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 Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:39 pm

grumpy old git wrote:all this from a nasty little extremist, no better than another on here....

Grow up the wally, you got a lesson, learn to have some dignity and move on, stop throwing your dummy out

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:47 pm

and what are you going to do about 70,000 jobs...in areas where there are none??

what are you going to do about 2 million hectares of highly productive habitat, which will no longer be managed
(and will thus collapse into a low grade habitat)

what are you going to do about 1.6 billion pounds lost (and then the added cost of 70,000 jobless)

and what are you going to do to offset the rise in food prices your barmy ideas will create?

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:48 pm

grumpy old git wrote:and what are you going to do about 70,000 jobs...in areas where there are none??

what are you going to do about 2 million hectares of highly productive habitat, which will no longer be managed
(and will thus collapse into a low grade habitat)

what are you going to do about 1.6 billion pounds lost (and then the added cost of 70,000 jobless)

and what are you going to do to offset the rise in food prices your barmy ideas will create?

I suggest you read back, already been here, done it and painted the picture.

Like I said grow up, you are too worked up over absolutely nothing, Jesus some of lefties really need to chill out!

Did you miss the part where I said i was playing devil's advocate by any chance?

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:21 pm

now come the excuses...devils advocate indeed...if he was up on a charge he'd need some one better than you to defend him...you still dont get the LEGAL difference between OWN and POSSESS do you....
let me explain that trap that made you look a tit...

It is perfectly legal to own a gun without a licence (that is to say to have the "title" to it and the right to the proceeds of any sale)
However it IS illegal to POSESS a gun, (that is to say to have physical access to it and the use of it) without a licence...
A huge difference of definition and meaning of words....you aint so smart after all

EASY :/pwn://:

moreover you argument on the basis of lack of need is vacuous and flawed,

you cannot argue that lack of need is a reasonable basis for banning something, otherwise you follow the path of totalitarianism,

bikes on main roads are not "needed"
certainly bike road races are not "needed"
alcohol is not "needed"...nor are pubs clubs etc
pop music is not "needed" indeed NO music is needed..or even by necessity desirable
fast food is not needed
motorways are not "necessary" or needed
you could make a list a mile long

I'm glad you surrendered the ethical argument about hunting so quickly, you were getting into deep water there.

finally you actually didnt cover any of the points in any convincing manner

a vaugue and unspecific claim of "providing jobs" what jobs ...where? remember these are rural areas with little employment

You ceratinly didnt cover the loss of 2 million hectares of habitat, merely muttered something about it shouldnt need it if humans handnt interfered...thats NO argument...man HAS interfered so man has to manage it or loose it...

and you certainly have not shown how you would deal with the associated costs, food price increases and so on.

I didnt see anywhere where you stated you were playing devils advocate, and until you actually show it me, I am more inclined to take my view that you are rather nasty, and would be quite prepared to sacrifice all those folks livelyhoods and all the rest on the pillar of your own egotistical, misinformed, and selfrighteous "personal opinion"

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:24 pm

Hilarious and clearly wound up.

What is funny is your desperation to be right when as see you are not, amusing mind, and showing very much how you act like a child.

http://content.met.police.uk/Site/firearmslicensing

Priceless

Again I suggest you grow up and get over it, as stated it was easy to show a view to not have guns in society. You now want to go over the same old ground because you got schooled in a debate, what a sore loser

:D

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:25 pm

and...btw.....before you make yourself an even bigger tit....

::slap:: ::slap:: ::slap:: I AINT A LEFTY ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

got it??

nor am i infected with "liberalism"

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:27 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Hilarious and clearly wound up.

What is funny is your desperation to be right when as see you are not, amusing mind, and showing very much how you act like a child.

http://content.met.police.uk/Site/firearmslicensing

Priceless

Again I suggest you grow up and get over it, as stated it was easy to show a view to not have guns in society. You now want to go over the same old ground because you got schooled in a debate, what a sore loser

:D

just cos you say so eh??

I notice NO answer to the above points which you failed to answer properly earlier...just more didge twitches...

and the point of that link...there is nothing on there that says any different to what I have said....

trust me on this didge...you DO NOT KNOW anything about firearms and the law....I do....been there got the TEE shirt and acted as advocate on a number of occaisions....(sucessfully i might add)

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:27 pm

Oh my such amusement,

:D

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:29 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:Hilarious and clearly wound up.

