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

      

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:


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....

Copout reply, I am bored now, you have no case and you know it, two of you with your knowledge as well


Happy days and it was easy

  

Night

Good to have you back mate

Sorry didge...but HYPOCRITE.....

you have elsewhere admitted to being a carnivore...you therefore cannot uphold the moral argument that killing either for food or pest control is wrong. I assume you also wear leather shoes?

you are in fact arguing from a hypotheical position of "the ideal world" which doesnt exist and is unlikely ever to..since what is ideal is subjective.

and the above is not a coconut answer...it is you running from answering straight questions with straight answers....THAT is cowardice....

did id say coconut   .....next trip ...specsavers... i meant copout

victorisnotamused wrote:Sorry didge...but HYPOCRITE.....

you have elsewhere admitted to being a carnivore...you therefore cannot uphold the moral argument that killing either for food or pest control is wrong. I assume you also wear leather shoes?

you are in fact arguing from a hypotheical position of "the ideal world" which doesnt exist and is unlikely ever to..since what is ideal is subjective.

and the above is not a coconut answer...it is you running from answering straight questions with straight answers....THAT is cowardice....

Poor again Victor, last reply here now, I am all for killing animals to eat, my point is even i could never claim it is morally right to do so, because I could live without it, so no hypocrisy, so if i was to argue in favour of eating meat, which I am not, all I am pointing out morally there is no right in such an argument, so stop being desperate where you have no answer again you seek badly to try and get at points on me


The point is I am arguing logic on the points at hand and the moral stand point, thus you are now clutching at straws.


Laters

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  

Actually I class the whole of the human species as vermin and think the best thing that could happen for the planet would be for homo sapiens to be 100% wiped out in some way or another. Failing that a disease with 95% plus mortality would be good.

Said position usually results in the response that "I bet you (meaning me) would expect to be one of the survivors" - it is when I state no I fully accept that however much I want to live my death would benefit the planet and I would accept it that people shut up and go quiet.

So please do not try and tell me what my beliefs are because I know them - and you clearly havent got a clue.

you cannot argue logic and morals in the same breath...logic is immutable...morals are not.....

sphinx 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  

Actually I class the whole of the human species as vermin and think the best thing that could happen for the planet would be for homo sapiens to be 100% wiped out in some way or another.  Failing that a disease with 95% plus mortality would be good.

Said position usually results in the response that "I bet you (meaning me) would expect to be one of the survivors" - it is when I state no I fully accept that however much I want to live my death would benefit the planet and I would accept it that people shut up and go quiet.

So please do not try and tell me what my beliefs are because I know them - and you clearly havent got a clue.

thats a bit of a dark view Sphinx......  

sphinx 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  

Actually I class the whole of the human species as vermin and think the best thing that could happen for the planet would be for homo sapiens to be 100% wiped out in some way or another.  Failing that a disease with 95% plus mortality would be good.

Said position usually results in the response that "I bet you (meaning me) would expect to be one of the survivors" - it is when I state no I fully accept that however much I want to live my death would benefit the planet and I would accept it that people shut up and go quiet.

So please do not try and tell me what my beliefs are because I know them - and you clearly havent got a clue.

Another guilt by association argument, what an utter fail, based on your own poor perceptions of humanity, when humanity has the capability of doing so much good, you only see the negative. It is an argument that seeks its own self gain, which is utterly sad to be honest and again very selfish.
How about we start with you to start your plan?

Behave, your emotive responses are now showing your true feeling and lack of respect you have for others, because you judge them collectively, not as individuals


You get an E for that post

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:Sorry didge...but HYPOCRITE.....

you have elsewhere admitted to being a carnivore...you therefore cannot uphold the moral argument that killing either for food or pest control is wrong. I assume you also wear leather shoes?

you are in fact arguing from a hypotheical position of "the ideal world" which doesnt exist and is unlikely ever to..since what is ideal is subjective.

and the above is not a coconut answer...it is you running from answering straight questions with straight answers....THAT is cowardice....

