Nigel Farage calls for UK gun laws to be relaxed

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Right we have ways to deal with pest control do we not?

If nobody is going to teach them they import experts to teach, who then we have qualified men of the army make this a profession

Yes didge we do have ways to deal with pest control (that dont require the army)

What I am trying to find out is what exactly you think the experts are going to teach the army to do using what equipment when you have banned shotguns and rifles.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Hon if debates are won or lost sphinx won this one long ago when you started declaring just about everything to be illegal only with exceptions.

I am now continuing for the amusement factor and to try and see exactly how far you are going to go in your attempt to show that your views on guns are balanced and logical.

Guns are illegal except with exceptions, you were shown clearly to be wrong and yet still think you are right, you need a licence for a gun, without one they are illegal, does this point escape you hun?
So is a gun legal without a Licence?
Take your time

You are continuing for my amusement, as seen i rendered your arguments moot, ifr the army can replace the need for guns in society, you have no need for any  

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Guns are illegal except with exceptions, you were shown clearly to be wrong and yet still think you are right, you need a licence for a gun, without one they are illegal, does this point escape you hun?
So is a gun legal without a Licence?
Take your time

You are continuing for my amusement, as seen i rendered your arguments moot, ifr the army can replace the need for guns in society, you have no need for any  

Nope I debated from the point of you of agreeing that guns were illegal.  

Now would you like to explain how the army is going to replace the need (which you have said does not exist) for guns in society.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Nope I debated from the point of you of agreeing that guns were illegal.  

Now would you like to explain how the army is going to replace the need (which you have said does not exist) for guns in society.

As stated already, the army can take on any role, I fail to see what you do not understand about that, maybe you can explain why they cannot?
You agreed there is no necessity for guns in society.
I hold all the aces here Sphinx, this is why it is great fun

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

As stated already, the army can take on any role, I fail to see what you do not understand about that, maybe you can explain why they cannot?
You agreed there is no necessity for guns in society.
I hold all the aces here Sphinx, this is why it is great fun

What I do not see is what equipment the army are going to use in a pest control role.  Or are they going to do it with their bare hands.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

What I do not see is what equipment the army are going to use in a pest control role.  Or are they going to do it with their bare hands.

Well as the army are the only ones with access to guns, which I already stated, what do you think.
I mean they already have experts in snipers, and many men are trained to be excellent shots, what better group of people to use.
Maybe you actually have a point to raise next time, as explain why they could not do this role or be trained to do so?

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Well as the army are the only ones with access to guns, which I already stated, what do you think.
I mean they already have experts in snipers, and many men are trained to be excellent shots, what better group of people to use.
Maybe you actually have a point to raise next time, as explain why they could not do this role or be trained to do so?

Well actually a couple of points.

Firstly a minor one - the guns used by the army are not suitable for pest control because of accuracy and ammunition type and the way they are used is totally different as well
Argument moot, these can be obtained and used the same as being used now

However that is like I said a minor point.

Now the major point.

You have stated there is no need for guns in society.  If there is no need for guns in society then there would be no need of the army with their guns either.  If farmers and landowners are going to need the army to come in and do pest control with guns then the fact is that they need guns. This is proven as true by considering whether they could manage without the army if they had guns themselves against whether ]they could manage without gun if they had the army without guns.
What a load of gobbledygook, seriously that had no logic to it what so ever, you just made it up and tried to fit something. The army still needs to guns to defend our nation and to help combat any issue's within the world, they train in the main in the UK and can be used to also deal with pest control. The army can perform a role the farmers once did, thus making the need of farmers having guns redundant

The fact is the difference is the presence or absence of guns.
The difference is we only need the army to have guns

However you are going to come up with half a dozen reasons why it means something different so I will ask you this.
No just one, your argument and claim was gibberish

How are people going to manage the extra costs involved in having the army do their pest control for them.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Well actually a couple of points.

Firstly a minor one - the guns used by the army are not suitable for pest control because of accuracy and ammunition type and the way they are used is totally different as well
Argument moot, these can be obtained and used the same as being used now

However that is like I said a minor point.

Now the major point.

