Nigel Farage calls for UK gun laws to be relaxed

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 11:10 pm

First topic message reminder :

Nigel Farage calls for UK gun laws to be relaxed
Ukip leader says ban on handguns brought in after Dunblane massacre is 'ludicrous'

Nigel Farage has called for firearm laws to be relaxed, calling the current ban on handguns "ludicrous".

The Ukip leader criticised the "kneejerk" restrictions on handguns imposed after the 1996 Dunblane massacre in which Thomas Hamilton killed 16 schoolchildren and a teacher before shooting himself.

The laws were brought in by Sir John Major, the then Tory prime minister, and extended to a total ban by Tony Blair's Labour government in 1997.

Asked about gun controls, Farage said: "I think proper gun licensing is something we've done in this country responsibly and well for a long time, and I think the kneejerk legislation that Blair brought in that meant that the British Olympic pistol team have to go to France to even practise was just crackers.

"If you criminalise handguns then only the criminals carry the guns. It's really interesting that since Blair brought that piece of law in, gun crime doubled in the next five years in this country."

"I think that we need a proper gun licensing system, which to a large extent I think we already have, and I think the ban on handguns is ludicrous."

Ian Mearns, Labour MP for Gateshead, said the comments were an example of "how extremely dangerous Ukip are".

"Families facing a cost-of-living crisis will find it bizarre that one of Nigel Farage's priorities would be to relax Britain's tough gun controls," he added.

The remarks come after Farage was caught in a storm over his party's 2010 election policies, which he entirely disowned this week and later described as "drivel".

The Ukip leader said he had never read the 486 pages of policy documents that were published alongside Ukip's manifesto in 2010, which included plans to repaint trains in traditional colours, bring in a uniform for taxi drivers, and ban offshore windfarms amid fears they could hurt fish.

After rejecting the entire collection of policies, he told LBC 97.3 that they were put together by Ukip's then policy chief David Campbell Bannerman, who is now a Conservative MEP.

"We had a manifesto – and I'm going to put some inverted commas around it – that was produced in 2010. It was basically a series of policy discussion papers that was put up on the website as a manifesto," he said.

"It was 486 pages long. I'm pleased to say that the idiot that wrote it has now left us and joined the Conservatives. They are very welcome to him.

"Malcolm Pearson, who was leader of Ukip at the time, was picked up in interviews for not knowing the manifesto. Of course he didn't know the manifesto. It was 486 pages of excessive detail.

"Eighteen months ago, I said I wanted the whole lot taken down off the website. We reject the whole thing. We'll start again with a blank sheet of paper. So there's nothing new in that story.

"I didn't read it. It was drivel. 486 pages of drivel. I didn't read it and nor did the party leader."

However, his attempt to distance himself from the documents was undermined on Friday, after it emerged he wrote the foreword to the party's manifesto and helped launch it at an event in London.

A video started circulating of Farage speaking as Ukip's chief spokesman at the launch of the manifesto in Westminster in 2010, promising "straight talking" about the party's policies. The Ukip leader also co-authored the summary 16-page manifesto that now appears to have disappeared from the party's website.

The 2010 policy documents – which also appear to have been blocked – detail plans such as capping the number of foreign players in football teams, bringing back "proper dress" at the theatre, scrapping paid maternity leave, allowing corporal punishment in schools and holding referendums on new places of worship such as mosques.

Other ideas included making the Circle line on the London tube circular again, investigating alleged discrimination against white people at the BBC and teaching schoolchildren more about the role of Arabs and African states in slavery.

Farage's attempt to distance Ukip from its manifesto of four years ago may put him under more scrutiny about what the party stands for in the runup to the May elections.

On Thursday, the usually assured politician floundered on live television as he was asked about the party's proposal to scrap Trident, saying he was not sure where the interviewer had got this suggestion from.

When told it was on the Ukip website, he said: "When it comes to websites, I'm not the expert."

Challenged over a compulsory dress code for taxi drivers, he said: "Do we? News to me."

And asked about a policy to repaint trains in traditional colours, Farage said: "I've never read that. I've no idea what you're talking about."

However, he said it was not "obvious nonsense" that he could cut £90bn of taxes and increase spending by £30bn, even though that would be "ambitious".

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/24/nigel-farage-uk-gun-control-laws-relaxed

Rolling Eyes

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:31 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
nicko wrote:didge,you'v lost this one mate,give it up.

Hey that counter always proves a point, not.

Again why is it lost when my method takes away access to many guns, leaving the army to increase in size to be specialists at any need to cull animals, thus only having one set of people with guns, the army.
My point thus renders any argument for the need to have a gun outside the army redundant!

quite interesting how didge wriggled around to this ending....nonsense of course, childish and naive, and still of the i dont do it so I dont see why you should attitude.
doubly nonsense...can you imagine a pest control unit of the army...21st rat regiment, 2nd rabbit and pigeon brigade ://?roflmao?/: the enemy would ::rfth::
seriously didge also hasnt considered the cost of that it has to be said, bizzare idea.

and the slime of self centered mean mindedness still sticks like a stain....70,000 out of work in areas where other work doesnt exist,

moreover who is going to do the conservation work...(and all other arguments aside its GOT to be done..or we will lose the species involved...there is no "do nothing option")

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:34 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

No didge ..its not even a hypothesis...indeed you clkearly dont know the meaning of the world...Its a childish dummy throwing excercise irrelevant and pathetic as anyone reading will see...you are trying to defend an indefensible stance with emotive rubbish rather than facts....you actually have presented NO relevant facts to counter my argument

No it was a good hypothesis, which you sadly took as a personal slant on your son, of which I never even knew you had a son, so how could it be, it was a hypothesis, which was so good you tried to change the event from happening proving my point very well
and now base your argument upon some fevered flight of immagination of a "hypothetical son" who would in some strange way be able to penetrate the security on my guns...(and THAT would be laughable if it wasnt so ridiculous..steal my keys... ://?roflmao?/: and I assume defeat the rest of the system too...at the risk of the resultant armageddon that would descend upon him??) Let alon have the mind set to do something as impossibly outrageous as that....you would be funny if you wernt so idiotic...

