Nigel Farage calls for UK gun laws to be relaxed

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

      

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587024/Pictured-15-year-old-girl-shot-dead-male-friend-East-London-house-three-teenage-boys-questioned.html

Once upon a time before these weapons were banned they were kept locked separately from the ammunition in the care of responsible adults who appreciated their risks.

If things have got better why are people still dying?

Things have got better, less guns available, did you not read that part?
Read again it does not deny gun crime still exists:


Likewise, most mainstream media organizations say that while gun crime clearly still exists in the U.K., gun control itself has been a success — the Economist recently pointed to an instance where two gangs in the city of Birmingham were forced to use the same gun in a turf war, rented from a third party, as they either couldn't find a gun to buy or couldn't afford inflated black market prices. The scarcity of illegal guns is reportedly so bad that stolen antique guns are frequently used by gangs, and U.K. law enforcement officials now estimate that only around 1,000 guns are in use by criminal elements in the entirety of the U.K.

The less guns available does not equal things are better when just as many people and sometimes a lot more are dying from their use.

If a society has 1000 guns held legally and 10 guns held illegally with 20 deaths a year a change to 0 legal guns and 8 illegal guns with 20 deaths a year is not an improvement.

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:



Things have got better, less guns available, did you not read that part?
Read again it does not deny gun crime still exists:


Likewise, most mainstream media organizations say that while gun crime clearly still exists in the U.K., gun control itself has been a success — the Economist recently pointed to an instance where two gangs in the city of Birmingham were forced to use the same gun in a turf war, rented from a third party, as they either couldn't find a gun to buy or couldn't afford inflated black market prices. The scarcity of illegal guns is reportedly so bad that stolen antique guns are frequently used by gangs, and U.K. law enforcement officials now estimate that only around 1,000 guns are in use by criminal elements in the entirety of the U.K.

The less guns available does not equal things are better when just as many people and sometimes a lot more are dying from their use.

If a society has 1000 guns held legally and 10 guns held illegally with 20 deaths a year a change to 0 legal guns and 8 illegal guns with 20 deaths a year is not an improvement.

Prove that it does not, not give me your own assumptions Sphinx, based off no methodology or evidence, but a formula, which needs backing up to the reality of the gun situation, not something you invent, that is daft

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:



Odd did I say I have a problem with a party doing that?
I said you make a big song and dance about democracy, yet cannot comprehend many are against changing the gun laws

Nope seems you fail to understand many are against overturning the gun laws, the fact is the Dunblane massacre is still very much in many people's thoughts, hence why I doubt it will ever be overturned and thank goodness for that.

She did not have to give up the collection, that is a cock and bull, she could have had the guns deactivated and she would then have been able to keep them, so stop telling porkies

So you have gone from the majority to many?

The fact is neither you nor I know how such a referendum would turn out - I hear far more people supporting it being overturned you hear the opposite because we tend to associate with people who are similar to ourselves.  In a debate such as this I will speak the way I would if a referendum had been called.  I assume you are doing the same and start out from the position that as we both live in a democracy we would both stand by the decision of the majority even if different from our own and that neither of us when debating are meaning we think our beliefs should be forced on all others without their input.  I would appreciate the same respect from yourself rather than your assumption than me arguing my opinion equates to my rejection of democracy and a wish to take over dictator style.

It seems you are unfamiliar with firearms so I will not get angry at your ignorant display of disrespect for a bequest.  To put it in a way you may find easier to understand what you have suggested in deactivation is like taking a Ferrari and removing its wheels and engine so it can be kept on blocks - or  taking a Raphael and using a biro to draw fig leaves over the genitals.

No still the vast majority, you hear more people, ha ha, what locals who already supported it in the first place, come on get real, you know a limited amount of people, so that again is a daft assertion, look at polls on the matter then come back with something credible.

Yes I have a collection of deactivated guns Sphinx, bet you never saw that coming did you, because I know more than you think I do, I have quite the collection, and in every single case all of them can be reactivated, thus it is not removing its wheel or engine, all you are doing is removing the ignition key, now you got spanked again over an analogy. Which again does not dispute the fact she could have kept the guns, does it?

Anyway will catch this up tomorrow

Bye

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So you have gone from the majority to many?

The fact is neither you nor I know how such a referendum would turn out - I hear far more people supporting it being overturned you hear the opposite because we tend to associate with people who are similar to ourselves.  In a debate such as this I will speak the way I would if a referendum had been called.  I assume you are doing the same and start out from the position that as we both live in a democracy we would both stand by the decision of the majority even if different from our own and that neither of us when debating are meaning we think our beliefs should be forced on all others without their input.  I would appreciate the same respect from yourself rather than your assumption than me arguing my opinion equates to my rejection of democracy and a wish to take over dictator style.

It seems you are unfamiliar with firearms so I will not get angry at your ignorant display of disrespect for a bequest.  To put it in a way you may find easier to understand what you have suggested in deactivation is like taking a Ferrari and removing its wheels and engine so it can be kept on blocks - or  taking a Raphael and using a biro to draw fig leaves over the genitals.

No still the vast majority, you hear more people, ha ha, what locals who already supported it in the first place, come on get real, you know a limited amount of people, so that again is a daft assertion, look at polls on the matter then come back with something credible.

Yes I have a collection of deactivated guns Sphinx, bet you never saw that coming did you, because I know more than you think I do, I have quite the collection, and in every single case all of them can be reactivated, thus it is not removing its wheel or engine, all you are doing is removing the ignition key, now you got spanked again over an analogy. Which again does not dispute the fact she could have kept the guns, does it?

So now you know how more people think that I do? Mind you when you are right on everything that assumption is natural.

Your having deactivated guns makes the disrespect worse. If you cannot understand why a widow would rather have nothing that change what was left then I pity you. Then again I pity you anyway for your constant oblivion to the disrespect and hurt you throw around with abandon knowing not what you do. This is simply another example of it.

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The less guns available does not equal things are better when just as many people and sometimes a lot more are dying from their use.

If a society has 1000 guns held legally and 10 guns held illegally with 20 deaths a year a change to 0 legal guns and 8 illegal guns with 20 deaths a year is not an improvement.