What is funny is your desperation to be right when as see you are not, amusing mind, and showing very much how you act like a child.

http://content.met.police.uk/Site/firearmslicensing

Priceless

Again I suggest you grow up and get over it, as stated it was easy to show a view to not have guns in society. You now want to go over the same old ground because you got schooled in a debate, what a sore loser

:D

just cos you say so eh??

I notice NO answer to the above points which you failed to answer properly earlier...just more didge twitches...

They were already answered you are just like a boxer on the ropes not knowing you are beat, but hey who am happy to just keep laughing at a child clearly wound up.
Even Sphinx got my reasons and my point, funny that you are still spitting dummies, so much nobody can move on the forum for them

:D

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:33 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

just cos you say so eh??

I notice NO answer to the above points which you failed to answer properly earlier...just more didge twitches...

They were already answered you are just like a boxer on the ropes not knowing you are beat, but hey who am happy to just keep laughing at a child clearly wound up.
Even Sphinx got my reasons and my point, funny that you are still spitting dummies, so much nobody can move on the forum for them

:D

so humour me then what will yo do about 70,000 jobs?? because above you HAD NO concrete proposals...just vague "posibilities"

nowhere above have you actually made proposals to deal with the habitat issue...(or are you confusing that with mere pest control) who is going to spend the 250 million input by shooters to up grade the habita the use...like replanting, woodland maintennance...who is going to spend hours upon hours doing that work...the army ???? dont make me laugh

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:40 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

They were already answered you are just like a boxer on the ropes not knowing you are beat, but hey who am happy to just keep laughing at a child clearly wound up.
Even Sphinx got my reasons and my point, funny that you are still spitting dummies, so much nobody can move on the forum for them

:D

so humour me then what will yo do about 70,000 jobs?? because above you HAD NO concrete proposals...just vague "posibilities"
Read back already answered

nowhere above have you actually made proposals to deal with the habitat issue...(or are you confusing that with mere pest control) who is going to spend the 250 million input by shooters to up grade the habita the use...like replanting, woodland maintennance...who is going to spend hours upon hours doing that work...the army ???? dont make me laugh

://?roflmao?/:

Does any of the above require the use of Guns to do highlighted?
If those roles are needed already who is paying for them now, the gun industry?
Don't make me laugh, are there now also no organisations that put money into this?

Seriously you really are making me PMSL

:D

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:46 pm

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4251

See you later grumpy

:D

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:54 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

so humour me then what will yo do about 70,000 jobs?? because above you HAD NO concrete proposals...just vague "posibilities"
Read back already answered

nowhere above have you actually made proposals to deal with the habitat issue...(or are you confusing that with mere pest control) who is going to spend the 250 million input by shooters to up grade the habita the use...like replanting, woodland maintennance...who is going to spend hours upon hours doing that work...the army ???? dont make me laugh

://?roflmao?/:

Does any of the above require the use of Guns to do highlighted?

well yes...those jobs depend on the shooting industry.... game keepers, hospitality, which in turn use local suppliers, etc etc etc

If those roles are needed already who is paying for them now, the gun industry?

indirectly, since it is the people who shoot or own shoots that pay, one way or another not the gun manufacturers

Don't make me laugh, are there now also no organisations that put money into this?

NO there are not, at least not to that level...they havnt got the funding....the RSPB has a few...poor quality reserves....(poor quality because they DONT manage predators so the biodiversity is seriously restricted) And No organisation runs 2 million hectares in cooperation with the farmers...

Seriously you really are making me PMSL

really? then that just shows what you are, a know nothing blowhard, a blaggard and braggard...

all talk no substance but "PMSL" how immature...

Still nice to know we have a resident TEXAN.....

Any hows didge...I have little time for an extremist liberalist who exults at the thought of all that destruction, as I said, just to attempt to justify his own mislead sense of personal prejudice. One who spouts that nastiness, retreats 3 times, finaly into the rouges refuge of "lack of need", and then pretends its because he's playing the "devils advocate"...

pity you havnt the balls to at least openly admit you are a nasty piece of work masquerading as a "voice of reason"

:D

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:01 pm

PhilDidge wrote:http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4251

See you later grumpy

:D

so you want to add another 12,000 jobs (thats not including the previous 70,000 btw) to the public pay roll, Plus another £250 million of direct input (which is otherwise "given" by those who shoot, providing from their own pockets for the materials etc they use) and try to pursuade defra that they want to take on 2 million hectares of farming land over and above what they already do???