Its called a hypothetical situation where I make the rules over, it is not the personal views of your son, but ones I have invented to show the absurdity of why people argue for the use of guns, but show an event of which could happen and you get your knickers in a twist

exactly something your feverd tiny mind INVENTED...that could NOT happen and wont happen so grow up and stop the reductio ad absurdum....either argue the case or shove it...either way you lose this one...because no one is with you on this....

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:36 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Hey that counter always proves a point, not.

Again why is it lost when my method takes away access to many guns, leaving the army to increase in size to be specialists at any need to cull animals, thus only having one set of people with guns, the army.
My point thus renders any argument for the need to have a gun outside the army redundant!

quite interesting how didge wriggled around to this ending....nonsense of course, childish and naive, and still of the i dont do it so I dont see why you should attitude.
More woeful abuse, excellent proving my points are right and you are resorting to childish antics
doubly nonsense...can you imagine a pest control unit of the army...21st rat regiment, 2nd rabbit and pigeon brigade ://?roflmao?/: the enemy would ::rfth::
seriously didge also hasnt considered the cost of that it has to be said, bizzare idea.
Hilarious, so the army which are already trained in many non military skills like building etc, cannot take up more, because it renders the need for any other people to have access to guns moot.

and the slime of self centered mean mindedness still sticks like a stain....70,000 out of work in areas where other work doesnt exist,
More woeful abuse, as seen some would be utilized to train the army and I would ensure if I was able to do this other jobs for these people, thus again you have no case on that point

moreover who is going to do the conservation work...(and all other arguments aside its GOT to be done..or we will lose the species involved...there is no "do nothing option")

I told you, the army, I love this, I have basically rendered all your arguments moot by simply applying one set of trained people to carry out and take on more work, which also increases the size of the army, giving them more roles. Which of course leaves you clutching at straws dear Victor

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:38 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Its called a hypothetical situation where I make the rules over, it is not the personal views of your son, but ones I have invented to show the absurdity of why people argue for the use of guns, but show an event of which could happen and you get your knickers in a twist

exactly something your feverd tiny mind INVENTED...that could NOT happen and wont happen so grow up and stop the reductio ad absurdum....either argue the case or shove it...either way you lose this one...because no one is with you on this....

More woeful abuse proving me right this is all you can counter with now, the reality is you are getting a spanking here and what is funny the abuse from you is proving how badly you are

:D

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:40 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

quite interesting how didge wriggled around to this ending....nonsense of course, childish and naive, and still of the i dont do it so I dont see why you should attitude.
More woeful abuse, excellent proving my points are right and you are resorting to childish antics
doubly nonsense...can you imagine a pest control unit of the army...21st rat regiment, 2nd rabbit and pigeon brigade ://?roflmao?/: the enemy would ::rfth::
seriously didge also hasnt considered the cost of that it has to be said, bizzare idea.
Hilarious, so the army which are already trained in many non military skills like building etc, cannot take up more, because it renders the need for any other people to have access to guns moot.

and the slime of self centered mean mindedness still sticks like a stain....70,000 out of work in areas where other work doesnt exist,
More woeful abuse, as seen some would be utilized to train the army and I would ensure if I was able to do this other jobs for these people, thus again you have no case on that point

moreover who is going to do the conservation work...(and all other arguments aside its GOT to be done..or we will lose the species involved...there is no "do nothing option")

I told you, the army, I love this, I have basically rendered all your arguments moot by simply applying one set of trained people to carry out and take on more work, which also increases the size of the army, giving them more roles. Which of course leaves you clutching at straws dear Victor

Get a grip idiot....what makes you think folks WANT to join the army...they are having trouble recruiting at this moment....

and where would you "find these jobs???

Its really all about what YOU want...rather than what is lawful and acceptable in society...it is all about "didge in control"

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:45 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

I told you, the army, I love this, I have basically rendered all your arguments moot by simply applying one set of trained people to carry out and take on more work, which also increases the size of the army, giving them more roles. Which of course leaves you clutching at straws dear Victor

Get a grip idiot....what makes you think folks WANT to join the army...they are having trouble recruiting at this moment....
More abuse, well as they want to decrease the army I am saving cuts am I not? Did you not see the debate on this?

and where would you "find these jobs???
Well as jobs are being created all the time and it was me making the decision here I would ensure those giving up the profession were given jobs in the build down to it stopping, so it would take time to ensure they are in job placements but happy with that as the objective is to take away the control and access of guns to society

Its really all about what YOU want...rather than what is lawful and acceptable in society...it is all about "didge in control"