Prove that it does not, not give me your own assumptions Sphinx, based off no methodology or evidence, but a formula, which needs backing up to the reality of the gun situation, not something you invent, that is daft

The reality is, as the figures show, that deaths from guns were not changed by the ban - just as many if not more died after as died before.

Hence there has been no improvement.

Not a difficult concept. If you wish to assert that because that same number of deaths is resulting from a smaller number of weapons it means the situation has improved go ahead.

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:



No still the vast majority, you hear more people, ha ha, what locals who already supported it in the first place, come on get real, you know a limited amount of people, so that again is a daft assertion, look at polls on the matter then come back with something credible.

Yes I have a collection of deactivated guns Sphinx, bet you never saw that coming did you, because I know more than you think I do, I have quite the collection, and in every single case all of them can be reactivated, thus it is not removing its wheel or engine, all you are doing is removing the ignition key, now you got spanked again over an analogy. Which again does not dispute the fact she could have kept the guns, does it?

So now you know how more people think that I do?  Mind you when you are right on everything that assumption is natural.

Your having deactivated guns makes the disrespect worse.  If you cannot understand why a widow would rather have nothing that change what was left then I pity you.  Then again I pity you anyway for your constant oblivion to the disrespect and hurt you throw around with abandon knowing not what you do.  This is simply another example of it.

then you are caught out either as a liar or a criminal... HERE is the spec to which guns must be deactivated...
https://www.dandbmilitaria.com/uk-deactivation-specs.html
in all cases it would be impossible to reactivate them safely and even IF someone had the skills to reactivate the odd one...it would NEVER, EVER pass proof. deactivating essentially "ruins" the gun for firing. IF they could be reactivated, you would not be able to hold them without a licence...as is the case.

does your local FEO know about this??

Good even victor - good to see you sire.

victorisnotamused wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So now you know how more people think that I do?  Mind you when you are right on everything that assumption is natural.

Your having deactivated guns makes the disrespect worse.  If you cannot understand why a widow would rather have nothing that change what was left then I pity you.  Then again I pity you anyway for your constant oblivion to the disrespect and hurt you throw around with abandon knowing not what you do.  This is simply another example of it.

then you are caught out either as a liar or a criminal... HERE is the spec to which guns must be deactivated...
https://www.dandbmilitaria.com/uk-deactivation-specs.html
in all cases it would be impossible to reactivate them safely and even IF someone had the skills to reactivate the odd one...it would NEVER, EVER pass proof. deactivating essentially "ruins" the gun for firing. IF they could be reactivated, you would not be able to hold them without a licence...as is the case.

I am no liar, any gun can be reactivated with the rights means and the know how, so no I am not lying and if you know the workings of guns, you know what I say is true, it does not matter that it is not the original parts, the guns can always be reactivated, which you even admit to, by stating the fact people do have skills.
So you caught out nothing, you made an error to think I am not more in the knowledge of guns than you

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:



No still the vast majority, you hear more people, ha ha, what locals who already supported it in the first place, come on get real, you know a limited amount of people, so that again is a daft assertion, look at polls on the matter then come back with something credible.

Yes I have a collection of deactivated guns Sphinx, bet you never saw that coming did you, because I know more than you think I do, I have quite the collection, and in every single case all of them can be reactivated, thus it is not removing its wheel or engine, all you are doing is removing the ignition key, now you got spanked again over an analogy. Which again does not dispute the fact she could have kept the guns, does it?

So now you know how more people think that I do?  Mind you when you are right on everything that assumption is natural.

Your having deactivated guns makes the disrespect worse.  If you cannot understand why a widow would rather have nothing that change what was left then I pity you.  Then again I pity you anyway for your constant oblivion to the disrespect and hurt you throw around with abandon knowing not what you do.  This is simply another example of it.

Makes the disrespect worse, oh come on, you are having a laugh now, it is not a Van Gogh we are talking about but guns and some guns are very rare, but works of metal and precision, not in the same league as real works of art. Granted there has been some magnificent pistols created as works of art, by not in the same league as paintings of art.
So again you miss the fact she did not have to give up the guns did she, thus she choose to give them up, because she could have kept them, which is the point you avoid with lame excuses, with even worse showing they never meant that much to keep, because you would do all you could do to keep something so precious, it never left your side. So hence why I do not buy any of your sob stories here or how special they were, because if they were so special, you would deactivate them, even if thy lose some of that magic, because having them is more important than not having them at all

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:



Prove that it does not, not give me your own assumptions Sphinx, based off no methodology or evidence, but a formula, which needs backing up to the reality of the gun situation, not something you invent, that is daft

The reality is, as the figures show, that deaths from guns were not changed by the ban - just as many if not more died after as died before.

Hence there has been no improvement.

Not a difficult concept.  If you wish to assert that because that same number of deaths is resulting from a smaller number of weapons it means the situation has improved go ahead.

How is that not an improvement, has gun deaths decreased or gone up?
Then we also have to take into account if the before and after has an affect, where before it did have an affect, because gun nuts could turn their anger onto society, of which did happen, a simple fact you cannot refute, so this law stops gun nuts turning their anger onto society, that is better for all

NO didge you are a fool...I SAID "even IF it was reactivated....it would NEVER ever pass proof." and moreover would be unsafe to fire...the gun is essentially weakened to the point of uselessness, It becomes a toy.

YOU are implying that it is not "ruining a gun to deactivate it and that its a simple job to reactivate...Quote "..removing the ignition key" No you are NOT, you are half sawing through the chassis, pouring concrete into the cylinders and removing the steering mechanism (to stick with your analogy of cars)

It is not a trivial matter, and to suggest otherwise in the context of the widows guns is disingenious and a typically callous reactionary attitude of the "progressive"

You know f**k all about firearms and firearm law didge...You have proven that times here...

seriously...do you think i would take up a hobby like shooting WITHOUT FULLY understanding the rules?

victorisnotamused wrote:NO didge you are a fool...I SAID "even IF it was reactivated....it would NEVER ever pass proof." and moreover would  be unsafe to fire...the gun is essentially weakened to the point of uselessness, It becomes a toy.