Poor again Victor, last reply here now, I am all for killing animals to eat, my point is even i could never claim it is morally right to do so, because I could live without it, so no hypocrisy, so if i was to argue in favour of eating meat, which I am not, all I am pointing out morally there is no right in such an argument, so stop being desperate where you have no answer again you seek badly to try and get at points on me


The point is I am arguing logic on the points at hand and the moral stand point, thus you are now clutching at straws.


Laters

Do without it?

You are aware that if tomorrow every human went vegetarian there would be major problems with essential amino acids as the vegetarian sources of them are limited.

Homo sapiens is evolved as a omnivore intended to have a certain amount of meat in a healthy balanced diet - it is difficult to achieve that without meat.

victorisnotamused wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Actually I class the whole of the human species as vermin and think the best thing that could happen for the planet would be for homo sapiens to be 100% wiped out in some way or another.  Failing that a disease with 95% plus mortality would be good.

Said position usually results in the response that "I bet you (meaning me) would expect to be one of the survivors" - it is when I state no I fully accept that however much I want to live my death would benefit the planet and I would accept it that people shut up and go quiet.

So please do not try and tell me what my beliefs are because I know them - and you clearly havent got a clue.

thats a bit of a dark view Sphinx......  

My apologies victor - I do know it shocks people - normally because when I state it they are face to face with me and can see I am being truthful.

However I find it a mistake to try and form a world view holding mankind somehow separate from everything else. I am not a dark person and have an intense vibrant love of life and living - I just see that sometimes what is good for me is not necessarily good for everyone and everything else and I accept that.

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:



Poor again Victor, last reply here now, I am all for killing animals to eat, my point is even i could never claim it is morally right to do so, because I could live without it, so no hypocrisy, so if i was to argue in favour of eating meat, which I am not, all I am pointing out morally there is no right in such an argument, so stop being desperate where you have no answer again you seek badly to try and get at points on me


The point is I am arguing logic on the points at hand and the moral stand point, thus you are now clutching at straws.


Laters

Do without it?

You are aware that if tomorrow every human went vegetarian there would be major problems with essential amino acids as the vegetarian sources of them are limited.  

Homo sapiens is evolved as a omnivore intended to have a certain amount of meat in a healthy balanced diet - it is difficult to achieve that without meat.

Hilarious, can humans live without meat?

Yes, you bring in possible problems, not that they can, again showing a daft view, of which we can still kill animals without guns, more to point your view is daft.
Also evolution shows animals moving from carnivores to vegetarian, is that now a problem, where evolution finds it better?


Again an absurd argument

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Actually I class the whole of the human species as vermin and think the best thing that could happen for the planet would be for homo sapiens to be 100% wiped out in some way or another.  Failing that a disease with 95% plus mortality would be good.

Said position usually results in the response that "I bet you (meaning me) would expect to be one of the survivors" - it is when I state no I fully accept that however much I want to live my death would benefit the planet and I would accept it that people shut up and go quiet.

So please do not try and tell me what my beliefs are because I know them - and you clearly havent got a clue.

Another guilt by association argument, what an utter fail, based on your own poor perceptions of humanity, when humanity has the capability of doing so much good, you only see the negative. It is an argument that seeks its own self gain, which is utterly sad to be honest and again very selfish.
How about we start with you to start your plan?

Behave, your emotive responses are now showing your true feeling and lack of respect you have for others, because you judge them collectively, not as individuals


You get an E for that post  

Aaaawwwwww Sweetie. Never mind. Victor got it.

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Do without it?

You are aware that if tomorrow every human went vegetarian there would be major problems with essential amino acids as the vegetarian sources of them are limited.  

Homo sapiens is evolved as a omnivore intended to have a certain amount of meat in a healthy balanced diet - it is difficult to achieve that without meat.

Hilarious, can humans live without meat?

Yes, you bring in possible problems, not that they can, again showing a daft view, of which we can still kill animals without guns, more to point your view is daft

Do you understand the difference between A human can live without meat but if the whole of humanity tried it there would be problems?

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


Another guilt by association argument, what an utter fail, based on your own poor perceptions of humanity, when humanity has the capability of doing so much good, you only see the negative. It is an argument that seeks its own self gain, which is utterly sad to be honest and again very selfish.
How about we start with you to start your plan?