No it is really about carving up your poor arguments and rendering them moot, which was as seen very easily done. Which as seen worked so well, as all you are doing for the main in each post, is posting abuse.
I though think society has no needs to have access to guns, it is not much to ask or morally a bad thing to do, you though want to keep access to guns with absurd reasoning and nothing with any ethnics or decency

by nicko Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:42 pm

sorry didge,the army cannot shoot pigeons with 5.65 ammo, they could only shoot at sitting targets,after the first shot was fired,goodby pigeons. anyway I person in a hide usually does not frighten birds.can you imagine a few hundred soldiers advancing across a field of ripe corn,they'd do more harm than the pigeons. not possible mate.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:42 pm

No didge...my ethics stand way above yours, your morals are concerned ONLY with didge....

still no answer wher you would find all these jobs...70000 of em.
still no answer who is going to pay for it???
I mean, who is going to pay for the army to do all this pest control...which goes on every day of the year except christmas day??

No you are NOT saving cuts..they want to derease it and you would increase it...someone has to pay these folk...and as i say what makes you thing all the keepers, shop owners, hospitality providers etc WANT to join the army?

all you can bring every debate to is "poor old didge is being abused...especially when you are getting hammered..

well what I have posted above is hardly abuse ...except to w warped mind...

you WANT abuse??

I'll give you a mild one...you pixillated prat....will that do??

you cannot defend the moral ground on killing either to eat it or as pest control, that is plain...since taking a stand against someone shooting for the pot lays you open to the charge of hypocrisy, You cannot defend a stand against pest control since your ideas depend soley upon emotive and illogical grounds, you have no solution except some pie in the sky "what it should be like " ideas as you have shown.

so now e come down to the crux....IT IS PURELY YOUR opinion that guns are per se evil, and that normal folk sholdnt be allowed acces, based soley on misleading information, distorted views and little REAL evidence.

I could, but wont on this thread, apply the exact same logic (if you can call it that) to car ownership, and make a case that NO-ONE should be allowed a vehicle of any sort...and YES didge...it IS the same argument...only cars kill far more in this country than guns, and any idiot can get their hands on one....But thats another thread....

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:44 pm

nicko wrote:sorry didge,the army cannot shoot pigeons with 5.65 ammo, they could only shoot at sitting targets,after the first shot was fired,goodby pigeons. anyway I person in a hide usually does not frighten birds.can you imagine a few hundred soldiers advancing across a field of ripe corn,they'd do more harm than the pigeons. not possible mate.

OMG i can just see it....2nd rabbit and pigeon....advance...

would squirrels require fixed bayonets????

and would an RPG be considered sufficient for fox????

by nicko Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:03 pm

grumpy,have you ever been wildfowling on the Wash in the winter.takes a man to do that, agreed?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:08 pm

grumpy old git wrote:No didge...my ethics stand way above yours, your morals are concerned ONLY with didge....
No they are concerned with the soceity as a whole, yours is on 70,000 people when are population is 63 million

still no answer wher you would find all these jobs...70000 of em.
I already did, hilarious
still no answer who is going to pay for it???#
New jobs are created all the time, thus jobs are ear marked over a period of time to introduce this policy, simple really
I mean, who is going to pay for the army to do all this pest control...which goes on every day of the year except christmas day??
The farmers who need the pests removed just like all other people who call in pest control , simple or the Government for bigger problems

No you are NOT saving cuts..they want to derease it and you would increase it...someone has to pay these folk...and as i say what makes you thing all the keepers, shop owners, hospitality providers etc WANT to join the army?
Yes but I am also creating revenue for this as seen, so again your argument is rendered moot

all you can bring every debate to is "poor old didge is being abused...especially when you are getting hammered..
Oh dear more woeful insults, hilarious, more evidence you have lost the plot on the debate

well what I have posted above is hardly abuse ...except to w warped mind...
No childish name calling is abuse accept you think it is acceptable now also when losing a debate, so funny

you WANT abuse??
Threats now, even funnier, you cannot imagine how funny this is for me to watch you so wound up, its priceless, seriously are you going to gum me to death?

I'll give you a mild one...you pixillated prat....will that do??

you cannot defend the moral ground on killing either to eat it or as pest control, that is plain...since taking a stand against someone shooting for the pot lays you open to the charge of hypocrisy, You cannot defend a stand against pest control since your ideas depend soley upon emotive and illogical grounds, you have no solution except some pie in the sky "what it should be like " ideas as you have shown.
Oh yes I can as seen I take what is needed to be done even though I can quite rightly detest the practice, of which many people do, you are again making once again an absurd notion

so now e come down to the crux....IT IS PURELY YOUR opinion that guns are per se evil, and that normal folk sholdnt be allowed acces, based soley on misleading information, distorted views and little REAL evidence.
Hilarious, Guns were invented for once purpose to kill, there is no escaping that fact and I fail to see why we should entertain those who need to get their kicks out of firing such weapons or killing, there is nothing morally right about the need to get a kick out of killing

I could, but wont on this thread, apply the exact same logic (if you can call it that) to car ownership, and make a case that NO-ONE should be allowed a vehicle of any sort...and YES didge...it IS the same argument...only cars kill far more in this country than guns, and any idiot can get their hands on one....But thats another thread....

Car ownership? WTF now we have reached the levels beyond absurdity, to compare where accidents happen to people using guns to kill. It is no similar argument, cars are used as a necessity, guns are not needed as a necessity by the public. Seriously pissed myself laughing at that last point of desperation

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:09 pm

I havnt had the pleasure of that yet nicko, though its on my "bucket list"

BUT i have been half way up a welsh mountain with the snow going sideways "walking up" whatever was daft enough to be out in that....