Also, what defra support is different (in general) to what the shooting community support..

defra has no interest in moorland for instance....

theres no "good fairy" going to replace the shooting community...even over the long term

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:04 pm

PMSL laughing again so now explain how I am an extremist?

So funny you just come out with absurd claims to posters with no evidence just gobbledygook.

So lets look at your claim of 70,000 shall we a breakdown of jobs, as this going to be real fun?

Next as seen is other organisations funding conservation including the Government?

Yes, I am happy being as this is my hypothesis to match the 250 million for conservation, which is a as you call it small fry money.

Over to you to break down the Jobs and if any how many really would be made redundant>

Going to love this next bit.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:15 pm

I think THIS....will answer your questions....

http://www.shootingfacts.co.uk/pdf/pacecmainreport.pdf

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:19 pm

grumpy old git wrote:I think THIS....will answer your questions....

http://www.shootingfacts.co.uk/pdf/pacecmainreport.pdf

No all it says is:
Shooting supports the equivalent of almost 70,000 full time jobs.

That is a lose based answer at best with no actual breakdown, of which we need to see how many would really lose there jobs, of which I can then find them jobs, of which we know I can over a time period, so again you have a moot point here which is making me smile, I have payed the 250 million for conservation which will employ people each year, in fact as you think 1 billion is small fry this is the amount I will use to pay for conservation.

You really are onto a lost cause here Grumpy!

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:20 pm

Click on the link and read the FULL report......

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:21 pm

grumpy old git wrote:Click on the link and read the FULL report......

Bugger that, some gun ho bull, I want the breakdown of jobs, I asked them, so provide them.

Then we shall happily make many redundant and at the same time give them new employment!

:D

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:26 pm

I have given you the stats...in the report...if you are too thick or too deep indenial to be able to understand a short report like this tough.....the evidence is there...go educate yourself....... BTW PACEC is independant.....

AND...not necessary is STILL no argument to ban...

remember...
road bike races
alcohol
pubs & clubs
foot ball matches
motorways
cars for townies

etc etc etc

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:28 pm

grumpy old git wrote:I have given you the stats...in the report...if you are too thick or too deep indenial to be able to understand a short report like this tough.....the evidence is there...go educate yourself.......

AND...not necessary is STILL no argument to ban...

remember...
road bike races
alcohol
pubs & clubs
foot ball matches
motorways
cars for townies

etc etc etc

No you have given me a claim, not stats, of 70,000 people employed whether indirect or direct which we need to see and I just went through briefly and saw little if any breakdown on numbers, lots of surveys, that is it.

Try again as I need to see the true number of people I shall find other work for

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:28 pm

Farage is showing a complete disrespect to those in the the UK, including those poor wee kids and their teacher at Dunblane ..

What a bloody fool , this is guns we are talking about, that can end many lives in a matter of a couple of minutes or even less ffs!

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:31 pm

YOU try again...plenty of figures in there to entertain you...see this is you all over...you ask for evidence...get it given then proceed to try and wriggle away from it....Sorry if you dont like it because it doesnt suit you...You cant even critique the report in any meaningful way.

you are just a devious nasty waste of space...and with that ....FIN

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:32 pm

grumpy old git wrote:YOU try again...plenty of figures in there to entertain you...see this is you all over...you ask for evidence...get it given then proceed to try and wriggle away from it....Sorry if you dont like it because it doesnt suit you...You cant even critique the report in any meaningful way.

you are just a devious nasty waste of space...and with that ....FIN

No there is surveys, no evidence to any stats, just claims and again all you can do is offer abuse.

I just need to know how many people I need to find work for, it is a simple question, where once again you are stumped on

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:34 pm

Joy Division wrote:Farage is showing a complete disrespect to those in the the UK, including those poor wee kids and their teacher at Dunblane ..

What a bloody fool , this is guns we are talking about, that can end many lives in a matter of a couple of minutes or even less ffs!

oh get a grip JD,

1 the hand gun ban saw in INCREASE in gun crime
2 the disaster at dunblane was due to serious and multiple police failures, not the LEGITIMATE ownership of hand guns
3 If anyone showed disrespect for the victims at dunblane it was BLIAR, who used it as a cynical piece of political propaganda...

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:36 pm

abuse...yep, because thats all there is worth offering a devious nasty dictator... go join catman on his pillar of rage....you are of a type...albeit for different reasons...

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:37 pm

grumpy old git wrote:abuse...yep, because thats all there is worth offering a devious nasty dictator... go join catman on his pillar of rage....you are of a type...albeit for different reasons...