Behave, your emotive responses are now showing your true feeling and lack of respect you have for others, because you judge them collectively, not as individuals


You get an E for that post  

Aaaawwwwww Sweetie.  Never mind.  Victor got it.

Wow and that makes your point? lol

Victor got it, so that makes your point valid

 ://?roflmao?/:

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


Hilarious, can humans live without meat?

Yes, you bring in possible problems, not that they can, again showing a daft view, of which we can still kill animals without guns, more to point your view is daft

Do you understand the difference between A human can live without meat but if the whole of humanity tried it there would be problems?

Problems we could adapt to, could we not, again your argument is on what if's, not if we can

Fail, you are now demoted to an F

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Do you understand the difference between A human can live without meat but if the whole of humanity tried it there would be problems?

Problems we could adapt to, could we not, again your argument is on what if's, not if we can

Fail, you are now demoted to an F

HOW....go on...didge the all knowing....how could we adapt...without exterminating 9/10th of the human race???

all ideas and no solutions...

this is what I find so hilarious

all talk and no trousers.....

IF we could adapt.....HOW would we adapt???

you must know...so let us in on the secret.....and tell us why we havnt so far????

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Aaaawwwwww Sweetie.  Never mind.  Victor got it.

Wow and that makes your point? lol

Victor got it, so that makes your point valid

 ://?roflmao?/:

Well it does rather make the score 100% better than yours....since NOBODY seems to get your point.......  :::grouch:: ://?roflmao?/: 

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:


Problems we could adapt to, could we not, again your argument is on what if's, not if we can

Fail, you are now demoted to an F

HOW....go on...didge the all knowing....how could we adapt...without exterminating 9/10th  of the human race???

all ideas and no solutions...

this is what I find so hilarious

all talk and no trousers.....

IF we could adapt.....HOW would we adapt???

you must know...so let us in on the secret.....and tell us why we havnt so far????

It matters not how only that we could, again showing you miss the point that we could and can.


Seriously and you lay claim to me with emotive arguments, when you bring them up all the time


You get an F also

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Aaaawwwwww Sweetie.  Never mind.  Victor got it.

Wow and that makes your point? lol

Victor got it, so that makes your point valid

 ://?roflmao?/:

To just about everyone except you yes it does.

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:


Wow and that makes your point? lol

Victor got it, so that makes your point valid

 ://?roflmao?/:

Well it does rather make the score 100% better than yours....since NOBODY seems to get your point.......  :::grouch:: ://?roflmao?/: 

Do they not, as seen most are against guns on this thread, so are you sure they do not see my point or go off the back you and sphinx are getting a spanking that you now lay claim to others views?

Mate that was really pathetic

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


Wow and that makes your point? lol

Victor got it, so that makes your point valid

 ://?roflmao?/:

To just about everyone except you yes it does.

Really, back that perception up you have that everyone does with evidence here that everyone sees your point and not mine?

So you lied again, you do not know everyone else sees that, you told a whopper of a presumption did you not?


Sadly when people dig a hole as you do sphinx and do not recognise they are beaten in a debate, they make it worse as you do now

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Do you understand the difference between A human can live without meat but if the whole of humanity tried it there would be problems?

Problems we could adapt to, could we not, again your argument is on what if's, not if we can

Fail, you are now demoted to an F

You might want to look into agriculture possibilities a little bit deeper. There would be major difficulties in growing enough of the right kind of vegetation on the planet to provide every human on the planet with a properly balanced diet. If every human on the planet went vegetarian tomorrow within a few years there would be major malnutrition issues. That is quite besides the moral issues of the large numbers of agricultural animals used only for food being slaughtered with no use so the land they graze could be put to use feeding the newly vegetarian population.

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

HOW....go on...didge the all knowing....how could we adapt...without exterminating 9/10th  of the human race???

all ideas and no solutions...

this is what I find so hilarious

all talk and no trousers.....

IF we could adapt.....HOW would we adapt???

you must know...so let us in on the secret.....and tell us why we havnt so far????