YOU are implying that it is not "ruining a gun to deactivate it and that its a simple job to reactivate...Quote "..removing the ignition key" No you are NOT, you are half sawing through the chassis, pouring concrete into the cylinders and removing the steering mechanism (to stick with your analogy of cars)

It is not a trivial matter, and to suggest otherwise in the context of the widows guns is disingenious and  a typically callous reactionary attitude of the "progressive"

You know f**k all about firearms and firearm  law didge...You have proven that times here...

seriously...do you think i would take up a hobby like shooting WITHOUT FULLY understanding the rules?

Dear me how is that still lying, if the gun is reactivated, how is passing proof going to matter?

Fuck me have some credibility, the gun can still be reactivated, thus I did not lie.

I never said it was simple, I only stated that every single one I owned could be reactivated, so how is that a lie?

Stop talking shite, what I said was true, they can be.

So to say she would not keep them because they have lost their workings to fire, if they are meant to be sentimental is bullshit, because sentimental means you keep them at all costs, by costs, deactivation, so again, I do not buy the fact they meant that much, because you would do that was possible to keep them, and as seen she could have kept them, showing poor excuses not top keep them, shows how little they mattered

Also I will await your apology for calling me a liar, knowing full well I did not lie here


See if you have the ability to do so.

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So now you know how more people think that I do?  Mind you when you are right on everything that assumption is natural.

Your having deactivated guns makes the disrespect worse.  If you cannot understand why a widow would rather have nothing that change what was left then I pity you.  Then again I pity you anyway for your constant oblivion to the disrespect and hurt you throw around with abandon knowing not what you do.  This is simply another example of it.

Makes the disrespect worse, oh come on, you are having a laugh now, it is not a Van Gogh we are talking about but guns and some guns are very rare, but works of metal and precision, not in the same league as real works of art. Granted there has been some magnificent pistols created as works of art, by not in the same league as paintings of art.
So again you miss the fact she did not have to give up the guns did she, thus she choose to give them up, because she could have kept them, which is the point you avoid with lame excuses, with even worse showing they never meant that much to keep, because you would do all you could do to keep something so precious, it never left your side. So hence why I do not buy any of your sob stories here or how special they were, because if they were so special, you would deactivate them, even if thy lose some of that magic, because having them is more important than not having them at all

You really do not have any understanding of others feelings at all do you?

For the benefit of those who do not know guns but who understand human emotions she had shot those guns both standing next to her husband and with him holding her helping her. She was (and still is) an extremely accurate target shooter and to her those guns were indeed works of art. Even if they could be deactivated/reactivated they would never be the same the processes change the feel - besides which what hope was there of reactivation anyway?

Some people cannot bear to part with their loved ones things - some cannot bear to be around them - and some cannot stand to be around the things that are changed. A widow may stay in a (possibly unsuitable) house for years because it was where she lived when married - but the building of an extension next door can change it so she can no longer bear to be there.

Or maybe we should all bow down to didges superior knowledge of how everyone things feels and behaves because obviously he knows far more about what my effective mother in law (I have been with my OH 10 years) felt about the guns than I do.

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The reality is, as the figures show, that deaths from guns were not changed by the ban - just as many if not more died after as died before.

Hence there has been no improvement.

Not a difficult concept.  If you wish to assert that because that same number of deaths is resulting from a smaller number of weapons it means the situation has improved go ahead.

How is that not an improvement, has gun deaths decreased or gone up?
Then we also have to take into account if the before and after has an affect, where before it did have an affect, because gun nuts could turn their anger onto society, of which did happen, a simple fact you cannot refute, so this law stops gun nuts turning their anger onto society, that is better for all

They have gone up didge - you may have missed that bit of the figures.

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


How is that not an improvement, has gun deaths decreased or gone up?
Then we also have to take into account if the before and after has an affect, where before it did have an affect, because gun nuts could turn their anger onto society, of which did happen, a simple fact you cannot refute, so this law stops gun nuts turning their anger onto society, that is better for all

They have gone up didge - you may have missed that bit of the figures.

How about gun nuts going up on murders Sphinx, the point you missed?

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

They have gone up didge - you may have missed that bit of the figures.

How about gun nuts going up on murders Sphinx, the point you missed?

I have to admit I was really impressed with the way the ban on hand guns stopped that nut in Cumbria.

What actually concerns me though is that you seem to think "nut" and "legal gun" are inextricably linked. You do not seem to be aware that a nut can easily go on a killing spree with things that are either non legal or non gun or both.

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:



Makes the disrespect worse, oh come on, you are having a laugh now, it is not a Van Gogh we are talking about but guns and some guns are very rare, but works of metal and precision, not in the same league as real works of art. Granted there has been some magnificent pistols created as works of art, by not in the same league as paintings of art.
So again you miss the fact she did not have to give up the guns did she, thus she choose to give them up, because she could have kept them, which is the point you avoid with lame excuses, with even worse showing they never meant that much to keep, because you would do all you could do to keep something so precious, it never left your side. So hence why I do not buy any of your sob stories here or how special they were, because if they were so special, you would deactivate them, even if thy lose some of that magic, because having them is more important than not having them at all

You really do not have any understanding of others feelings at all do you?

For the benefit of those who do not know guns but who understand human emotions she had shot those guns both standing next to her husband and with him holding her helping her.  She was (and still is) an extremely accurate target shooter and to her those guns were indeed works of art.  Even if they could be deactivated/reactivated they would never be the same the processes change the feel - besides which what hope was there of reactivation anyway?

Some people cannot bear to part with their loved ones things - some cannot bear to be around them - and some cannot stand to be around the things that are changed.  A widow may stay in a (possibly unsuitable) house for years because it was where she lived when married - but the building of an extension next door can change it so she can no longer bear to be there.

Or maybe we should all bow down to didges superior knowledge of how everyone things feels and behaves because obviously he knows far more about what my effective mother in law (I have been with my OH 10 years) felt about the guns than I do.