But yes wild fowling in most conditions is no game for a wuss and the wash in winter, is a lets say, less than welcoming place....

BUT eating the result of success is a great reward :D

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:09 pm

nicko wrote:sorry didge,the army cannot shoot pigeons with 5.65 ammo, they could only shoot at sitting targets,after the first shot was fired,goodby pigeons. anyway I person in a hide usually does not frighten birds.can you imagine a few hundred soldiers advancing across a field of ripe corn,they'd do more harm than the pigeons. not possible mate.

So the army cannot used the same methods you have used yourself Nicko?

Absurd argument

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:10 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
nicko wrote:sorry didge,the army cannot shoot pigeons with 5.65 ammo, they could only shoot at sitting targets,after the first shot was fired,goodby pigeons. anyway I person in a hide usually does not frighten birds.can you imagine a few hundred soldiers advancing across a field of ripe corn,they'd do more harm than the pigeons. not possible mate.

OMG i can just see it....2nd rabbit and pigeon....advance...

would squirrels require fixed bayonets????

and would an RPG be considered sufficient for fox????

And what do hunters do now that army personnel could not?

Hilarious once again an absurd reply based on now getting quite hysterical

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:14 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:No didge...my ethics stand way above yours, your morals are concerned ONLY with didge....
No they are concerned with the soceity as a whole, yours is on 70,000 people when are population is 63 million

still no answer wher you would find all these jobs...70000 of em.
I already did, hilarious
still no answer who is going to pay for it???#
New jobs are created all the time, thus jobs are ear marked over a period of time to introduce this policy, simple really
I mean, who is going to pay for the army to do all this pest control...which goes on every day of the year except christmas day??
The farmers who need the pests removed just like all other people who call in pest control , simple or the Government for bigger problems

No you are NOT saving cuts..they want to derease it and you would increase it...someone has to pay these folk...and as i say what makes you thing all the keepers, shop owners, hospitality providers etc WANT to join the army?
Yes but I am also creating revenue for this as seen, so again your argument is rendered moot

all you can bring every debate to is "poor old didge is being abused...especially when you are getting hammered..
Oh dear more woeful insults, hilarious, more evidence you have lost the plot on the debate

well what I have posted above is hardly abuse ...except to w warped mind...
No childish name calling is abuse accept you think it is acceptable now also when losing a debate, so funny

you WANT abuse??
Threats now, even funnier, you cannot imagine how funny this is for me to watch you so wound up, its priceless, seriously are you going to gum me to death?

I'll give you a mild one...you pixillated prat....will that do??

you cannot defend the moral ground on killing either to eat it or as pest control, that is plain...since taking a stand against someone shooting for the pot lays you open to the charge of hypocrisy, You cannot defend a stand against pest control since your ideas depend soley upon emotive and illogical grounds, you have no solution except some pie in the sky "what it should be like " ideas as you have shown.
Oh yes I can as seen I take what is needed to be done even though I can quite rightly detest the practice, of which many people do, you are again making once again an absurd notion

so now e come down to the crux....IT IS PURELY YOUR opinion that guns are per se evil, and that normal folk sholdnt be allowed acces, based soley on misleading information, distorted views and little REAL evidence.
Hilarious, Guns were invented for once purpose to kill, there is no escaping that fact and I fail to see why we should entertain those who need to get their kicks out of firing such weapons or killing, there is nothing morally right about the need to get a kick out of killing

I could, but wont on this thread, apply the exact same logic (if you can call it that) to car ownership, and make a case that NO-ONE should be allowed a vehicle of any sort...and YES didge...it IS the same argument...only cars kill far more in this country than guns, and any idiot can get their hands on one....But thats another thread....

Car ownership? WTF now we have reached the levels beyond absurdity, to compare where accidents happen to people using guns to kill. It is no similar argument, cars are used as a necessity, guns are not needed as a necessity by the public. Seriously pissed myself laughing at that last point of desperation

as I said ...a different thread didge..but before I start it something to think on .......there are NO accidents with cars...thats why the police now refer to them as RTI (road traffic incident) rather than RTA (road traffic accident)
all incidents are caused by either plain negligence, criminal negligence or homicidal intent (though I guess these are fairly rare). cars are NOT necessary...especially in the suburban areas...plenty of public transport, and the greatest car use is recreational...therefor not necessary....

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:16 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

OMG i can just see it....2nd rabbit and pigeon....advance...

would squirrels require fixed bayonets????

and would an RPG be considered sufficient for fox????

And what do hunters do now that army personnel could not?

Hilarious once again an absurd reply based on now getting quite hysterical

:-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-:

you really are a humourless prat. Lighten up ...oh I get it.....its SERIOUS...cos didge says so......and didge doesnt like being challenged and show up.....

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:16 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Car ownership? WTF now we have reached the levels beyond absurdity, to compare where accidents happen to people using guns to kill. It is no similar argument, cars are used as a necessity, guns are not needed as a necessity by the public. Seriously pissed myself laughing at that last point of desperation

as I said ...a different thread didge..but before I start it something to think on .......there are NO accidents with cars...thats why the police now refer to them as RTI (road traffic incident) rather than RTA (road traffic accident)
all incidents are caused by either plain negligence, criminal negligence or homicidal intent (though I guess these are fairly rare). cars are NOT necessary...especially in the suburban areas...plenty of public transport, and the greatest car use is recreational...therefor not necessary....

