Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    Wrong and nonsensical. The descent into madness continues.

    A car has seats, a steering wheel, doors for people to enter in exit, an engine to make it move, a boot to store items, and windows/seatbelts/airbags to protect the occupants in the incident of a crash. Clearly a lot of thought and energy has been put into making it an effective medium of transport. Sometimes, due to them being a fast moving object, cars may hit eachother or pedestrians. But it is clear by looking at them that their main purpose is for transport.

    A gun contains a cartridge for bullets to be stored in, and a trigger which is used to send this bullet out of the barrel at an astronomical speed, simply with the purpose of that bullet penetrating someone or something. It is clear by looking at a gun that its main purpose is to injure or kill.
    You missed the point entirely. He was writing as if simply because he said something, made it true. I pointed out the fallacy in that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Perhaps you trust the opinion of fellow authoritarian Good Bloke over my own:
    You brought in morality as you can see i questioned why you had. You have completely ignored all the points raised by my post simply because you are beaten.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    You missed the point entirely. He was writing as if simply because he said something, made it true. I pointed out the fallacy in that.
    Concern yourself less with how something is written and more the substance of what is written. It is a courtesy we have all had to extend towards you.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Perhaps you trust the opinion of fellow authoritarian Good Bloke over my own:
    The operative word in what I wrote was irrelevant.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    So the crux of your argument here rests upon the fact that somewhere, you draw a line based on subjectivity regarding the trade off of usefulness vs side effects.
    It is not subjective. If cars were banned, there would be chaos. The economy would collapse due to the dissolution of car manufacturing and people's inability to get to work. Public transport would be unable to cope with the influx of users and it too would shut down. Effectively, people would be stranded. A great number of people would continue to use their cars regardless, and the judicial system would be unable to fine/imprison them all.

    If guns were banned, a small minority of the population would be displeased at not being able to use a gun in their survival kit. Some hunters and target shooters would be displeased as well. However, people would still be able to add a more effective gun which is already legal to their survival kit, or hunt more effectively with a gun that is already legal. Society would continue as normal.

    Objectively, cars are more important to society than guns. Cars are in fact essential. To ban cars is ridiculous; to ban guns has no effect other than a positive one on society as a whole.

    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Fair enough, I would say. What I would also say is that I would draw the line closer to a more liberal approach than you, in that, as I believe people can generally be trusted more, and that the "pleasure"/usefulness gained is more than what many believe, and also the fact that I take a liberal/pro-liberty perspective on virtually all things, and also that I believe it's dangerous to set the precedent of persecuting something because of the actions of a tiny minority, then the line on handguns can be shifted a little leftwards towards the more liberal end.
    You keep emphasising that you are a liberal person, and trying to suggest that I am authoritarian due to my stance on this issue. I have already asserted that I am in general a liberal person. Supporting handgun legalisation in such a manic way as you do, even in the face of logical arguments against it, is less liberal and more anarchist. You could apply your argument to almost anything:

    A minority of people want to be able to rape their wives. Although this is harmful to the wives, liberty and freedom means that these men should not be stopped. Anyone who tries to stop them out of concern for the wives is authoritarian.

    A minority of people want handguns legalised. Although this is harmful to the population at large, liberty and freedom means that these people should recieve their wish. Anyone who tries to stop them due to concern for the public is an authoritarian.

    Does not compute.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Gangbangs are a good thing for nine out of ten people
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L-J-B)
    Gangbangs are a good thing for nine out of ten people
    :hubba:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    It is not subjective. If cars were banned, there would be chaos. The economy would collapse due to the dissolution of car manufacturing and people's inability to get to work. Public transport would be unable to cope with the influx of users and it too would shut down. Effectively, people would be stranded. A great number of people would continue to use their cars regardless, and the judicial system would be unable to fine/imprison them all.

    If guns were banned, a small minority of the population would be displeased at not being able to use a gun in their survival kit. Some hunters and target shooters would be displeased as well. However, people would still be able to add a more effective gun which is already legal to their survival kit, or hunt more effectively with a gun that is already legal. Society would continue as normal.

    Objectively, cars are more important to society than guns. Cars are in fact essential. To ban cars is ridiculous; to ban guns has no effect other than a positive one on society as a whole.
    Sigh. You still don't understand that you are therefore drawing the line somewhere.



    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    You could apply your argument to almost anything:

    A minority of people want to be able to rape their wives. Although this is harmful to the wives, liberty and freedom means that these men should not be stopped.
    Correct. Someone with that view could say that. However, I certainly would not say that argument. Would you?


    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    A minority of people want handguns legalised. Although this is harmful to the population at large, liberty and freedom means that these people should recieve their wish. Anyone who tries to stop them due to concern for the public is an authoritarian.
    Correct. Someone with that view could say that. I for one, obviously, would say that. A total ban on handguns is more totalitarian and authoritarian than a more liberal approach to them, such as the current situation in the UK with rifles and shotguns.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L-J-B)
    Gangbangs are a good thing for nine out of ten people
    Precisely. Good to see that you finally realised the fallacy with your "majority=always correct" argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    # Do not spam.

    This includes posts:
    Which boil down to "God doesn't exist LOL!" when for the purpose of the argument the OP has assumed that God does.
    Which merely contain smilies, or "Cool story bro" or similar internet memes.
    Which consistently attack SPAG / typos rather than addressing the argument.
    Off topic and pointless posts are subject to deletion and warnings.
    Unreasonable multiple posting by the same user simply to bump the thread.
    Posts must contribute to the discussion; one word responses do not do so.



    hmmmm. Moderation Team much?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Precisely. Good to see that you finally realised the fallacy with your "majority=always correct" argument.
    Or that i can see that the world isnt either black or white and cannot be defined by simple rules.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Sigh. You still don't understand that you are therefore drawing the line somewhere.
    The bottom line is that guns are mainly designed to kill people and are in no way essential to society. Cars are mainly designed for transport and are practically essential to society. Thus they cannot be compared.