Utter bull, I understand feelings very well and something that is so precious you would keep at all costs no matter it damaged, burnt, even ruined, because of its sentimental value, you would keep. If these guns meant so much, no matter knowing deactivating them would mean sacrilege, the thought of not having them would out weigh the thought of defacing them, as it always has done, because as seen, when something means that much even if it is ruined, people will hang onto that.
So I know my points ring true here because you attack me again poorly because I express a view which counters your view and you play on that to gain sympathy to your view, which I must say is quite pathetic on a forum, because I see through the charade to gain that sympathy, because you attack me. If it meant something me as a person and my views would not matter, but you made it personally about me, hence again even more now, I do not buy the fact the guns really were that sentimental

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


How about gun nuts going up on murders Sphinx, the point you missed?

I have to admit I was really impressed with the way the ban on hand guns stopped that nut in Cumbria.

What actually concerns me though is that you seem to think "nut" and "legal gun" are inextricably linked.  You do not seem to be aware that a nut can easily go on a killing spree with things that are either non legal or non gun or both.

I never said they were linked, but what I do know is this.

Guns kill.

Guns in the hand of people can bring about a person using that to kill.

Take away the ability of what can be accessible to who can kill.

You lesson the chances by who might kill.

That is no bad thing

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:NO didge you are a fool...I SAID "even IF it was reactivated....it would NEVER ever pass proof." and moreover would  be unsafe to fire...the gun is essentially weakened to the point of uselessness, It becomes a toy.

YOU are implying that it is not "ruining a gun to deactivate it and that its a simple job to reactivate...Quote "..removing the ignition key" No you are NOT, you are half sawing through the chassis, pouring concrete into the cylinders and removing the steering mechanism (to stick with your analogy of cars)

It is not a trivial matter, and to suggest otherwise in the context of the widows guns is disingenious and  a typically callous reactionary attitude of the "progressive"

You know f**k all about firearms and firearm  law didge...You have proven that times here...

seriously...do you think i would take up a hobby like shooting WITHOUT FULLY understanding the rules?

Dear me how is that still lying, if the gun is reactivated, how is passing proof going to matter?

erm that depends on whether you are suicidal or not... THE DEACTIVATION PROCESS IS DESIGNED TO SO WEAKEN THE GUN AS TO MAKE IT UNUSEABLE

Fuck me have some credibility, the gun can still be reactivated, thus I did not lie.

OK...It wasnt quite a lie....more an untruth in the context....a stretching of credibility to snapping point...

no it cant...and still be the same item...as a minimum you would have to replace the barrel, possibly in the case of some weapons the chamber....and i the case of revolvers the cylinder.....thats like the hammer in the family question...you know I have my great grandfathers hammer...my grandad replaced the shaft, my dad replaced the head......

the chances of SUCCESSFULLY reactivating a firearm safely is remote...why do you think deactivated guns are now way at the bottom of a gun thiefs "shopping list"?? If it was even remotely viable they would be desirable...the fact that you DONT have to keep them locked in a cabinet is testimony to that.

I never said it was simple, I only stated that every single one I owned could be reactivated, so how is that a lie?

YOU STATED... its was as trivial as "removing the ignition key"...

Stop talking shite, what I said was true, they can be.

So to say she would not keep them because they have lost their workings to fire, if they are meant to be sentimental is bullshit, because sentimental means you keep them at all costs, by costs, deactivation, so again, I do not buy the fact they meant that much, because you would do that was possible to keep them, and as seen she could have kept them, showing poor excuses not top keep them, shows how little they mattered

rubbish, its like having a precious photo that someone has scribbled on.....

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I have to admit I was really impressed with the way the ban on hand guns stopped that nut in Cumbria.

What actually concerns me though is that you seem to think "nut" and "legal gun" are inextricably linked.  You do not seem to be aware that a nut can easily go on a killing spree with things that are either non legal or non gun or both.

I never said they were linked, but what I do know is this.

Guns kill.

Guns in the hand of people can bring about a person using that to kill.

Take away the ability of what can be accessible to who can kill.

You lesson the chances by who might kill.

That is no bad thing

Cars kill....same argument....
in fact cars kill MORE per year than LEGALLY HELD firearms, and probably more than firearms full stop.

So I never lied did I?


Thank you, all the rest are assumptions you included into your view to try and discredit me knowing full well I did not lie.

To me it is trivial to lose the function of the gun being able to fire, I admire the workmanship, not that it can kill, I admire the abilities of the gun, but do not seek to see them used, so again you understand very little about me, you can still admire a weapon, but not want it able to do what it is capable of.

So I accept your apology for talking shite, claiming I lied

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:



I never said they were linked, but what I do know is this.

Guns kill.

Guns in the hand of people can bring about a person using that to kill.

Take away the ability of what can be accessible to who can kill.

You lesson the chances by who might kill.

That is no bad thing

Cars kill....same argument....
in fact cars kill MORE per year than LEGALLY HELD firearms, and probably more than firearms full stop.

Cars can kill, I do not deny, but are they designed to kill?

Thus emotive and pathetic argument, cars are designed to transport people, not kill, guns were designed for once purpose, to kill, after though people made other uses, the car though was not designed to kill, thus poor argument

No didge...dont go making more false assumptions...

As I said it might not have been a lie...in the same sense that your hero "maggie" didnt lie...and was merely "economical with the truth" you stretched credibility to snapping point....

the rest is NOT assumptions..it is FACT...borne out by the fact that deactivated weapons are considered so safe and unlikely to be reactivated that you dont have to keep them under lock and key..

you still know nothing about the subject, you are positing YOUR OPINON as given fact, whereas in fact it is contrary to both common sense and the law,

You DID state that reactivating was easy.

Yes I have a collection of deactivated guns Sphinx, bet you never saw that coming did you, because I know more than you think I do, I have quite the collection, and in every single case all of them can be reactivated, thus it is not removing its wheel or engine, all you are doing is removing the ignition key,

which is nonsense...

whether or not YOU consider it trivial to loose the FUNCTION of an item or not is quite irrelevant, and your description of how you "view" a gun is, for so many reasons childish. What is the point of owning something that doesnt do what its supposed to...even if only at targets...

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

Cars kill....same argument....
in fact cars kill MORE per year than LEGALLY HELD firearms, and probably more than firearms full stop.