Yes but the fact is cars are a necessity dear Victor where as guns are not thus rendering any comparison to cars moot. You have changed the dynamics of the debate to argue now over deaths cause by certain things which also renders your argument of a gun as a necessity needed.
Thus you have reached real desperation here to justify having guns
And yes you can have accidents with cars

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:18 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

And what do hunters do now that army personnel could not?

Hilarious once again an absurd reply based on now getting quite hysterical

:-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-:

you really are a humourless prat. Lighten up ...oh I get it.....its SERIOUS...cos didge says so......and didge doesnt like being challenged and show up.....

Game over it seems when Victor has been rendered to childish insults, love it.

So easy, not even worth the effort with some

:D

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:37 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

as I said ...a different thread didge..but before I start it something to think on .......there are NO accidents with cars...thats why the police now refer to them as RTI (road traffic incident) rather than RTA (road traffic accident)
all incidents are caused by either plain negligence, criminal negligence or homicidal intent (though I guess these are fairly rare). cars are NOT necessary...especially in the suburban areas...plenty of public transport, and the greatest car use is recreational...therefor not necessary....

Yes but the fact is cars are a necessity dear Victor where as guns are not thus rendering any comparison to cars moot. You have changed the dynamics of the debate to argue now over deaths cause by certain things which also renders your argument of a gun as a necessity needed.
Thus you have reached real desperation here to justify having guns
And yes you can have accidents with cars

yes but only if the fall on you whilst changing the tyre..but as i said..a different thread

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:47 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Yes but the fact is cars are a necessity dear Victor where as guns are not thus rendering any comparison to cars moot. You have changed the dynamics of the debate to argue now over deaths cause by certain things which also renders your argument of a gun as a necessity needed.
Thus you have reached real desperation here to justify having guns
And yes you can have accidents with cars

yes but only if the fall on you whilst changing the tyre..but as i said..a different thread

So as seen there are examples of accidents, after you throwing a dummy out claiming otherwise!

Game over and bored now, unless you have something of worth to add

Ciao

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:50 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

:-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-:

you really are a humourless prat. Lighten up ...oh I get it.....its SERIOUS...cos didge says so......and didge doesnt like being challenged and show up.....

Game over it seems when Victor has been rendered to childish insults, love it.

So easy, not even worth the effort with some

:D

so lets see....

didge has some personal distaste of folks humanely killing their own truely free range food so those who do he brands "dickless" and basically alludes to some sort of mental isssue with them" ..and yet didges first counter is generally "you are stereotyping".... I'd call that hypocrisy

didge eats meat that has been factory farmed and commercially slaughtered....thats ok...but cleanly killing free range game isnt.....I'd call that double standards

didge would see 70000 out of work and only has some vague idea of what to do about it, with immaginary "other jobs" in areas where jobs dont exist and HAS STATED that he would GLADLY see these people ruined, out of pure spite and in conjunction with the next would add an even greater burden to the economy with more unemployment.

didge would remove 1.6 billion from the economy...with no suggestion of how to replace it...

didge would gladly see 2 million hectares of carefully managed, biodiverse and ecologically productive land reduced to low diversity "standard "farmland since no one would then manage it.

there are no bodies capable of replacing that

Finally didges ONLY corner of refuge is some insane belief that stopping gun ownership by good honest and upright citizens would somehow reduce or stop gun CRIME.

oh and finally finally....didge hasnt got a sense of humour and totally fails to see when someone is "taking the piss" thereby proving my view of him personally..

didge me old mucker...you must be a right barrel of laughs down the pub..... ://?roflmao?/:

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:50 pm

Honestly guys you are getting so far into the nitty gritty that you are missing the big picture.

Do you want a society where individuals have as much personal freedom as possible so long as they do nothing to harm others

or

Do you want a society that micro controls everything according to whatever the moral code of the moment is?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:51 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

yes but only if the fall on you whilst changing the tyre..but as i said..a different thread

So as seen there are examples of accidents, after you throwing a dummy out claiming otherwise!

Game over and bored now, unless you have something of worth to add

Ciao

Oh god, are you thick ..or what???
thats like claiming the guy who drops his shotgun butt first onto his toe and breaks it has been involved in a "firearms accident"...

OK...I'll make it simple for a simple mind...

There are NO such thing as accidents involving driven vehicles, vehicles parked without handbrakes, etc...I DO NOT include incidents which except for the nature of the item involved (i.e vehicle) would be classified as an accident involving falling objects (unless it was driven over a height), getting ones fingers trapped in various bits whilst working on it, etc etc etc...

jeepers how dense can someone get?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:58 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

So as seen there are examples of accidents, after you throwing a dummy out claiming otherwise!

Game over and bored now, unless you have something of worth to add

Ciao

Oh god, are you thick ..or what???
Another poor insult, game over
thats like claiming the guy who drops his shotgun butt first onto his toe and breaks it has been involved in a "firearms accident"...
You do understand a flat tire can happen and cause an accident, do you understand this dear victor?
OK...I'll make it simple for a simple mind...

