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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hardballer)
    cyprus, 1 in 3 people own a firearm http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cyprus
    its still a very safe country, i'm quarter greek cypriot by the way
    but in 2006 1 person unintentionally died from a firearm!11!! Wtf ban them all we must take away the liberty of all those people!11 i personally have no interest in guns so the ban won't affect me, i don't care about preserving individual liberty i just want to restrict freedoms!11



    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    It's a simple yes/no question which I see you've completely avoided, because you're starting to come to terms with your authoritarian stance on the issue. Pathetic :rolleyes:
    Obviously you aren't going to back down with your idea that anyone who opposes you is authoritarian. And if I'm honest you're probably just looking for a continous argument, are going to regurgitate the same smack about authoritarian opposers over, and over, and over. So I've lost interest in this endless and frankly pointless circular argument and would rather spend my time watching the weakest link on repeat for 800 hours than sit here continuing to stimulate your argumental character.

    We'd both do much more good if we got out of this place and got on with life. Which is what I'm going to do quite frankly. You would do much more for your liberal ideals if you got out of here and entered politics, or joined the debate in the real world rather than with someone you barely know on some web forum.

    To finnish it off; If you are competent with a gun and well within the law to have one, well have one, but if you're unstable, incompetent and will put lives at risk you shouldn't be allowed near one. It's common sense to be honest. End of, night night.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doctorryan)
    To finnish it off; If you are competent with a gun and well within the law to have one, well have one, but if you're unstable, incompetent and will put lives at risk you shouldn't be allowed near one. It's common sense to be honest. End of, night night.
    Er, that's the whole point mate. Even a hypothetical 60 year old gentleman who has never committed a crime in his life, has owned rifles and shotguns since he was 20, has been evaluated as having perfect mental health, was knighted and received multiple honours, is an active member of the police force, is a peer of the realm, regularly won gold medals for Britain in shooting events in the Olympics and other shooting tournaments, and is also the Archbishop of Canterbury, cannot own a handgun.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Er, that's the whole point mate. Even a hypothetical 60 year old gentleman who has never committed a crime in his life, has owned rifles and shotguns since he was 20, has been evaluated as having perfect mental health, was knighted and received multiple honours, is an active member of the police force, is a peer of the realm, regularly won gold medals for Britain in shooting events in the Olympics and other shooting tournaments, and is also the Archbishop of Canterbury, cannot own a handgun.
    Read what I said, it might make sense if you used your noggin. Owning a hand gun is not well within the law, so no. What a petty, petty person you are being.

    Plus I'm sure mate is the wrong noun in these circumstances. bye.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doctorryan)
    Read what I said, it might make sense if you used your noggin. Owning a hand gun is not well within the law, so no. What a petty, petty person you are being.

    Plus I'm sure mate is the wrong noun in these circumstances. bye.
    Which, once again, is the whole point :rolleyes:

    Obvious troll is obvious.. imagine this guy trying any form of serious debate?

    Person A: "I propose X"
    Him: "But that's not in the law!111!!!"
    Person A: "I know. That's why I'm proposing it."
    Him: "But it's not in the law!111!"
    Person A: "Once again, I know. That's the whole point."

    :rofl:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doctorryan)
    Owning a hand gun is not well within the law, so no.
    well thats the point of this argument, the fact that its against the law is an infringement on our civil liberties, pistol sports shooters have to go to a different country to enjoy their sport, even though its possible to get a handgun in nearly any other european country apart from denmark and maybe iceland. Hows that fair? its not.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    You guys don't realise that this argument is becoming futile.

    I don't care anymore if I'm called obvious, or "authoritarian", because you have no real grasp on the issue.

    Do you yourselves own a gun licence may i ask?

    May I point out that as a biological being we do not, the word not being quite key here, have any real biological, physiological or rightful need to own a hand gun. A hand gun, by definition is an object. There is no law of nature, physics, entropy or otherwise that states that humans require a hand gun to survive. Your want of such an object shows you bow down to the consumeristic, powerhungry society that you oppose. You appear to want a gun for your own personal power and gain, so whos authoritarian may I ask? Look in the mirror.

    It may, as you put it, be an infringement of your civil liberties but surely it is an infringement of your civil liberties if you are shot by someone who the law could have previously stopped if the current laws stayed in place? The civil liberty and fundemental right to live is far greater than the right to own some object.

    And, may i point out again that the countries in which hand guns are banned have some of the lowest mortality rates from firearms in the world. My argument has statistical and hard evidence. Which yours does not. Every country in which hand guns are currently legal have some of the higher mortality rates.
    http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sc.pdf

    Face what is known as the facts. Your argument is hypothetical, a theory. Mine has evidence, cold hard evidence.