Cars can kill, I do not deny, but are they designed to kill?

Thus emotive and pathetic argument, cars are designed to transport people, not kill, guns were designed for once purpose, to kill, after though people made other uses, the car though was not designed to kill, thus poor argument

the purpose of the design is irrelevant....proving my point that it is not the item but the person behind it that is the problem....just because you are wedded to you car doesnt justify owning a working model of a potentially lethal one tonne missile.

victorisnotamused wrote:No didge...dont go making more false assumptions...

As I said it might not have been a lie...in the same sense that your hero "maggie" didnt lie...and was merely "economical with the truth" you stretched credibility to snapping point....

the rest is NOT assumptions..it is FACT...borne out by the fact that deactivated weapons are considered so safe and unlikely to be reactivated that you dont have to keep them under lock and key..

you still know nothing about the subject, you are positing YOUR OPINON as given fact, whereas in fact it is contrary to both common sense and the law,

You DID state that reactivating was easy.

Yes I have a collection of deactivated guns Sphinx, bet you never saw that coming did you, because I know more than you think I do, I have quite the collection, and in every single case all of them can be reactivated, thus it is not removing its wheel or engine, all you are doing is removing the ignition key,

which is nonsense...

whether or not YOU consider it trivial to loose the FUNCTION of an item or not is quite irrelevant, and your description of how you "view" a gun is, for so many reasons childish. What is the point of owning something that doesnt do what its supposed to...even if only at targets...

I cannot believe you are so desperate to drag out something knowing and admitting I did not lie


Now to claim I meant it was easy as it was like removing the ignition key is pathetic beyond belief, it is like removing the ignition key, because without that key, the car will not start, unless you know how to by pass that. Seriously that is not stating it is so easy to fix, that is your own presumption to what I said about an analogy, over what is removed from a gun part compared to sphinx. She made comparisons to wheels, engine, when you know damn well the ignition key fits the part of the deactivation of a gun, not its barrel, like wheels etc, so again stop talking bull mate

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:



Cars can kill, I do not deny, but are they designed to kill?

Thus emotive and pathetic argument, cars are designed to transport people, not kill, guns were designed for once purpose, to kill, after though people made other uses, the car though was not designed to kill, thus poor argument

the purpose of the design is irrelevant....proving my point that it is not the item but the person behind it that is the problem....just because you are wedded to you car doesnt justify owning a working model of a potentially lethal one tonne missile.

Hilarious, now something should be stooped because its design is not meant to kill, it does kill, thus we must stop it?
Really, how is that not relevant?
A car killing someone is either done on purpose of by accident, it was not designed to kill. A gun however is designed to kill, that is a fact, and guns are used to shoot and by shooting a gun, it can kill, thus what relevance is there in having something that its only real purpose was designed with the intention to kill?
You cannot get your kid to school, by placing them down the barrel of your gun and firing it can you?

Victor my friend I would give up here - after all he has made it clear he knows far more about a lady who would rather give up the guns she had loved to shoot with and continued to shoot with after her husbands death than see them sitting dead themselves.
Besides which in a different debate he explained how all guns including shotguns etc should be banned because there is no need of them in society and all activities where people use them such as pest control, humane destruction of animals etc could be handed over to the army for them to as non members of society.
With logic like that debate is pointless as he has a better idea of the conditions on Mars than he does of the subject we describe.

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:


the purpose of the design is irrelevant....proving my point that it is not the item but the person behind it that is the problem....just because you are wedded to you car doesnt justify owning a working model of a potentially lethal one tonne missile.

Hilarious, now something should be stooped because its design is not meant to kill, it does kill, thus we must stop it?
Really, how is that not relevant?
A car killing someone is either done on purpose of by accident, it was not designed to kill. A gun however is designed to kill, that is a fact, and guns are used to shoot and by shooting a gun, it can kill, thus what relevance is there in having something that its only real purpose was designed with the intention to kill?
You cannot get your kid to school, by placing them down the barrel of your gun and firing it can you?

Uh small bore rifles anyone?

sphinx wrote:Victor my friend I would give up here - after all he has made it clear he knows far more about a lady who would rather give up the guns she had loved to shoot with and continued to shoot with after her husbands death than see them sitting  dead themselves.
Besides which in a different debate he explained how all guns including shotguns etc should be banned because there is no need of them in society and all activities where people use them such as pest control, humane destruction of animals etc could be handed over to the army for them to as non members of society.
With logic like that debate is pointless as he has a better idea of the conditions on Mars than he does of the subject we describe.

here we go again a emotive response on to me, not countering my points but looking to make points about me so you can deflect from answering points you know it seems you cannot avoid.


Here we go again pest control, something we created because we fucked with the balance of nature, so you use our own fuck up as an excuse to use guns, pathetic.
That is why those who are proponents of active guns are absurd, they always ague the absurd by trying to find reason to own something designed to kill. 
So why do we need pest control, because we created the problem, that does not provide you with an excuse to have a gun. As an excuse for pest control is in that persons interest, not the animal being terminated on the views of the human, thus again, pest control is the making of humans, not the animals

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:



Hilarious, now something should be stooped because its design is not meant to kill, it does kill, thus we must stop it?
Really, how is that not relevant?
A car killing someone is either done on purpose of by accident, it was not designed to kill. A gun however is designed to kill, that is a fact, and guns are used to shoot and by shooting a gun, it can kill, thus what relevance is there in having something that its only real purpose was designed with the intention to kill?
You cannot get your kid to school, by placing them down the barrel of your gun and firing it can you?

Uh small bore rifles anyone?

You can shoot your kid to school that way, with a small bore rifle?

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:Victor my friend I would give up here - after all he has made it clear he knows far more about a lady who would rather give up the guns she had loved to shoot with and continued to shoot with after her husbands death than see them sitting  dead themselves.
Besides which in a different debate he explained how all guns including shotguns etc should be banned because there is no need of them in society and all activities where people use them such as pest control, humane destruction of animals etc could be handed over to the army for them to as non members of society.
With logic like that debate is pointless as he has a better idea of the conditions on Mars than he does of the subject we describe.

here we go again a emotive response on to me, not countering my points but looking to make points about me so you can deflect from answering points you know it seems you cannot avoid.