You have stated there is no need for guns in society.  If there is no need for guns in society then there would be no need of the army with their guns either.  If farmers and landowners are going to need the army to come in and do pest control with guns then the fact is that they need guns. This is proven as true by considering whether they could manage without the army if they had guns themselves against whether ]they could manage without gun if they had the army without guns.
What a load of gobbledygook, seriously that had no logic to it what so ever, you just made it up and tried to fit something. The army still needs to guns to defend our nation and to help combat any issue's within the world, they train in the main in the UK and can be used to also deal with pest control. The army can perform a role the farmers once did, thus making the need of farmers having guns redundant

The fact is the difference is the presence or absence of guns.
The difference is we only need the army to have guns

However you are going to come up with half a dozen reasons why it means something different so I will ask you this.
No just one, your argument and claim was gibberish

How are people going to manage the extra costs involved in having the army do their pest control for them.

Well something that can be worked out, the army is already paid to perform a role, am sure this can be resolved some way and with minimum costs to the farmers

So again you have no case

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Well something that can be worked out, the army is already paid to perform a role, am sure this can be resolved some way and with minimum costs to the farmers

So again you have no case

Yes we need the army for defence of the country etc - which requires guns - guns with a particular function, ammunition type and use.

These guns would be of no use whatsoever in pest control.
Really do you know what guns the army uses, as i do, what guns do they need?
Do you really wanna go down this road, you are going to come unstuck again?  

Yes the army can easily be trained in the type of guns necessary for pest control - if that training is paid for.  Yes they can then do the function - if a whole new lot of equipment is bought for them, and transport paid etc etc.
Who is to say much of this equipment is not already in use?
Or the fact the army is very good at adapting weapons to roles, did you understand this ?

So to take one soldier to perform pest control function for one farmer/landowner you need to pay someone to teach the soldier, pay for the pest control weapon for him, pay for the pest control ammunition, pay for his transport to and from the area control is needed on at the frequency necessary (remembering that transportation of weapons has its own rules), plus all insurances etc.  That is besides the wages.
The army already has experts as seen and thus already pays people to learn pest control. All the other things you state are very minor and can be accommodated, they are not reasons to stop my suggestion

Now tell me about how the army are going to replace vets.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Yes we need the army for defence of the country etc - which requires guns - guns with a particular function, ammunition type and use.

These guns would be of no use whatsoever in pest control.
Really do you know what guns the army uses, as i do, what guns do they need?
Do you really wanna go down this road, you are going to come unstuck again?  

Yes the army can easily be trained in the type of guns necessary for pest control - if that training is paid for.  Yes they can then do the function - if a whole new lot of equipment is bought for them, and transport paid etc etc.
Who is to say much of this equipment is not already in use?
Or the fact the army is very good at adapting weapons to roles, did you understand this ?

So to take one soldier to perform pest control function for one farmer/landowner you need to pay someone to teach the soldier, pay for the pest control weapon for him, pay for the pest control ammunition, pay for his transport to and from the area control is needed on at the frequency necessary (remembering that transportation of weapons has its own rules), plus all insurances etc.  That is besides the wages.
The army already has experts as seen and thus already pays people to learn pest control. All the other things you state are very minor and can be accommodated, they are not reasons to stop my suggestion

Now tell me about how the army are going to replace vets.

Replace?

No need

http://www.army.mod.uk/medical-services/veterinary.aspx

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Replace?

No need

http://www.army.mod.uk/medical-services/veterinary.aspx

Regards pest control - the armies standard weapon the SA80 (which is being replaced but for one of similar function) would not be of use in pest control - the calibre ammunition and its effect on accuracy would make it inappropriate for shooting crows for example.  
No problem with the removal of guns from society, there will be plenty to be used for the army. Again that does not mean either the army cannot adapt other weapons
Yes the army does have an extensive range of weapons - some of which may be adapted for some forms of pest control - however they do not have the necessary numbers of the ones that could be adapted to instantly provide enough soldiers to cover the pest control needs - they would have to buy extra weapons.
Just been resolved all the ones being taken off people from farmers, to game keepers, there is plenty to hand over to the army  

Now vets.  Yes the army has vets.  It does not have enough vets to provide one for each civilian vet.  Civilian vets on occasions have to shoot animals.  There are both species and occasions where the best or sometimes only option for humane destruction is to shoot.  So how are we going to cover this if the army are the only ones with guns?