    I understand that i will never win this, but to be honest although this post is futile and you wont give a flying hoots what I say, I stand by my own principles. You strike me as the types of people who will never be happy, even if the law were how you wanted it. Go away and grow an argument that's credible before you darken my door again. Thank you . Have a nice day!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    If the Jews had resisted the stricter gun laws, the job would have undeniably been much more difficult for Hitler. It's all fine and dandy for you in your (I'm guessing) cushy White middle class lifestyle, but can you imagine people who may have lost relatives in Nazi germany, and the knowledge that if they had resisted gun laws, they would still be alive, and yet they are faced with authoritarians such as yourself to further clamp down on guns? I see extreme gun laws as Hitler's last legacy. I particularly follow JFPO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership).





    All in all.. I believe in freedom, and have trust with society that liberalising gun laws slightly won't cause chaos, no more than introducing a minimum wage caused mass-unemployment. The liberty of the individual must be defended to the last step, and I will always fight totalitarians and authoritarians such as yourself, tooth and nail, to defend that liberty.
    firstly, no I don't have a cushy white middle class background. Don't make assumptions about people.

    I believe in freedom, but I believe certain freedoms take presedence over other. The freedom to life and safety is more important than the freedom to own guns for me.
    I DON'T trust our current society with guns. I've lived in the USA (the society is very similar to ours), and seen what the freedom to own firearms does. It's not worth it.

    Simply being able to own a few guns for the Jews couldn't have saved them from the catastrophic things that happened. Hitler was strong, had a very huge army, and was a manic. He wanted world domination. Think of all of the countries that were invaded, how many allies it took to defeat him? It wouldn't have helped.

    But I guess our ideals and priorities are just different, we're not going to agree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    Simply being able to own a few guns for the Jews couldn't have saved them from the catastrophic things that happened. Hitler was strong, had a very huge army, and was a manic. He wanted world domination. Think of all of the countries that were invaded, how many allies it took to defeat him? It wouldn't have helped.
    I'm pretty sure that the jews for the presevation of firearm ownership know a lot more about that subject than you do :rolleyes:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Yeah, this is the difference between us Libertarians and you anti-freedom authoritarians following your Nazi-esque ideology. You have no trust in society. Any liberalisation of anything causes a knee jerk reaction. Slightly liberalise gun control laws? THE STREETS ARE CHAOS!!!

    Go back to your Tory-voting, Mail-reading, immigration-tutting middle class lifestyle. I know your kind exactly, and as said before, I will always fight your kind for the liberty of the individual.
    I think you're stupid. You can't have a civilised argument without insulting people. Stop making stupid assumptions about people.
    Not supporting ONE thing to do with guns doesn't make someone anti-freedom.
    I've explained how I'm SO for freedom, I actually support marxist ideals. But, I don't think anyone has a "right" to own a gun, or a need... And I think the freedom to life and saftey is more important than your silly right to own a gun. Just my opinion.

    I HATE torys, I HATE the daily mail, I'm FOR immigration, and I'm by no stretch of the imagination middle class. So again, stop dishing out ridiculous assumptions and insults just because we don't agree with you on this subject. Grow up.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    I'm pretty sure that the[SIZE="7"] jews [/SIZE]for the presevation of firearm ownership know a lot more about that subject than you do :rolleyes:
    I don't see how that's relevent to my points at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    I don't see how that's relevent to my points at all.
    Because you're arguing that tens of millions of European Jews owning weapons wouldn't have made a difference, when it's common knowledge that the disarming of the Jews was the key factor to beginning the slaughter of them.
    Can you imagine people who may have lost relatives in Nazi Germany, and the knowledge that if they had resisted gun laws, they would still be alive, and yet they are faced with people such as yourself proposing to further clamp down on guns? I see extreme gun laws as Hitler's last legacy, because I particularly follow JFPO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership) who explain this viewpoint.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Because you're arguing that tens of millions of European Jews owning weapons wouldn't have made a difference, when it's common knowledge that the disarming of the Jews was the key factor to beginning the slaughter of them.
    Can you imagine people who may have lost relatives in Nazi Germany, and the knowledge that if they had resisted gun laws, they would still be alive, and yet they are faced with people such as yourself proposing to further clamp down on guns? I see extreme gun laws as Hitler's last legacy, because I particularly follow JFPO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership) who explain this viewpoint.
    You're making this into something it's not.
    Firstly, Hitler only disarmed the Jews in Germany, whereas the 6 million Jews killed were distributed across a LOT of Europe.
    Secondly... That was something HUGE and DEVISTATING that happened here 65 odd years ago. Apart from the fact that things were very different then socially, it is not the sort of thing that's likely to occur again (ESPECIALLY in the UK!)
    It's pretty irrelevent to the idea of guns in the UK, basically.
    And, I'm not proposing a further clamp down on guns, I'm supporting the laws that already exist. There's a major difference.