It matters not how only that we could, again showing you miss the point that we could and can.

so in fact you havnt a clue...you just rather think we can?????. It is common that when you make a claim like that you produce at least the semblance of an idea as to how such an outrageous idea could be implemented....
Seriously and you lay claim to me with emotive arguments, when you bring them up all the time
well if you keep spouting airhead ideas...without showing how it would work what do you expect....

all talk and no trousers.....I name you Didge the clueless......

You get an F also  

I would return your post as ungraded,

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


Problems we could adapt to, could we not, again your argument is on what if's, not if we can

Fail, you are now demoted to an F

You might want to look into agriculture possibilities a little bit deeper.  There would be major difficulties in growing enough of the right kind of vegetation on the planet to provide every human on the planet with a properly balanced diet.  If every human on the planet went vegetarian tomorrow within a few years there would be major malnutrition issues.  That is quite besides the moral issues of the large numbers of agricultural animals used only for food being slaughtered with no use so the land they graze could be put to use feeding the newly vegetarian population.

I do not need to, can a human survive only on veg?

Yes, thus possible reasons to why it might cause harm are irrelevant to collective groups of people. So we already know he problems, it does not mean that humans cannot do so does it, thus again an utter failure argument to the point whether they can or not.
Seriously get a grip, you debate better than this normally, now you are losing it

Didge to help you understand the point

It is possible for 1 car to run on biofuel

It is possible for several cars to run on biofuel.

It is not possible for all cars to run on biofuel because the amount of crops required to produce that amount of biofuel would mean there was not enough crops to provide food for everyone.

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:


It matters not how only that we could, again showing you miss the point that we could and can.

so in fact you havnt a clue...you just rather think we can?????. It is common that when you make a claim like that you produce at least the semblance of an idea as to how such an outrageous idea could be implemented....
Seriously and you lay claim to me with emotive arguments, when you bring them up all the time
well if you keep spouting airhead ideas...without showing how it would work  what do you expect....

all talk and no trousers.....I name you Didge the clueless......

You get an F also  

I would return your post as ungraded,

lol another emotive reply about me


Fail

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

I would return your post as ungraded,

lol another emotive reply about me


Fail

I have been drinking so this trip into Didge world is amusing me.

If you are the one who started the grading thing

How can it be that when victor grades it is emotive but when you do it is cold logical thought out debating?

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


Problems we could adapt to, could we not, again your argument is on what if's, not if we can

Fail, you are now demoted to an F

You might want to look into agriculture possibilities a little bit deeper.  There would be major difficulties in growing enough of the right kind of vegetation on the planet to provide every human on the planet with a properly balanced diet.  If every human on the planet went vegetarian tomorrow within a few years there would be major malnutrition issues.  That is quite besides the moral issues of the large numbers of agricultural animals used only for food being slaughtered with no use so the land they graze could be put to use feeding the newly vegetarian population.

Not to mention that it WOULD require the deforestation of nearly ALL the planet.
not to mention that the processing/ transport etc (since no one region could EVER grow the variety of crops needed) would cause in and of itself massive ecological damage..
not to mention the loss of biosphere to food production would cause nearly all other species to go extinct..
not to mention that the sheer cost would cause riots
not to mention that the massive increase in use of pesticides and fertilizers would poison the biosphere even more than it is....
not to mention that millions of people across the world might object to being made to grow non traditional crops soley for the food corportaions...

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

just how would it work...I await elucidation of this from the master himself.....

sphinx wrote:Didge to help you understand the point

It is possible for 1 car to run on biofuel

It is possible for several cars to run on biofuel.

It is not possible for all cars to run on biofuel because the amount of crops required to produce that amount of biofuel  would mean there was not enough crops to provide food for everyone.

And?


What does that prove?

We cannot run many cars on biofuel, though we can on on technologies that do not use solar power can we not?
Thus who is talking about bio fuel even being needed?
You are, I am not, the point was can we survive without meat, we can, you again bring in daft views on now utterly stupid points on bio fuel, hilarious, you are really embarrassing yourself.
I can take this one step further, we do without the cars for the biofuel, we go back to basics, meaning your argument is fucked

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


lol another emotive reply about me


Fail

I have been drinking so this trip into Didge world is amusing me.