It seems you are on his level with all your dummy throwing and constant childish name calling.

As I said you really need to move on and grow up!

Game over

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:49 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

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.

Sphinx the debate is over, I set to prove what could be done of which i am confident i did. Of course there is a need for pest control never even denied that, I did say though this could be accomplished with in-cooperating the army.

It would be accomplished by the Army using guns

So either guns are need or the army is not part of society

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:50 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Sphinx the debate is over, I set to prove what could be done of which i am confident i did. Of course there is a need for pest control never even denied that, I did say though this could be accomplished with in-cooperating the army.

It would be accomplished by the Army using guns

So either guns are need or the army is not part of society

The army is needed Sphinx "by" society.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:51 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

just cos you say so eh??

I notice NO answer to the above points which you failed to answer properly earlier...just more didge twitches...

They were already answered you are just like a boxer on the ropes not knowing you are beat, but hey who am happy to just keep laughing at a child clearly wound up.
Even Sphinx got my reasons and my point, funny that you are still spitting dummies, so much nobody can move on the forum for them

:D

No sphinx just concluded that your logic was so ridiculous there was no point and it would be fun to find out where such flawed logic would end.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:56 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

It would be accomplished by the Army using guns

So either guns are need or the army is not part of society

The army is needed Sphinx "by" society.

So society needs the army which needs guns so society needs guns.

Also if the army is something society needs then it is not part of society.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:58 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

The army is needed Sphinx "by" society.

So society needs the army which needs guns so society needs guns.

Also if the army is something society needs then it is not part of society.

Incorrect, society already had the army with its need to protect society, they thus are the only need to have guns, being as they already use guns!

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:04 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:abuse...yep, because thats all there is worth offering a devious nasty dictator... go join catman on his pillar of rage....you are of a type...albeit for different reasons...

It seems you are on his level with all your dummy throwing and constant childish name calling.

As I said you really need to move on and grow up!

Game over

look in the mirror Stalin

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:05 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

So society needs the army which needs guns so society needs guns.

Also if the army is something society needs then it is not part of society.

Incorrect, society already had the army with its need to protect society, they thus are the only need to have guns, being as they already use guns!

Yes society already has the army.

It also already has various other people who use guns.

If those people are stopped from using their guns then it is necessary to bring the army in to do things it does not do at the moment. The fact that it would be necessary to bring in the army indicates that what those people are doing is necessary. If what they were doing was unnecessary then there would be no need to bring in the army if they are stopped from doing it.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:07 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Incorrect, society already had the army with its need to protect society, they thus are the only need to have guns, being as they already use guns!

Yes society already has the army.

It also already has various other people who use guns.

If those people are stopped from using their guns then it is necessary to bring the army in to do things it does not do at the moment. The fact that it would be necessary to bring in the army indicates that what those people are doing is necessary. If what they were doing was unnecessary then there would be no need to bring in the army if they are stopped from doing it.

But you only have one group needed to do any need here thus this group the army is all that is required where we have a dangerous instrument being confined to this one group. Thus the need of the case to hold within one area outweighs the need of multiple groups within society itself to carry out any of the roles

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:09 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Yes society already has the army.

It also already has various other people who use guns.

If those people are stopped from using their guns then it is necessary to bring the army in to do things it does not do at the moment. The fact that it would be necessary to bring in the army indicates that what those people are doing is necessary. If what they were doing was unnecessary then there would be no need to bring in the army if they are stopped from doing it.

But you only have one group needed to do any need here thus this group the army is all that is required where we have a dangerous instrument being confined to this one group. Thus the need of the case to hold within one area outweighs the need of multiple groups within society itself to carry out any of the roles

But even if the guns are limited to a single group they are still necessary.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:11 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

But you only have one group needed to do any need here thus this group the army is all that is required where we have a dangerous instrument being confined to this one group. Thus the need of the case to hold within one area outweighs the need of multiple groups within society itself to carry out any of the roles

But even if the guns are limited to a single group they are still necessary.

The army were already necessary before guns were limited, as they already had them and that group was already a necessity to protect a nation, thus any claim to other necessities is rendered moot, being they are already before the other needs a necessity

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:14 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
Joy Division wrote:Farage is showing a complete disrespect to those in the the UK, including those poor wee kids and their teacher at Dunblane ..