    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Correct. Someone with that view could say that. However, I certainly would not say that argument. Would you?
    Obviously I would not advocate men raping their wives. The purpose of that was to serve as a comparison to your gun argument. Making something legal despite the fact that it harms people who are opposed to its legalisation, or people who are oblivious/ambivalent towards the issue, simply to please a minority is anarchist. It is not liberal. You are effectively crossing the line between liberalism and anarchism by saying that people should be able to do whatever they want, whether it has a harmful effect on others or not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WeekendOffender)
    Obviously I would not advocate men raping their wives. The purpose of that was to serve as a comparison to your gun argument. Making something legal despite the fact that it harms people who are opposed to its legalisation, or people who are oblivious/ambivalent towards the issue, simply to please a minority is anarchist. It is not liberal. You are effectively crossing the line between liberalism and anarchism by saying that people should be able to do whatever they want, whether it has a harmful effect on others or not.
    You are now simply taking things to extremes, I am afraid. I am not an advocate of people walking the streets with assault rifles, I am not an advocate of handing out shotguns like candy like they do in some states of the US. I am purely interested in the removal of the total handgun ban, which simply exists purely to satisfy the crazed bloodthirst of the public after Dunblane, and is crazily illogical, highly authoritarian, and anti-libertarian.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    You are now simply taking things to extremes, I am afraid. I am not an advocate of people walking the streets with assault rifles, I am not an advocate of handing out shotguns like candy like they do in some states of the US. I am purely interested in the removal of the total handgun ban, which simply exists purely to satisfy the crazed bloodthirst of the public after Dunblane, and is crazily illogical, highly authoritarian, and anti-libertarian.
    Tell me exactly why you need a handgun, specifically. Why can't you have a rifle or shotgun in your survival kit? Why can't you shoot targets with a rifle or shotgun?

    Handguns are concealable and thus more dangerous to the public than rifles or shotguns. This is why they are illegal. Someone with a handgun in their jacket, down their trousers or in their rucksack/handbag is inconspicuous. Someone who tried to walk the streets with the currently legal weaponry (rifles/shotguns) would be immediately spotted and arrested. That is where the difference lies.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L-J-B)
    # Do not spam.

    This includes posts:
    Which boil down to "God doesn't exist LOL!" when for the purpose of the argument the OP has assumed that God does.
    No way man, I believe in science and evolution not dumb thousand year old superstitions or religion. I was in Montana 2 months ago and shot a handgun for the first time. I shot my first rifle when I was 14. Shooting a handgun is a very different disipline as you're holding the gun differently, recoil is absorbed by your wrists rather than your shoulder etc. Sure its concealable but like I said if someone can be licenced to own a .50 cal rifle in this country then they should be able to own a handgun as well.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I just wanna shoot you all in the head and watch how easily you wipe out, the sad part is i just dont have that much ammunition.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    WRONG. If someone had a hangdun, and kept it in a sealed box in my bedroom, and were not affected by it, then you are not affected by it in any way.
    We are talking about the general change in allowing guns to be kept like that. You personally having a gun may not affect me, but the fact that you can means the law lets other people have them, which will affect me as I've explain.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    No way man, I believe in science and evolution not dumb thousand year old superstitions or religion. I was in Montana 2 months ago and shot a handgun for the first time. I shot my first rifle when I was 14. Shooting a handgun is a very different disipline as you're holding the gun differently, recoil is absorbed by your wrists rather than your shoulder etc. Sure its concealable but like I said if someone can be licenced to own a .50 cal rifle in this country then they should be able to own a handgun as well.
    Except, as we've said numberous times... There is a good use for a rifle and many restrictions on having it. There is no good use for a handgun but hurting people, and you could conceal it walking down the street.
    Owning a rifle is compeltely different to owning a handgun, as you yourself have said... Allowing one doesn't mean you should allow the other.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    Except, as we've said numberous times... There is a good use for a rifle and many restrictions on having it. There is no good use for a handgun but hurting people, and you could conceal it walking down the street.
    Owning a rifle is compeltely different to owning a handgun, as you yourself have said... Allowing one doesn't mean you should allow the other.
    handguns are useful for some aspects of hunting, such as humane killing. admittedly you can acquire a handgun for humane killing in this country under special circumstances but you can't deny it can be used for target shooting. I've already stated that a criminal can saw the barrel off a longer barrelled weapon if he wants to. But you have to remember why handguns were banned in the first place and that hamilton could easily have done the massacre with a shotgun or waited til after shcool and ran a load of kids down with his car.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hardballer)
    handguns are useful for some aspects of hunting, such as humane killing. admittedly you can acquire a handgun for humane killing in this country under special circumstances but you can't deny it can be used for target shooting. I've already stated that a criminal can saw the barrel off a longer barrelled weapon if he wants to. But you have to remember why handguns were banned in the first place and that hamilton could easily have done the massacre with a shotgun or waited til after shcool and ran a load of kids down with his car.
    You didn't mention any uses for it that can't be covered by other guns.
    It doesn't matter if a criminal could saw off the barrel of another gun to ban it... That doesn't mean you should allow a gun designed for concelment, making it easier for them and more common.
    I don't really care what spurred on the decision to ban them... I'm talking about why they shouldn't be allwoed in general. We seem to be going in circles.
 
 
 
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
Who is most responsible for your success at university
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.