If you are the one who started the grading thing

How can it be that when victor grades it is emotive but when you do it is cold logical thought out debating?

because didge has more faces than the town hall clock....

victorisnotamused wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You might want to look into agriculture possibilities a little bit deeper.  There would be major difficulties in growing enough of the right kind of vegetation on the planet to provide every human on the planet with a properly balanced diet.  If every human on the planet went vegetarian tomorrow within a few years there would be major malnutrition issues.  That is quite besides the moral issues of the large numbers of agricultural animals used only for food being slaughtered with no use so the land they graze could be put to use feeding the newly vegetarian population.

Not to mention that it WOULD require the deforestation of nearly ALL the planet.
not to mention that the processing/ transport etc (since no one region could EVER grow the variety of crops needed) would cause in and of itself massive ecological damage..
not to mention the loss of biosphere to food production would cause nearly all other species to go extinct..
not to mention that the sheer cost would cause riots
not to mention that the massive increase in use of pesticides and fertilizers would poison the biosphere even more than it is....
not to mention that millions of people across the world might object to being made to grow non traditional crops soley for the food corportaions...

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

just how would it work...I await elucidation of this from the master himself.....

All irrelevant, nobody is saying it would not create problems, or even humans being decimated, what is being stated, is humans can survive without meat, again an utterly idiotic reply

victorisnotamused wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I have been drinking so this trip into Didge world is amusing me.

If you are the one who started the grading thing

How can it be that when victor grades it is emotive but when you do it is cold logical thought out debating?

because didge has more faces than the town hall clock....

Bless more attacks on me when they cannot win a debate,


Game over ha ha

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


lol another emotive reply about me


Fail

I have been drinking so this trip into Didge world is amusing me.

If you are the one who started the grading thing

How can it be that when victor grades it is emotive but when you do it is cold logical thought out debating?

Simple my replies are logical, yours and victors have been exposed when they are not and both of you seek to undermine me at every opportunity and fail badly, thus emotive

I really am going now, hope to see something credible tomoroow


Night

Hey I have just thought - IF it were possible for every human to turn vegetarian (which it is not) then rats and rodents would actually become a far bigger pest because they destroy far more vegetable/grain based foodstuffs than meat based food stuffs

So a vegetarian would have more need to kill pest animals than a meat eater.

Didge wrote:I really am going now, hope to see something credible tomoroow


Night

Thats a shame - I find a trip into your logical processes as fascinating as how an acid trip is supposed to be. Even better exploring your logic is currently a legal high.

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

Not to mention that it WOULD require the deforestation of nearly ALL the planet.
not to mention that the processing/ transport etc (since no one region could EVER grow the variety of crops needed) would cause in and of itself massive ecological damage..
not to mention the loss of biosphere to food production would cause nearly all other species to go extinct..
not to mention that the sheer cost would cause riots
not to mention that the massive increase in use of pesticides and fertilizers would poison the biosphere even more than it is....
not to mention that millions of people across the world might object to being made to grow non traditional crops soley for the food corportaions...

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

just how would it work...I await elucidation of this from the master himself.....

All irrelevant, nobody is saying it would not create problems, or even humans being decimated, what is being stated, is humans can survive without meat, again an utterly idiotic reply

No didge YOU are the idiot, since by your own admission what you propose is unworkable..isnt it...dont you rather think that many of the humans would object, violently, to being "decimated"???
YOU said its possible...that implies workable, unless you are just arguing black is white for arguments sake.....
how about a "practical argument"...

you are long on "theory" but very short on practice.......
a childish practice at best, trolling at worst....

so lets have it....how do YOU propose that such a nutjob idea could be made to work...in practice???

It cant can it..so your whole argument is smoke and mirrors....

HUMANS...as individuals or in VERY small numbers could well survive without meat...Humanity as the collective whole cannot...therefor your argument is moot..

sphinx wrote:Hey I have just thought - IF it were possible for every human to turn vegetarian (which it is not) then rats and rodents would actually become a far bigger pest because they destroy far more vegetable/grain based foodstuffs than meat based food stuffs

So a vegetarian would have more need to kill pest animals than a meat eater.