What a bloody fool , this is guns we are talking about, that can end many lives in a matter of a couple of minutes or even less ffs!

oh get a grip JD,

1 the hand gun ban saw in INCREASE in gun crime
2 the disaster at dunblane was due to serious and multiple police failures, not the LEGITIMATE ownership of hand guns
3 If anyone showed disrespect for the victims at dunblane it was BLIAR, who used it as a cynical piece of political propaganda...

Oh right, so keeping hand gun laws right actually increases gun crime?

If people wish to shoot guns off at objects or people, then they should move to a country where owning guns are completely legal , as well as the use of them GOG.

It's that easy chief, someone who may well seem competent and have no criminal last can and do still turn , that's all it takes, one loony with a gun , one pissed off loony.

Guns have no place in our society chief, none.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:20 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

But even if the guns are limited to a single group they are still necessary.

The army were already necessary before guns were limited, as they already had them and that group was already a necessity to protect a nation, thus any claim to other necessities is rendered moot, being they are already before the other needs a necessity

So in stating that the army was already necessary you are admitting that guns are necessary in certain roles.

In stating that an army with guns could take over roles they are not presently doing you are admitting that the roles where guns are necessary are not presently limited to the army.

Your argument is that because guns are necessary all roles needing them should be performed by the army so that there is only one group able to access guns legally.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:29 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

The army were already necessary before guns were limited, as they already had them and that group was already a necessity to protect a nation, thus any claim to other necessities is rendered moot, being they are already before the other needs a necessity

So in stating that the army was already necessary you are admitting that guns are necessary in certain roles.

In stating that an army with guns could take over roles they are not presently doing you are admitting that the roles where guns are necessary are not presently limited to the army.

Your argument is that because guns are necessary all roles needing them should be performed by the army so that there is only one group able to access guns legally.

I am not admitting anything you claim I do which is not the case, as I do not even think the roles being done with the use of guns today are even needed except for the army, which you forget the fact of, I introduced the army to provide a means to counter your view of who could take up the roles, not that the roles ever really needed to be covered . To me the necessity is to limited the guns in society, which is achieved!

Right either way now I have also this angle covered.

So happy days off to eat! Might be back later or tomorrow

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:35 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
Joy Division wrote:Farage is showing a complete disrespect to those in the the UK, including those poor wee kids and their teacher at Dunblane ..

What a bloody fool , this is guns we are talking about, that can end many lives in a matter of a couple of minutes or even less ffs!

oh get a grip JD,

1 the hand gun ban saw in INCREASE in gun crime
2 the disaster at dunblane was due to serious and multiple police failures, not the LEGITIMATE ownership of hand guns
3 If anyone showed disrespect for the victims at dunblane it was BLIAR, who used it as a cynical piece of political propaganda...

Absolutely correct...the handgun ban was a piece of flawed legislation because it was based on the premise that it would reduce the availability and ownership of such weapons and would help to tackle the growing problem of gun crime, particularly gang shootings, in the UK.

It seems hard to believe now, but the parliamentary draughtsmen actually thought that criminals would be dissuaded from acquiring handguns because owning one would be illegal!

About the only tangible affect it had, apart from seeing gun crime increase as you say, was that competitive marksmen in the handgun classes had to travel to the Continent to practice their sport.

For the record, I don't hold a firearms licence but I do have a shotgun permit. I wonder how many of the criminals who own those as a weapon of choice have been so honest as to register and pay the not inconsiderable fee?

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:39 pm

Joy Division wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

oh get a grip JD,

1 the hand gun ban saw in INCREASE in gun crime
2 the disaster at dunblane was due to serious and multiple police failures, not the LEGITIMATE ownership of hand guns
3 If anyone showed disrespect for the victims at dunblane it was BLIAR, who used it as a cynical piece of political propaganda...

Oh right, so keeping hand gun laws right actually increases gun crime?

If people wish to shoot guns off at objects or people, then they should move to a country where owning guns are completely legal , as well as the use of them GOG.

It's that easy chief, someone who may well seem competent and have no criminal last can and do still turn , that's all it takes, one loony with a gun , one pissed off loony.

Guns have no place in our society chief, none.

I reckon that the fox that I shot outside my poultry shed a couple of months ago would have heartily agreed with you. I'm afraid that I don't, though, JD.

For instance, I am required to control (or at least be seen to be trying to control) vermin such as rabbits and wood pigeons which live on my land and in my woodland from which they sally forth to damage my neighbours' cereals, rapseed and vegetable crops.

Not being very skilled in the use of a catapult or blowpipe, I really do need a shotgun in order to fulfill my obligations.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:45 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Oh right, so keeping hand gun laws right actually increases gun crime?