Here we go again pest control, something we created because we fucked with the balance of nature, so you use our own fuck up as an excuse to use guns, pathetic.
That is why those who are proponents of active guns are absurd, they always ague the absurd by trying to find reason to own something designed to kill. 
So why do we need pest control, because we created the problem, that does not provide you with an excuse to have a gun. As an excuse for pest control is in that persons interest, not the animal being terminated on the views of the human, thus again, pest control is the making of humans, not the animals

OK didge I'll bite, since this rather tickles me

just give straight answers to the following

do we have pest species

are there some species that are invasive foreign species and pests

is this mans fault

(i'll save you the trouble here...it undoubtedly is)

Is "doing nothing" an option?

example....

some years ago a number of ring necked parakeets escaped from pinewood studios and established themselves in the surrounding area. they are now a serious pest and spreading rapidly outwards. they displace and destroy native species, they can destroy an orchard in hours, they can devastate your garden in minutes, they make an incredible mess. therefor the GOVERNMENT have placed them on the "general licence" as vermin. I.E no closed season...

what would you do about it??

Nothing

havnt a clue?

its mans that caused it...but no solution...?

or should man now act as apex predator and remove or eliminate if possible the problem?


and JUST answer the questions...without waffle.....

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:Victor my friend I would give up here - after all he has made it clear he knows far more about a lady who would rather give up the guns she had loved to shoot with and continued to shoot with after her husbands death than see them sitting  dead themselves.
Besides which in a different debate he explained how all guns including shotguns etc should be banned because there is no need of them in society and all activities where people use them such as pest control, humane destruction of animals etc could be handed over to the army for them to as non members of society.
With logic like that debate is pointless as he has a better idea of the conditions on Mars than he does of the subject we describe.

here we go again a emotive response on to me, not countering my points but looking to make points about me so you can deflect from answering points you know it seems you cannot avoid.


Here we go again pest control, something we created because we fucked with the balance of nature, so you use our own fuck up as an excuse to use guns, pathetic.
That is why those who are proponents of active guns are absurd, they always ague the absurd by trying to find reason to own something designed to kill. 
So why do we need pest control, because we created the problem, that does not provide you with an excuse to have a gun. As an excuse for pest control is in that persons interest, not the animal being terminated on the views of the human, thus again, pest control is the making of humans, not the animals

your whole response to these matters is emotive, childishly so...mawkish sentimentality. As long as the method ensures a clean kill...its humane...you mix up humane with YOUR moral stance (which BTW I dont mock, If you have a moral stance about killing ANYTHING then fine, Its not my place to try to mock or belittle that. rather I should have and do have some respect for it. However by the same token you have no right to impose your morality upon me. Beware however, that if you hold that view AND eat meat...I will scream hypocrite at you  ) Killing is neither humane or inhumane. The method of killing however is another matter..

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:



here we go again a emotive response on to me, not countering my points but looking to make points about me so you can deflect from answering points you know it seems you cannot avoid.


Here we go again pest control, something we created because we fucked with the balance of nature, so you use our own fuck up as an excuse to use guns, pathetic.
That is why those who are proponents of active guns are absurd, they always ague the absurd by trying to find reason to own something designed to kill. 
So why do we need pest control, because we created the problem, that does not provide you with an excuse to have a gun. As an excuse for pest control is in that persons interest, not the animal being terminated on the views of the human, thus again, pest control is the making of humans, not the animals

OK didge I'll bite, since this rather tickles me

just give straight answers to the following

do we have pest species

are there some species that are invasive foreign species and pests

is this mans fault

(i'll save you the trouble here...it undoubtedly is)

Is "doing nothing" an option?

example....

some years ago a number of ring necked parakeets escaped from pinewood studios and established themselves in the surrounding area. they are now a serious pest and spreading rapidly outwards. they displace and destroy native species, they can destroy an orchard in hours, they can devastate your garden in minutes, they make an incredible mess. therefor the GOVERNMENT have placed them on the "general licence" as vermin. I.E no closed season...

what would you do about it??

Nothing

havnt a clue?

its mans that caused it...but no solution...?

or should man now act as apex predator and remove or eliminate if possible the problem?


and JUST answer the questions...without waffle.....

But the fact is we have created the problem, you give an example of ring necked parakeets, is there natural environment in Pine Wood Studies?
No, thus if we have created the problem, we had the ability to not make that problem of pest control in the first place. Going off the back of mistakes is still not an excuse to have a gun, because we have other weapons that can kill also, thus showing your argument lacks credibility. Even worse than that why is there a need to control this situation, because it is only in our own interest, not the creatures involved, as someone always loses out. So again your view is flawed by these factors.
I never said we should not have a solution either, and there are other means to combat pest control without shooting is there not, but to back a view to shoot and own a gun off pest control is absurd and you know it

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:



here we go again a emotive response on to me, not countering my points but looking to make points about me so you can deflect from answering points you know it seems you cannot avoid.


Here we go again pest control, something we created because we fucked with the balance of nature, so you use our own fuck up as an excuse to use guns, pathetic.
That is why those who are proponents of active guns are absurd, they always ague the absurd by trying to find reason to own something designed to kill. 
So why do we need pest control, because we created the problem, that does not provide you with an excuse to have a gun. As an excuse for pest control is in that persons interest, not the animal being terminated on the views of the human, thus again, pest control is the making of humans, not the animals

your whole response to these matters is emotive, childishly so...mawkish sentimentality. As long as the method ensures a clean kill...its humane...you mix up humane with YOUR moral stance (which BTW I dont mock, If you have a moral stance about killing ANYTHING then fine, Its not my place to try to mock or belittle that. rather I should have and do have some respect for it. However by the same token you have no right to impose your morality upon me. Beware however, that if you hold that view AND eat meat...I will scream hypocrite at you  ) Killing is neither humane or inhumane. The method of killing however is another matter..