Again is that a reason to kill them?
No, because again it is to advantage humans, not the animal, which you miss the point of again or again how humans could all turn to being vegetarian, again a failed argument

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:I really am going now, hope to see something credible tomoroow


Night

Thats a shame - I find a trip into your logical processes as fascinating as how an acid trip is supposed to be.  Even better exploring your logic is currently a legal high.

Epic fail again, you seek to attack me and not my points

Brilliant and you keep doing so because you have no credible argument and the fact is sphinx,

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:


All irrelevant, nobody is saying it would not create problems, or even humans being decimated, what is being stated, is humans can survive without meat, again an utterly idiotic reply

No didge YOU are the idiot, since by your own admission what you propose is unworkable..isnt it...dont you rather think that many of the humans would object, violently, to being "decimated"???
YOU said its possible...that implies workable, unless you are just arguing black is white for arguments sake.....
how about a "practical argument"...
Irrelevant, it is possible for people to do much about it as those like the human takers we already are already do this anyway do we not, thus a flawed argument
you are long on "theory" but very short on practice.......
a childish practice  at best, trolling at worst....
Oh dear another failed argument as it seeks to attack me when getting his arse spanked in a debate, again the principle behind my concept is already workable

so lets have it....how do YOU propose that such a nutjob idea could be made to work...in practice???
Certain people have control, simple, as they always have done

It cant can it..so your whole argument is smoke and mirrors....
I just proved it can

HUMANS...as individuals or in VERY small numbers could well survive without meat...Humanity as the collective whole cannot...therefor your argument is moot..

Yes it can survive without meat, the fact you and sphinx bring in over the top reasons to claim it cannot be done shows the reality is your arguments are desperate to discredit something which is very possible, so again you did nothing to challenge anything I said. If all the animals died off tomorrow from some pandemic humans would have no choice but to eat vegetarian food.

Sassy wrote:
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

      

he is right it was a kneejerk reaction and a poor decision that took a sport and past time from legitimate and responsible gun owners...

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Sassy wrote:
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

      

he is right it was a kneejerk reaction and a poor decision that took a sport and past time from legitimate and responsible gun owners...

It was a great decision, the majority have spoken and thank goodness for that.

nobody asked the majority.the majority could not care less.

same with fox hunting,the majority were NOT asked.i wasn't

nicko wrote:nobody asked the majority.the majority could not care less.

A rather big assumption, I am glad we have strict controls, as i said before those who get off by killings things with guns via hunting, do so to feel empowered, which is rather pathetic when you think about it

i watched quite a lot of the debate at the time and one politician, think it was austin mitchell, Asked if it had been considered that a large part of any pistol could be separated from the whole pistol and kept separately between the owner and the gun club rendering said pistol useless, they had only considered separating the magazine or cylinder of said gun and keeping the magazine or cylinder at the gun club but that would be far too easy for the owner to have spare magazines or cylinders and still have a dangerous and active pistol, mitchell said why couldn't the owner keep the magazine or cylinder and the club the majority of the pistol, that was simply dismissed as it was not considered in the report.

it shows how much the report actually took in to consideration...

It would seem that didges argument is he feels much better and safer with the ban regardless of the fact that death from guns went up after it and because he feels better it worked and should not be changed.

sphinx wrote:It would seem that didges argument is he feels much better and safer with the ban regardless of the fact that death from guns went up after it and because he feels better it worked and should not be changed.

Nothing worse when you do not complete the picture, yes it did initially go up and has since continued to fall year on year, thus clearly is working, because it takes time to impliment a law .
We have one of the strictest gun laws in the world and thank goodness for that

Gone down year on year?  ://?roflmao?/: 

You really havent actually bothered looking at the figures have you?

sphinx wrote:Gone down year on year?   ://?roflmao?/: 

You really havent actually bothered looking at the figures have you?

lets see the figures for all gun crimes then mwah mwah mwah