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Regards pest control - the armies standard weapon the SA80 (which is being replaced but for one of similar function) would not be of use in pest control - the calibre ammunition and its effect on accuracy would make it inappropriate for shooting crows for example.  
No problem with the removal of guns from society, there will be plenty to be used for the army. Again that does not mean either the army cannot adapt other weapons
Yes the army does have an extensive range of weapons - some of which may be adapted for some forms of pest control - however they do not have the necessary numbers of the ones that could be adapted to instantly provide enough soldiers to cover the pest control needs - they would have to buy extra weapons.
Just been resolved all the ones being taken off people from farmers, to game keepers, there is plenty to hand over to the army  

Now vets.  Yes the army has vets.  It does not have enough vets to provide one for each civilian vet.  Civilian vets on occasions have to shoot animals.  There are both species and occasions where the best or sometimes only option for humane destruction is to shoot.  So how are we going to cover this if the army are the only ones with guns?

A minor issue as already stated and who said anything about removing the vets in place already, who can also be employed in conjunction with the army
Sorry but do you have anything to offer that cannot be done by the army?

No

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:
A minor issue as already stated and who said anything about removing the vets in place already, who can also be employed in conjunction with the army
Sorry but do you have anything to offer that cannot be done by the army?

No

So all non army weapons are going to taken off their legal owners without financial compensation and given to the army?

And all vets will henceforth be employed by the army?

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So all non army weapons are going to taken off their legal owners without financial compensation and given to the army?

And all vets will henceforth be employed by the army?

Never said all vets need to be employed by the army, your position is on only a need to put down an animal by shooting them, again I have covered this, hilarious

Second, yes compensation can be given for the guns, a small price to pay in the long term future of removing guns from society

PhilDidge wrote:Also is the only method to put down animals by shooting with vets?

No

Thus again you are clutching at straws

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Also is the only method to put down animals by shooting with vets?

No

Thus again you are clutching at straws

No I am not I assure you.
You are and it is hilarious

With large farm animals, and wild animals there are frequent occasions where the best option for the animal is shooting - and sometimes it is the only option.

For example a horse needs to be put down it is simpler and safer to use shooting than drugs - with substantial arguments as to it being more humane for the horse as well.  

Or you have a wild deer with a broken leg - it still can and will outrun any human for hours and I for one do not want to ponder on the suffering of that time.  

So how are these situations going to managed?

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No I am not I assure you.
You are and it is hilarious

With large farm animals, and wild animals there are frequent occasions where the best option for the animal is shooting - and sometimes it is the only option.

For example a horse needs to be put down it is simpler and safer to use shooting than drugs - with substantial arguments as to it being more humane for the horse as well.  

Or you have a wild deer with a broken leg - it still can and will outrun any human for hours and I for one do not want to ponder on the suffering of that time.  

So how are these situations going to managed?

So sometimes?

 ://?roflmao?/: 

So again can the army be used to do this or army Vets?

Yes

Either way your argument rendered moot once again, there is nothing you can come up with which cannot be done or solved. I also find it ironic that you care over suffering whist being an advocate of exterminating animals

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

So sometimes?

 ://?roflmao?/: 

So again can the army be used to do this or army Vets?

Yes

Either way your argument rendered moot once again, there is nothing you can come up with which cannot be done or solved. I also find it ironic that you care over suffering whist being an advocate of exterminating animals

It would have to be army vets - humane destruction is a skill that ordinary soldiers should not have to learn and most would object to learning.
Really, they are trained to kill, this would not be a problem at all, that is absurd, in fact in combat often soldiers have had to put animals down, did you know this?  Sorry one thing I do know very well is military history

Now how are you going to make sure that there is an army vet on scene of need within minimal time, and what about the work the army vets are already doing full time.
Just like when any Vet is called out, sorry if your argument is over how long the animal is going to be in pain again is rather moot, sorry a minor issue again

Edit - what is ironic about it?  Everything dies.  Is it preferable for death to be fast and painless or long drawn out and painful?