Actually your arguments are the emotive ones, for example pest control, mine are sound, based upon simple facts, that guns are designed to kill and logic. So all arguments about what is humane are again irrelevant, we know to own a gun is owning a live weapon, is designed to kil.
I only offer the moral high ground over all your points, which you know I do, because every point I have made, you now move onto another.
You know I have the moral high ground here

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:


the purpose of the design is irrelevant....proving my point that it is not the item but the person behind it that is the problem....just because you are wedded to you car doesnt justify owning a working model of a potentially lethal one tonne missile.

Hilarious, now something should be stooped because its design is not meant to kill, it does kill, thus we must stop it?
Really, how is that not relevant?
A car killing someone is either done on purpose of by accident, it was not designed to kill. A gun however is designed to kill, that is a fact, and guns are used to shoot and by shooting a gun, it can kill, thus what relevance is there in having something that its only real purpose was designed with the intention to kill?
You cannot get your kid to school, by placing them down the barrel of your gun and firing it can you?

I think you rather miss the point.....the purpose of the design is what is irrelevant.....The USE to which the item is PUT is what matters..and considering car deaths v's gun deaths, it seems to me that rather more cars are misused than guns...moreover any t**t can own a car legally...

many guns are NOT "designed" to kill (although they can), they are SPECIFICALLY designed for target shooting...would you like some links???

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:



Hilarious, now something should be stooped because its design is not meant to kill, it does kill, thus we must stop it?
Really, how is that not relevant?
A car killing someone is either done on purpose of by accident, it was not designed to kill. A gun however is designed to kill, that is a fact, and guns are used to shoot and by shooting a gun, it can kill, thus what relevance is there in having something that its only real purpose was designed with the intention to kill?
You cannot get your kid to school, by placing them down the barrel of your gun and firing it can you?

I think you rather miss the point.....the purpose of the design is what is irrelevant.....The USE to which the item is PUT is what matters..and considering car deaths v's gun deaths, it seems to me that rather more cars are misused than guns...moreover any t**t can own a car legally...

many guns are NOT "designed" to kill (although they can), they are SPECIFICALLY designed for target shooting...would you like some links???

Seriously, why was he gun invented?

To kill, to say after being make use of guns for sport is a copout, it was designed to kill, a car was not designed to kill, so stop being silly and keep this in perspective Victor
So again you know I hold the higher moral ground here, what you argue is after thoughts, not on the intent behind a design, and the gun was designed to kill

Hey I have heard rumours of a type of animal called "RAT"

I believe it is native to this land.

I believe it is classed as vermin or pest.

I believe it is not mans fault it is vermin/ a pest.

I believe some people choose to shoot them.

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

I think you rather miss the point.....the purpose of the design is what is irrelevant.....The USE to which the item is PUT is what matters..and considering car deaths v's gun deaths, it seems to me that rather more cars are misused than guns...moreover any t**t can own a car legally...

many guns are NOT "designed" to kill (although they can), they are SPECIFICALLY designed for target shooting...would you like some links???

Seriously, why was he gun invented?

To kill, to say after being make use of guns for sport is a copout, it was designed to kill, a  car was not designed to kill, so stop being silly and keep this in perspective Victor
So again you know I hold the higher moral ground here, what you argue is after thoughts, not on the intent behind a design, and the gun was designed to kill  

What was "Blade" invented for?

sphinx wrote:Hey I have heard rumours of a type of animal called "RAT"

I believe it is native to this land.

I believe it is classed as vermin or pest.

I believe it is not mans fault it is vermin/ a pest.

I believe some people choose to shoot them.

Yes humans class it as vermin, but does the rat class itself as vermin?


Thus argument failed, yours and others views on that animal, and not the views of the animal itself and whether it sees itself as vermin.
But if you go by that logic, do you know of races of humans classed as vermin?
I do, were they right to class them as vermin?
NO

failed argument sphinx

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


Seriously, why was he gun invented?

To kill, to say after being make use of guns for sport is a copout, it was designed to kill, a  car was not designed to kill, so stop being silly and keep this in perspective Victor
So again you know I hold the higher moral ground here, what you argue is after thoughts, not on the intent behind a design, and the gun was designed to kill  

What was "Blade" invented for?

Wesley Snipes?

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

your whole response to these matters is emotive, childishly so...mawkish sentimentality. As long as the method ensures a clean kill...its humane...you mix up humane with YOUR moral stance (which BTW I dont mock, If you have a moral stance about killing ANYTHING then fine, Its not my place to try to mock or belittle that. rather I should have and do have some respect for it. However by the same token you have no right to impose your morality upon me. Beware however, that if you hold that view AND eat meat...I will scream hypocrite at you  ) Killing is neither humane or inhumane. The method of killing however is another matter..

Actually your arguments are the emotive ones, for example pest control, mine are sound, based upon simple facts, that guns are designed to kill and logic. So all arguments about what is humane are again irrelevant, we know to own a gun is owning a live weapon, is designed to kil.
I only offer the moral high ground over all your points, which you know I do, because every point I have made, you now move onto another.
You know I have the moral high ground here

No didge I know you are being stupid...I own many things that are designed to kill, and many that are not but can kill..., where is there any distinction ...except in my intent and use of them... as usual you find that those who "own the moral high ground" resort to circular and or exclusive argument...just like our two resident god botherers.

you have not made ONE "moral argument" in favour of your standpoint, merely spouting rhetoric, (and poorly based rhetoric at that).

It is an inarguable fact (sadly misused "over the pond") that an inanimate object cannot, of its own volition, kill. Firstly, it requires the human input to work at all (though military robots may change this    ) and THEN it requires the human INTENT to unlawfully kill. This applies, whether the item is a gun, a car, a dinner knife or a brick.

you also blow this out of proportion to the actual risk involved....what is more likely to kill you

a raging gun nut?

a criminal with a gun

a car driver

disease

a religious nutter

lightening strike

sex

put them in order???

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:Hey I have heard rumours of a type of animal called "RAT"

I believe it is native to this land.

I believe it is classed as vermin or pest.

I believe it is not mans fault it is vermin/ a pest.

I believe some people choose to shoot them.

Yes humans class it as vermin, but does the rat class itself as vermin?