If people wish to shoot guns off at objects or people, then they should move to a country where owning guns are completely legal , as well as the use of them GOG.

It's that easy chief, someone who may well seem competent and have no criminal last can and do still turn , that's all it takes, one loony with a gun , one pissed off loony.

Guns have no place in our society chief, none.

I reckon that the fox that I shot outside my poultry shed a couple of months ago would heartily agree with you. I'm afraid that I don't, though JD.

However M'Lud, the chickens would heartily agree with YOU, of that I have little doubt.

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:47 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I reckon that the fox that I shot outside my poultry shed a couple of months ago would heartily agree with you. I'm afraid that I don't, though JD.

However M'Lud, the chickens would heartily agree with YOU, of that I have little doubt.

At least the ones that were left after several nights of visitations by reynard and his mates would....

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:50 pm

Yup, I know where you are coming from there...Bloody menace they are...I stopped one the other evening on a permission....42g of no 1 in 3 inch magnum sure spoilt his day.....one very happy farmer....

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:54 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

So in stating that the army was already necessary you are admitting that guns are necessary in certain roles.

In stating that an army with guns could take over roles they are not presently doing you are admitting that the roles where guns are necessary are not presently limited to the army.

Your argument is that because guns are necessary all roles needing them should be performed by the army so that there is only one group able to access guns legally.

I am not admitting anything you claim I do which is not the case, as I do not even think the roles being done with the use of guns today are even needed except for the army, which you forget the fact of, I introduced the army to provide a means to counter your view of who could take up the roles, not that the roles ever really needed to be covered . To me the necessity is to limited the guns in society, which is achieved!

Right either way now I have also this angle covered.

So happy days off to eat! Might be back later or tomorrow

So as far as you are concerned farmers and landowners have no need of pest control, vets have no need to destroy suffering animals humanely, captive bolt guns are not guns, and presumably the police have no need of guns to defend themselves against the criminals who do have them and who will have them even if the only group legally allowed them is the army seeing as criminals are not that bothered by what is legal in the first place.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:55 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Oh right, so keeping hand gun laws right actually increases gun crime?

If people wish to shoot guns off at objects or people, then they should move to a country where owning guns are completely legal , as well as the use of them GOG.

It's that easy chief, someone who may well seem competent and have no criminal last can and do still turn , that's all it takes, one loony with a gun , one pissed off loony.

Guns have no place in our society chief, none.

I reckon that the fox that I shot outside my poultry shed a couple of months ago would have heartily agreed with you. I'm afraid that I don't, though, JD.

For instance, I am required to control (or at least be seen to be trying to control) vermin such as rabbits and wood pigeons which live on my land and in my woodland from which they sally forth to damage my neighbours' cereals, rapseed and vegetable crops.

Not being very skilled in the use of a catapult or blowpipe, I really do need a shotgun in order to fulfill my obligations.

No No No - you should be calling the army they will control your pests for you - according to phildidge that is

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:00 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Oh right, so keeping hand gun laws right actually increases gun crime?

If people wish to shoot guns off at objects or people, then they should move to a country where owning guns are completely legal , as well as the use of them GOG.

It's that easy chief, someone who may well seem competent and have no criminal last can and do still turn , that's all it takes, one loony with a gun , one pissed off loony.

Guns have no place in our society chief, none.

I reckon that the fox that I shot outside my poultry shed a couple of months ago would have heartily agreed with you. I'm afraid that I don't, though, JD.

For instance, I am required to control (or at least be seen to be trying to control) vermin such as rabbits and wood pigeons which live on my land and in my woodland from which they sally forth to damage my neighbours' cereals, rapseed and vegetable crops.

Not being very skilled in the use of a catapult or blowpipe, I really do need a shotgun in order to fulfill my obligations.

try a club moley....

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:42 pm

grumpy old git wrote:Yup, I know where you are coming from there...Bloody menace they are...I stopped one the other evening on a permission....42g of no 1 in 3 inch magnum sure spoilt his day.....one very happy farmer....

He wouldn't have been if you had hit him by mistake...

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:43 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:Yup, I know where you are coming from there...Bloody menace they are...I stopped one the other evening on a permission....42g of no 1 in 3 inch magnum sure spoilt his day.....one very happy farmer....

He wouldn't have been if you had hit him by mistake...

true, but if I ever become THAT bad an aim...I promise I'll pack it in Moley

by Sponsored content