a few girls who say they would love a handgun as they would feel safer with it.
    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. You don't enhance your argument about sport shooting by continually harping on this. You merely make yourself look like the kind of brooding, troubled loner who goes off into the woods and comes back to avenge a perceived slight by massacring a bunch of innocent people.

    Your poorly thought out and non-analytical arguments, lack of willingness to argue with us (and to develop that argument) and the resulting frustration with the constant repetition of text you have lifted from elsewhere mean that I'm out of this discussion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.

    (Original post by Originally Posted 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 L-J-B)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    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.
    I mean handgun. You can have them deacttivated, antique or shoot muzzle loaders. Handguns nonetheless.

    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...'

    I then attempted to move the debate further into a more constructive discussion. I think you should pay attention to some comments being made about your 'style' of debate.

    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

    Im not interested in what demographic of people vist TSR. Polls suggest Students tend to be labour by the way.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    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.
    You stated

    "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."

    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.

    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).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    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.
    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.


    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 think you'll find that I never use anything but good English in my posts here, and I've not referred to target shooting in anything like that way so I suspect you haven't been paying attention.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    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.
    You really like to play the victim, don't you. Nobody is arguing with you simply because they disagree and therefore as a result think they are right.

    The anti-gun argument is based on logic, statistics, and common sense. Nobody said that target shooting was a dumb sport, all we said was that you can already participate in that sport without a handgun. Get a license and use a rifle.

    The survivalist kit thing is another issue. If you want to add a gun to it, add a rifle. Add a shotgun. None of your reasons for wanting a handgun actually warrant the legalisation of them. You do not need a handgun, you simply want one. Even although common sense, statistics and logic say that allowing you to have one would be bad for society, you still demand one anyway. You think that YOUR opinion (that of the minority) should be placed upon the majority even though it would be dangerous for everyone if handguns were legal. Therefore you are the authoritarian here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L-J-B)
    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...'.
    When you say tiny minority, it implies, in my mind, a figure of 1 in a 1000. The reality is far more than that.


    (Original post by L-J-B)
    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
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    (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)
    Making handguns legal (and readily available to everyone) would mean that more criminals would have access to them than is the case at present. If you disagree with this statement I would like to see why, because you are wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    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).
    In a debate not every single line has to be argued through. Generally when the opposition dont pick something up they perhaps agree with it or find more pressing issues.

    Simply i do not believe this to be the case, that in this instance we have made it illegal because of the actions of a tiny minority. I am sure your answer will be based on what is 'clearly' the truth i am 'failing' to see. In any event i did not think it pertinant to the discussion.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    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).
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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 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.
 
 
 
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
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.