Thus argument failed, yours and others views on that animal, and not the views of the animal itself and whether it sees itself as vermin.
But if you go by that logic, do you know of races of humans classed as vermin?
I do, were they right to class them as vermin?
NO

failed argument sphinx  

childish and emotive

called anthropomorphism, ascribing human feelings and understanding to animals. the rat doesnt "see" itself as anything...it has no "self awareness" It lacks the part of the brain that self awreness exists in...
you cannot compare the "human argument " to the rat....

you are trying AGAIN to tie in your favourite slur on anyone who disagrees with you....

liberalistprogressive

failed argument DIDGE.

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

I think you rather miss the point.....the purpose of the design is what is irrelevant.....The USE to which the item is PUT is what matters..and considering car deaths v's gun deaths, it seems to me that rather more cars are misused than guns...moreover any t**t can own a car legally...

many guns are NOT "designed" to kill (although they can), they are SPECIFICALLY designed for target shooting...would you like some links???

Seriously, why was he gun invented?

To kill, to say after being make use of guns for sport is a copout, it was designed to kill, a  car was not designed to kill, so stop being silly and keep this in perspective Victor
So again you know I hold the higher moral ground here, what you argue is after thoughts, not on the intent behind a design, and the gun was designed to kill  

the purpose of the design is irrelevant...

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:


Actually your arguments are the emotive ones, for example pest control, mine are sound, based upon simple facts, that guns are designed to kill and logic. So all arguments about what is humane are again irrelevant, we know to own a gun is owning a live weapon, is designed to kil.
I only offer the moral high ground over all your points, which you know I do, because every point I have made, you now move onto another.
You know I have the moral high ground here

No didge I know you are being stupid...I own many things that are designed to kill, and many that are not but can kill..., where is there any distinction ...except in my intent and use of them... as usual you find that those who "own the moral high ground" resort to circular and or exclusive argument...just like our two resident god botherers.
Again deflection onto me about my knowledge which is so far having to gun go lally people in a spin they have to turn onto me to try and wing, I love that. Your point is irrelevant, gun was designed to kill, a car to transport, you know I have the higher moral ground, hence why you are pissed with it
you have not made ONE "moral argument" in favour of your standpoint, merely spouting rhetoric, (and poorly based rhetoric at that).

It is an inarguable fact (sadly misused "over the pond") that an inanimate object cannot, of its own volition, kill. Firstly, it requires the human input to work at all (though military robots may change this    ) and THEN it requires the human INTENT to unlawfully kill. This applies, whether the item is a gun, a car, a dinner knife or a brick.
Irrelevant, if you choose to kill something does it have ever a valid reason, to kill to eat meat does not for human, as we can live without it. To kill for our own needs, is selfish, because it does not seek to think of those we decide to kill, thus negating any argument you have

you also blow this out of proportion to the actual risk involved....what is more likely to kill you

a raging gun nut?

a criminal with a gun

a car driver

disease

a religious nutter

lightening strike

sex

put them in order???

I am not using risks, you are, a car designed to kill is not what it was made for, a gun is,you can argue the merits of what a use of something has, but something designed to kill, morally is wrong on every level, thus it ceases to have any moral or even useful use unless that use is to kill, because to have a sport out of killing is also morally wrong. Thus on any level, to have guns that are active is only for the sole beneficiary of the user, because even with pest control, nobody should have pleasure out of killing. Pest control is are own design, what we think, that again does not make it right or an excise to kill

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

OK didge I'll bite, since this rather tickles me

just give straight answers to the following

do we have pest species

are there some species that are invasive foreign species and pests

is this mans fault

(i'll save you the trouble here...it undoubtedly is)

Is "doing nothing" an option?

example....

some years ago a number of ring necked parakeets escaped from pinewood studios and established themselves in the surrounding area. they are now a serious pest and spreading rapidly outwards. they displace and destroy native species, they can destroy an orchard in hours, they can devastate your garden in minutes, they make an incredible mess. therefor the GOVERNMENT have placed them on the "general licence" as vermin. I.E no closed season...

what would you do about it??

Nothing

havnt a clue?

its mans that caused it...but no solution...?

or should man now act as apex predator and remove or eliminate if possible the problem?


and JUST answer the questions...without waffle.....

But the fact is we have created the problem, you give an example of ring necked parakeets, is there natural environment in Pine Wood Studies?
No, thus if we have created the problem, we had the ability to not make that problem of pest control in the first place. Going off the back of mistakes is still not an excuse to have a gun, because we have other weapons that can kill also, thus showing your argument lacks credibility. Even worse than that why is there a need to control this situation, because it is only in our own interest, not the creatures involved, as someone always loses out. So again your view is flawed by these factors.
I never said we should not have a solution either, and there are other means to combat pest control without shooting is there not, but to back a view to shoot and own a gun off pest control is absurd and you know it

so no straight answers then...just waffle....

can I reply to the thread  ?

irrelevant I am going to do so anyway.......

Hopefully sex  

It is the one thing i cannot remember what it is....... I know where my car is, I do not have a gun, am not a criminal and love all religious peoples, am up to date with all my injections according to my vet and never venture anywhere in a thunder storm.  So it must be the odd one out and the odd one is always dangerous.

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:


Yes humans class it as vermin, but does the rat class itself as vermin?


Thus argument failed, yours and others views on that animal, and not the views of the animal itself and whether it sees itself as vermin.
But if you go by that logic, do you know of races of humans classed as vermin?
I do, were they right to class them as vermin?
NO

failed argument sphinx  

childish and emotive

called anthropomorphism, ascribing human feelings and understanding to animals. the rat doesnt "see" itself as anything...it has no "self awareness" It lacks the part of the brain that self awreness exists in...
you cannot compare the "human argument " to the rat....

you are trying AGAIN to tie in your favourite slur on anyone who disagrees with you....

liberalistprogressive

failed argument DIDGE.

Actually your answer is the emotive one, I speak logic, you bring in emotions,, because logically an animal considered a pest is human thinking not animal thinking

So no failed argument and I know I am winning because both you and sphinx are very emotive in your replies, seeking to discredit me and not my arguments, hence I know the more you get wound up, the more you lose!

Try harder mate