ALLAKAKA wrote:
Seems that some are advocating putting the Army on the streets under the Guise of pest control.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

As stated already, the army can take on any role, I fail to see what you do not understand about that, maybe you can explain why they cannot?
You agreed there is no necessity for guns in society.
I hold all the aces here Sphinx, this is why it is great fun

What I do not see is what equipment the army are going to use in a pest control role.  Or are they going to do it with their bare hands.

PhilDidge wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:
Seems that some are advocating putting the Army on the streets under the Guise of pest control.

Really?

Please show where anyone is advocating that?

Nobody has


Run along, adults are debating here  

sphinx wrote:Yes soldiers are trained to kill - people.  Yes they will kill an animal obviously suffering if there is no-one trained in humane destruction around - however they would much rather have a vet doing it, and many find it far more distressing than fighting other humans.  It is not about history it is about the very real highly trained intelligent people doing their jobs within their own areas of expertise - something you seem oblivious to as you think it is just about killing things.
they can be trained, argument rendered moot

What do you mean just like when any ordinary vet is called out?  An ordinary vet is called out to decide whether an animal can be healed or needs euthanasia.  Response times are equivalent to those of human GP or ambulance in declared emergency.
Well new measures can be put into place where the army is in cooperation with civilian vets, easy to overcome, thus this point also rendered moot  

So vet has come out vet has decided animal needs euthanasia - under the present system vet gets gun (often described as humane killer) and destroys suffering animal.  Your system seems to require the vet instead having to call an army vet - wait for army vet..... which could be hours - the army vet is highly unlikely to be nice and close and if army vets are having to take over all humane destruction requiring shooting each army vet is going to have to be covering a huge area with many civilian vets calling on them - and in the meantime they are still going to be responsible for their current army duties which take up their whole time at the moment.
No my system has them working together, simple, again rendering your point moot

Not sure why you think how long an animal suffers is a minor point.
In the great scheme of removing guns from society it is

As for challenging your concept - I have as much chance of doing that as I doing challenging a flat earthers concept that the earth is flat.  I am simply enjoying exploring your concept the same way I would enjoy exploring the concept of a flat earth from someone who truly believed it.

Now lets try slaughtermen.

ALLAKAKA wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Really?

Please show where anyone is advocating that?

Nobody has


Run along, adults are debating here  

If you class yourself as an adult , then we are ALL DOOMED.

sphinx wrote:Ok what are these measures that can be put into place to make sure there is an army vet on hand in a reasonable amount of time where ever there is a need for humane destruction without causing their current duties to suffer.  Please describe how this would work rather than just stating that it would work.

Then move on to what we do about slaughter (wo)men - who also regularly and frequently use guns in the killing of large animals.

PhilDidge wrote:Right will be back later, let me know if you can come up with something sensible sphinx that would render the need in society of guns, as yet you have failed to do so!

laters

sphinx wrote:
Well actually a couple of points.

Firstly a minor one - the guns used by the army are not suitable for pest control because of accuracy and ammunition type and the way they are used is totally different as well
..................................................................................
..................................................................................

Yes we need the army for defence of the country etc - which requires guns - guns with a particular function, ammunition type and use.

These guns would be of no use whatsoever in pest control.

Yes the army can easily be trained in the type of guns necessary for pest control - if that training is paid for.  Yes they can then do the function - if a whole new lot of equipment is bought for them, and transport paid etc etc.
.................................

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Right will be back later, let me know if you can come up with something sensible sphinx that would render the need in society of guns, as yet you have failed to do so!

laters

Oh we are on the need in society are we?  I thought we were on how we ensure needs were met by the army so nobody outside the army had a gun.