There are NO such thing as accidents involving driven vehicles, vehicles parked without handbrakes, etc...I DO NOT include incidents which except for the nature of the item involved (i.e vehicle) would be classified as an accident involving falling objects (unless it was driven over a height), getting ones fingers trapped in various bits whilst working on it, etc etc etc...
As seen there is, as something can burst a tire causing the driver to lose control, that is an accident.

jeepers how dense can someone get?

Again so dense i just showed your views wrong again

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:03 pm

sphinx wrote:Honestly guys you are getting so far into the nitty gritty that you are missing the big picture.

Do you want a society where individuals have as much personal freedom as possible so long as they do nothing to harm others

or

Do you want a society that micro controls everything according to whatever the moral code of the moment is?

well since you ask sphinx I'll go for option 1

didge however repeatedly shows he wants option 2...and therin lies the problem...
to be quite honest i dont give a monkeys hoot about what didge wants...the argument has gone from some sort of moral argument about hunting to the absurdity of having the 1st foot and mouth out pigeon shooting....

never argue with an idiot...he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.....

but some of us dont need to argue that...we have facts....not dreams and vague notions...

Yes folks should have reasonable freedom as long as they harm...OR ARE NOT LIKELY to harm others...as has been said...the hand gun ban achieved NOTHING...gun crime is higher now than before the ban. but in reality gun crime isnt the issue...A good well run well regulated and tight licensing system that vets applicant carefully, keeps an ey on them (as it does at present) is all thats needed. The real level of risk to the public is miniscule.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:07 pm

sphinx wrote:Honestly guys you are getting so far into the nitty gritty that you are missing the big picture.

Do you want a society where individuals have as much personal freedom as possible so long as they do nothing to harm others

or

Do you want a society that micro controls everything according to whatever the moral code of the moment is?

Personal freedom, interesting as how much do we haven sphinx?

Again my argument is on a view point on guns, it is about if there is a need for them, when as seen there really is none, so to now change this to some moral arguments on forms of control is now yet again diverging the debate, as we lose sight if there is a necessity for guns within society, when there is not. If you go by control why have forms of control in laws?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:14 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

Oh god, are you thick ..or what???
Another poor insult, game over
thats like claiming the guy who drops his shotgun butt first onto his toe and breaks it has been involved in a "firearms accident"...
You do understand a flat tire can happen and cause an accident, do you understand this dear victor?
OK...I'll make it simple for a simple mind...

There are NO such thing as accidents involving driven vehicles, vehicles parked without handbrakes, etc...I DO NOT include incidents which except for the nature of the item involved (i.e vehicle) would be classified as an accident involving falling objects (unless it was driven over a height), getting ones fingers trapped in various bits whilst working on it, etc etc etc...
As seen there is, as something can burst a tire causing the driver to lose control, that is an accident.

how many burst tires that cause accidents are there a year, very very few, of those how many of them are due to bad maintennance (negligence) the vast majority.
So called "blow outs" are so rare today they are not even on the radar of causes, modern tires just dont "blow out" and MOST cars these days can cope even at speed with a flat...even on the front wheels. this is a pure blind..insignificant and irrelevant....
Fact vehicles kill 2000 plus every year 20 of which are children, year in year out...and maim, often terribly, thousands more....

FACT....every one of those deaths and maimings is due to negligence. often criminal negligence

fact to get a firearms certificate you have to be approved by the police, your medical records are checked and you are personally interviewed by a firearms officer.
you have to be of good standing, your criminal record has to be clear, even too many speeding tickets can disbar you!!!!! and FINALLY you have to have "good reason"

fact...to get a car license...all you have to do is pass a simple easy and inadequate test....and any idiot can have that license for a one tonne guided missile, which many choose to pilot whilst inebriated, high or in a foul temper. You can have a conviction for murder ..and still have a driving license...

jeepers how dense can someone get?

Again so dense i just showed your views wrong again

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:16 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

s.

Again so dense i just showed your views wrong again

It does not matter if it is a view that rarely happens Victor they happen, thus rendering your point very moot again and even funnier the levels of desperation you go to to try and disprove something you admit happens.
Again also neglecting the other issue over a car being a necessity, where as a gun is not a necessity.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:22 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:Honestly guys you are getting so far into the nitty gritty that you are missing the big picture.

Do you want a society where individuals have as much personal freedom as possible so long as they do nothing to harm others

or

Do you want a society that micro controls everything according to whatever the moral code of the moment is?

Personal freedom, interesting as how much do we haven sphinx?

Again my argument is on a view point on guns, it is about if there is a need for them, when as seen there really is none, so to now change this to some moral arguments on forms of control is now yet again diverging the debate, as we lose sight if there is a necessity for guns within society, when there is not. If you go by control why have forms of control in laws?

So your argument for banning handguns is based on need?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:24 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Personal freedom, interesting as how much do we haven sphinx?

Again my argument is on a view point on guns, it is about if there is a need for them, when as seen there really is none, so to now change this to some moral arguments on forms of control is now yet again diverging the debate, as we lose sight if there is a necessity for guns within society, when there is not. If you go by control why have forms of control in laws?

So your argument for banning handguns is based on need?