    I don't really care what their perspective is... I've explained why generally in society guns actually just cause more deaths and make people more at risk. You can't justify causing all of those extra deaths across the country just because there's this minute possibility of another HITLER! Really?!
    Do you not see what I mean?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    You're making this into something it's not.
    Firstly, Hitler only disarmed the Jews in Germany, whereas the 6 million Jews killed were distributed across a LOT of Europe.
    Secondly... That was something HUGE and DEVISTATING that happened here 65 odd years ago. Apart from the fact that things were very different then socially, it is not the sort of thing that's likely to occur again (ESPECIALLY in the UK!)
    It's pretty irrelevent to the idea of guns in the UK, basically.
    And, I'm not proposing a further clamp down on guns, I'm supporting the laws that already exist. There's a major difference.

    I don't really care what their perspective is... I've explained why generally in society guns actually just cause more deaths and make people more at risk. You can't justify causing all of those extra deaths across the country just because there's this minute possibility of another HITLER! Really?!
    Do you not see what I mean?
    As stated on the JFPO website:


    In the 20th Century:

    Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.
    Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals.
    How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power - and the people, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed.
    To say "But it won't happen to me! We live in a civilised country and that would never happen here!!" is to quite frankly, spit on the graves of the 6 million Jews, 25 million Chinese, 2 million Cambodians, and 20 million Soviets who died. At least they died to send us a message - resist governments trying to take power from the citizen, and resist governments trying to take liberties from the citizen in the name of safety. You can ignore their message - but people like me, and liberty-loving citizens of countries all over the world will always fight an authoritarian stance on gun control, tooth and nail.



    Gun control is Hitler's last legacy, and I and other freedom lovers wish to push it back to the authoritarian, totalitarian place from whence it came.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    As stated on the JFPO website:




    To say "But it won't happen to me! We live in a civilised country and that would never happen here!!" is to quite frankly, spit on the graves of the 6 million Jews, 25 million Chinese, 2 million Cambodians, and 20 million Soviets who died. At least they died to send us a message - resist governments trying to take power from the citizen, and resist governments trying to take liberties from the citizen in the name of safety. You can ignore their message - but people like me, and liberty-loving citizens of countries all over the world will always fight an authoritarian stance on gun control, tooth and nail.



    Gun control is Hitler's last legacy, and I and other freedom lovers wish to push it back to the authoritarian, totalitarian place from whence it came.
    Don't you dare say I spit on those people's graves. Just because I don't support you're right to own a gun! Jesus!
    I'm probably a hell of a lot more "liberal" than you in general.

    You can't justify making our country more dangerous and causing more deaths because of something that MIGHT happen one day (but clearly won't, not in the UK).
    It's like justifying the ownership of tanks and chemical weapons to everyone, because we MAY be invaded by aliens, or something similar that's just as ridiculous.
    You can't justify making deaths happen, that definitely WILL happen if you allow them... Because of something that COULD happen but is highly unlikely.

    I give up aruging with you. You're not debating any more, just insulting me and making references to things that aren't related!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    This is your opinion, not fact.


    I could equally ask you why you want to endanger the lives of the population because of a shooting spree that MIGHT happen one day.



    Ok, bye!
    I'm not talking about a "shooting spree". I've given countless figures and statistics from every other country with a similar society to ours that allows guns in this capacity... They all have a LOT more violent crime, and a lot of gun related deaths, etc. It's not opinion, it's fact.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    (but clearly won't, not in the UK).
    That statement spits on the grave of every person that has ever been killed by a government. They thought the same as you. They gave their lives so that people like you could see the danger in letting the government take away your liberties. And you turn a blind eye, naive to the lesson history has taught you, meaning their deaths were worthless.

    I trust the people more than you, I trust the government less than you. That is our fundamental difference.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    That statement spits on the grave of every person that has ever been killed by a government. They thought the same as you. They gave their lives so that people like you could see the danger in letting the government take away your liberties. And you turn a blind eye, naive to the lesson history has taught you, meaning their deaths were worthless.

    I trust the people more than you, I trust the government less than you. That is our fundamental difference.
    What on earth are you on about?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    That statement spits on the grave of every person that has ever been killed by a government. They thought the same as you. They gave their lives so that people like you could see the danger in letting the government take away your liberties. And you turn a blind eye, naive to the lesson history has taught you, meaning their deaths were worthless.

    I trust the people more than you, I trust the government less than you. That is our fundamental difference.
    It doesn't spit on graves. They didn't "give" their lives, their lives were taken.
    The kinds of governments that have done this are not like that of the UK! They were completely different!
    But whatever... even if it COULD happen, it's still VERY unlikely... Not like the deaths that would be caused just by allowing guns to be carried in the UK. Which is my point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    What on earth are you on about?
    Why would you waste your time asking that question, instead of simply reading the posts?
 
 
 
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
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.