Guns are needed for pest control - crows, pigeons, foxes, squirrels etc.
As stated before the army will use guns already being used or adapt guns being used
Guns are needed for humane animal destruction - vets, inspectors, and slaughter workers
Already stated, there is the army and army vets, that work with civilian vets

Guns are needed for protection of the public - zoos, safari parks, police
PMSL, WTF, that is desperate now, in this country? Absurd, even if that is the case Zoos are barbaric, I would close them down

So that is where there is a need for guns.  Do you wish to argue with those?
Just did and it was a piece of piss

Also are we considering soldiers to be part of society or are they separate from society.  If they are part of society then we can add the need for defence.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:Ok what are these measures that can be put into place to make sure there is an army vet on hand in a reasonable amount of time where ever there is a need for humane destruction without causing their current duties to suffer.  Please describe how this would work rather than just stating that it would work.

Then move on to what we do about slaughter (wo)men - who also regularly and frequently use guns in the killing of large animals.

Hilarious, so we change methods for some of the slaughterhouses to what is being done in others, point rendered moot again.

So funny

As to vets, I am sure a plan can be devised to have them work at a method to deal with the issue of needing to put down animals of which this is only necessary for large animals of which how much of a calling is there for this? Again clutching at straws hun

There is nothing you can come up with that I cannot counter here, so amusing, to watch you get so desperate

 :D   

PhilDidge wrote:Seriously am bored at your desperation Sphinx

Bye for now

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Oh we are on the need in society are we?  I thought we were on how we ensure needs were met by the army so nobody outside the army had a gun.

Guns are needed for pest control - crows, pigeons, foxes, squirrels etc.
As stated before the army will use guns already being used or adapt guns being used
Guns are needed for humane animal destruction - vets, inspectors, and slaughter workers
Already stated, there is the army and army vets, that work with civilian vets

Guns are needed for protection of the public - zoos, safari parks, police
PMSL, WTF, that is desperate now, in this country? Absurd, even if that is the case Zoos are barbaric, I would close them down

So that is where there is a need for guns.  Do you wish to argue with those?
Just did and it was a piece of piss

Also are we considering soldiers to be part of society or are they separate from society.  If they are part of society then we can add the need for defence.

You are going back to points already answered now

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Hilarious, so we change methods for some of the slaughterhouses to what is being done in others, point rendered moot again.

So funny

As to vets, I am sure a plan can be devised to have them work at a method to deal with the issue of needing to put down animals of which this is only necessary for large animals of which how much of a calling is there for this? Again clutching at straws hun

There is nothing you can come up with that I cannot counter here, so amusing, to watch you get so desperate

 :D   

Uh what other methods? - Halal?
No what other methiods do we use, take your time and these are bolt guns are they not, thus you really are scraping the barrel here

Our law requires animals to be stunned - which requires a gun.  Even animals that are bled have to be stunned first.
 ://?roflmao?/: Stunned yes that is right, do you want to think about that one again?

How much of a calling is there for large animal destruction?  It will depend on the practice - a small animal vet in London will probably not do any large animal euthanasia whereas a country vet will see several a week.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


You are going back to points already answered now

Yes we are.
I thought you had agreed with the areas of need but as you asked again I thought I would just check.
So we are agreed there are areas where society needs guns.


The debate is now about how those needs are going to met with you proposing that all need will be met by the army.

Which you have not answered whether you consider to be part of society or not.

sphinx wrote:OK so  captive bolt gun is not a gun

And the army are not part of society because society does not need guns because anywhere there is a need for guns it can be fulfilled by the army.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:OK so  captive bolt gun is not a gun

And the army are not part of society because society does not need guns because anywhere there is a need for guns it can be fulfilled by the army.

To be honest Sphinx, you and Victor, well more Victor with his potty mouth led yourselves into this, as there is always ways to counter the need for something.

If I am being honest I have never had an issue with people having guns for sport, the point was more to demonstrate that there is no requirement for them. I will though sometimes play devil's advocate, especially when Victor is trying to be cocky!

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


To be honest Sphinx, you and Victor, well more Victor with his potty mouth led yourselves into this, as there is always ways to counter the need for something.

If I am being honest I have never had an issue with people having guns for sport, the point was more to demonstrate that there is no requirement for them. I will though sometimes play devil's advocate, especially when Victor is trying to be cocky!

Firstly I agreed with you pages ago that there is no need for sporting use of guns.

Secondly are you saying there is no need for pest control and humane destruction of large animals.  I am not asking you who could do it am asking if there is a need for someone to do it.