No my argument is based on there is no need, I though that was very obvious, again do you think we should have forms of control in society, being as you were earlier such a big advocate of the law?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:27 pm

didge...i hear the sound of scraping at the bottom of the barrel...cant win the argument so lets make it abour you and me eh,,,

the spurious claim you entered into the debate makes no difference...

the rarity of such a happening is so small as to render it "de minimus" for the purpose of the debate...that is to say you are merely splitting hairs..(me I'd rather split a hare...but thats another matter)

such incidents DO NOT detract from the argument that people killed and injured in every day vehicle incidents are killed by negligence, ...there are NO accidents...some one CAUSES them...
I know you dont like it because now we are getting into territory that is comming close to home...I guess that you, like me own a car....Well I'm telling you that unless you live in a rural area...you do not NEED a car..you have public transport a plenty...use it.

YOU, as a driver, are a greater risk to your community, than I am as a gun owner. and YES I can prove it statistically (if you really need it).

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:33 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

So your argument for banning handguns is based on need?

No my argument is based on there is no need, I though that was very obvious, again do you think we should have forms of control in society, being as you were earlier such a big advocate of the law?

there is need for only ONE law in society....Do No Harm......all the rest is commentary

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:33 pm

grumpy old git wrote:didge...i hear the sound of scraping at the bottom of the barrel...cant win the argument so lets make it abour you and me eh,,,
Really, that makes me laugh also, absurd

the spurious claim you entered into the debate makes no difference...
As seen it does, what I am able to do is pick apart absurd claims where people think they have a right to something, based upon false logic

the rarity of such a happening is so small as to render it "de minimus" for the purpose of the debate...that is to say you are merely splitting hairs..(me I'd rather split a hare...but thats another matter)
No the rarity shows that some accidents do happen, it shows the bases of your original claim is left wearing thin without any possibility of making any difference to the main debate

such incidents DO NOT detract from the argument that people killed and injured in every day vehicle incidents are killed by negligence, ...there are NO accidents...some one CAUSES them...
I know you dont like it because now we are getting into territory that is comming close to home...I guess that you, like me own a car....Well I'm telling you that unless you live in a rural area...you do not NEED a car..you have public transport a plenty...use it.
yes but no matter whether cars end up killing more, cars are still a necessity, where as guns are not, which again shows the desperation of you going over something moot to the debate

YOU, as a driver, are a greater risk to your community, than I am as a gun owner. and YES I can prove it statistically (if you really need it).

There maybe far greater risks with driving, but and this is the important part, what alternative do you have to people having the need to use motor vehicles?
Hence if you can find one I will happily back you in your quest to further save lives with road traffic accidents, that though does not mean that is a reason to permit guns does it?

Try again chap, you are fighting a poor argument, but it is most amusing

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:34 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

No my argument is based on there is no need, I though that was very obvious, again do you think we should have forms of control in society, being as you were earlier such a big advocate of the law?

there is need for only ONE law in society....Do No Harm......all the rest is commentary

Yes would that not be lovely, now realism, do people still do harm?

Yes

For how long?

Thousands of years

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:34 pm

As stated..if you live anywhere but rural areas, you have public transport aplenty...use it

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:37 pm

grumpy old git wrote:As stated..if you live anywhere but rural areas, you have public transport aplenty...use it

Excellent, and I back your stance on that.

That though does not back the necessity of guns, it backs the view we need to help prevent injuries from motor vehicles, something I join you with

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:39 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

there is need for only ONE law in society....Do No Harm......all the rest is commentary

Yes would that not be lovely, now realism, do people still do harm?

Yes

For how long?

Thousands of years

of course, but therein lies the problem...you see even with the burdensome level of control imposed on us all, even with the pointless accumulation of law over the centuries....nothing has changed...laws...as such... only work as a "sticking plaster" and make money for lawyers....Now. if you could find a way to get folks interested in the golden rule...do no harm.... then we would get somewhere and there would be no need for the crazy system we have...agreed it aint going to happen...but more and more control isnt the answer either

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:41 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

So your argument for banning handguns is based on need?

No my argument is based on there is no need, I though that was very obvious, again do you think we should have forms of control in society, being as you were earlier such a big advocate of the law?

So you are saying that if there is no need for something and it can be used to cause deliberate harm or accidental harm then it is acceptable to ban it?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:44 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

No my argument is based on there is no need, I though that was very obvious, again do you think we should have forms of control in society, being as you were earlier such a big advocate of the law?

So you are saying that if there is no need for something and it can be used to cause deliberate harm or accidental harm then it is acceptable to ban it?

I am saying there is no need for guns in society and have proved there is no need for them, you have to prove there is a necessity other than the armed services having them, of which you cannot!

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:46 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Yes would that not be lovely, now realism, do people still do harm?

Yes

For how long?

Thousands of years

of course, but therein lies the problem...you see even with the burdensome level of control imposed on us all, even with the pointless accumulation of law over the centuries....nothing has changed...laws...as such... only work as a "sticking plaster" and make money for lawyers....Now. if you could find a way to get folks interested in the golden rule...do no harm.... then we would get somewhere and there would be no need for the crazy system we have...agreed it aint going to happen...but more and more control isnt the answer either

Hilarious, so now your arguments is upon laws, so should we have no laws or some laws Victor?

Until humans evolve where they have no need to murder, then there will always be a need for control of guns

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:47 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:As stated..if you live anywhere but rural areas, you have public transport aplenty...use it

Excellent, and I back your stance on that.

That though does not back the necessity of guns, it backs the view we need to help prevent injuries from motor vehicles, something I join you with

it makes the point that relative risk is the important thing, It is clear that you simply dont like guns and you are anti hunting (hypocrite Razz

) however
you would admit that even if I lived in your street, the risk to YOU from a vehicle accident is vastly greater (by a massive degree) than the risk to you caused by my possession of a gun?
AND there is also the fact that by owning that gun, i HAVE to be very careful in EVERYTHING i do...even my driving is perforce better than average, because I am more than normally aware of the issues. I have to be unusually peaceable...I cant afford to be arrested for affray, or indeed be involved in anything that might be deemed arrestable, or even considered aggressive...

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:49 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Excellent, and I back your stance on that.

That though does not back the necessity of guns, it backs the view we need to help prevent injuries from motor vehicles, something I join you with

it makes the point that relative risk is the important thing, It is clear that you simply dont like guns and you are anti hunting (hypocrite ) however
you would admit that even if I lived in your street, the risk to YOU from a vehicle accident is vastly greater (by a massive degree) than the risk to you caused by my possession of a gun?
AND there is also the fact that by owning that gun, i HAVE to be very careful in EVERYTHING i do...even my driving is perforce better than average, because I am more than normally aware of the issues. I have to be unusually peaceable...I cant afford to be arrested for affray, or indeed be involved in anything that might be deemed arrestable, or even considered aggressive...

But the fact is as seen there is no necessity to have a gun Victor, where as a car is still needed, now if you can show a way where there is no need to have cars I back you as any prevention of injuries and death is always the better option, but you have not show a way where it renders cars not a necessity!
Even if you do I would then back your view to help prevent such injuries

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:49 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

So you are saying that if there is no need for something and it can be used to cause deliberate harm or accidental harm then it is acceptable to ban it?

I am saying there is no need for guns in society and have proved there is no need for them, you have to prove there is a necessity other than the armed services having them, of which you cannot!

Do you apply that argument to everything or just to guns?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:50 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

I am saying there is no need for guns in society and have proved there is no need for them, you have to prove there is a necessity other than the armed services having them, of which you cannot!

Do you apply that argument to everything or just to guns?

Is that a counter?
Seriously, ball is in your court prove a need for a necessity of need of the gun within society, then you have a case

by Ben Reilly Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:51 pm

sphinx wrote:Honestly guys you are getting so far into the nitty gritty that you are missing the big picture.

Do you want a society where individuals have as much personal freedom as possible so long as they do nothing to harm others

or

Do you want a society that micro controls everything according to whatever the moral code of the moment is?

Really, the question is -- do you want to be like the U.K., where every year there's one gun-related death per 400,000 people?

Or do you want to be like the U.S., where every year there's one gun-related death per 10,000 people?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:53 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Do you apply that argument to everything or just to guns?

Is that a counter?
Seriously, ball is in your court prove a need for a necessity of need of the gun within society, then you have a case

No I am accepting your argument that there is no need for people to have handguns.

I am challenging your assertion that because there is no need for them it is acceptable to ban them.

So do you apply the argument of need to everything or just to guns?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:53 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:Honestly guys you are getting so far into the nitty gritty that you are missing the big picture.

Do you want a society where individuals have as much personal freedom as possible so long as they do nothing to harm others

or

Do you want a society that micro controls everything according to whatever the moral code of the moment is?

Really, the question is -- do you want to be like the U.K., where every year there's one gun-related death per 400,000 people?

Or do you want to be like the U.S., where every year there's one gun-related death per 10,000 people?

That is what you call check mate Ben, excellent!

See you all tomorrow

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:54 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:Honestly guys you are getting so far into the nitty gritty that you are missing the big picture.

Do you want a society where individuals have as much personal freedom as possible so long as they do nothing to harm others

or

Do you want a society that micro controls everything according to whatever the moral code of the moment is?

Really, the question is -- do you want to be like the U.K., where every year there's one gun-related death per 400,000 people?

Or do you want to be like the U.S., where every year there's one gun-related death per 10,000 people?

What was the gun related death rate in the UK before hand guns were banned?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:55 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Really, the question is -- do you want to be like the U.K., where every year there's one gun-related death per 400,000 people?

Or do you want to be like the U.S., where every year there's one gun-related death per 10,000 people?

That is what you call check mate Ben, excellent!

See you all tomorrow

Its not even close - but if my questions are making you uncomfortable then by all means run.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:55 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

of course, but therein lies the problem...you see even with the burdensome level of control imposed on us all, even with the pointless accumulation of law over the centuries....nothing has changed...laws...as such... only work as a "sticking plaster" and make money for lawyers....Now. if you could find a way to get folks interested in the golden rule...do no harm.... then we would get somewhere and there would be no need for the crazy system we have...agreed it aint going to happen...but more and more control isnt the answer either

Hilarious, so now your arguments is upon laws, so should we have no laws or some laws Victor?

Until humans evolve where they have no need to murder, then there will always be a need for control of guns

No. I'm in favour of "reasonable controls" naturally, as I think we agreed, the golden rule didnt work, but neither does making control draconian...thats been tried and failed too often.
NOW...do I think the present controls on guns are adequate....yes indeed they are, PROVIDED the police do their job (which it has to be said most forces do)
could they be relaxed to permit those with "good reason" to own hand guns, yes I think they could...PROVIDED that the vetting process was strict enough and properly enforced.

Is there a risk to the public from LEGITIMATE gun owners...maybe, but its so small as to be negligible at the side of other risks,
Thats all the argument is really...

I have no problem with adequate and proper control
I do have a problem with dictatorial "ban everything mentalities"
adequate control does not equate to banning.

by Sponsored content