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

      

I have already given it but you clearly could not be bothered to check. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

So Sphinx uses deaths now which again is a downward trend of which I did not ask now did I?


Whoops

Irrelevant we have one of the lowest gun crime rates and thank goodness for that, get used to the fact we are strict on allowing people to use guns

Plus many crimes were with imitations, not real guns


DOH

The year after the ban came in the deaths were 49 - which was higher than before the ban. 2010/11 they were 58. 2011/12 42.

Basically the ban made no impact whatsoever on death rate as it still fluctuates above and below. You have produced evidence that there are less guns - so all we have managed is to be killing the same number of people with less weapons.

You call that an improvement. I call it pointless.

sphinx wrote:The year after the ban came in the deaths were 49 - which was higher than before the ban.  2010/11 they were 58.  2011/12 42.

Basically the ban made no impact whatsoever on death rate as it still fluctuates above and below.  You have produced evidence that there are less guns - so all we have managed is to be killing the same number of people with less weapons.

You call that an improvement.  I call it pointless.

The amount of deaths is not again the full picture, when one gun by one person can kill many, it would be gun crimes more to the point.

Again I am happy with the state of affairs and the reality is all this fuss is in regards to a hobby, of which we do already still allow certain guns for clubs, so I fail to see the fuss from your side

sphinx wrote:The year after the ban came in the deaths were 49 - which was higher than before the ban.  2010/11 they were 58.  2011/12 42.

Basically the ban made no impact whatsoever on death rate as it still fluctuates above and below.  You have produced evidence that there are less guns - so all we have managed is to be killing the same number of people with less weapons.

You call that an improvement.  I call it pointless.

it just took legal guns away from responsible gun owners and some people I know who gave up pistols made quite a tidy sum too..

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

sphinx wrote:The year after the ban came in the deaths were 49 - which was higher than before the ban.  2010/11 they were 58.  2011/12 42.

Basically the ban made no impact whatsoever on death rate as it still fluctuates above and below.  You have produced evidence that there are less guns - so all we have managed is to be killing the same number of people with less weapons.

You call that an improvement.  I call it pointless.

it just took legal guns away from responsible gun owners and some people I know who gave up pistols made quite a tidy sum too..

I really think such a thing as responsible gun owner is a false premise, because at any given time, they can turn this gun to lethal force, of which has happened, the responsible thing to do is to deny that lethal force of weaponry in the first place.
Just people stamping their feet over nothing.

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:The year after the ban came in the deaths were 49 - which was higher than before the ban.  2010/11 they were 58.  2011/12 42.

Basically the ban made no impact whatsoever on death rate as it still fluctuates above and below.  You have produced evidence that there are less guns - so all we have managed is to be killing the same number of people with less weapons.

You call that an improvement.  I call it pointless.

The amount of deaths is not again the full picture, when one gun by one person can kill many, it would be gun crimes more to the point.

Again I am happy with the state of affairs and the reality is all this fuss is in regards to a hobby, of which we do already still allow certain guns for clubs, so I fail to see the fuss from your side

Says it all doesnt it?

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


The amount of deaths is not again the full picture, when one gun by one person can kill many, it would be gun crimes more to the point.

Again I am happy with the state of affairs and the reality is all this fuss is in regards to a hobby, of which we do already still allow certain guns for clubs, so I fail to see the fuss from your side

Says it all doesnt it?

Yes it does say it all when your fuss is over the use to have hand pistols, get an air pistol instead or get an xbox, where you can shoot up as much as you like to your hearts content. There is no moral argument to own a working gun, because guns are designed to kill

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Says it all doesnt it?

Yes it does say it all when your fuss is over the use to have hand pistols, get an air pistol instead or get an xbox, where you can shoot up as much as you like to your hearts content. There is no moral argument to own a working gun, because guns are designed to kill

You know the sad thing is I can see where you are coming from - and why you are so wrong, while you remain oblivious to a whole spectrum of other peoples views.

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


Yes it does say it all when your fuss is over the use to have hand pistols, get an air pistol instead or get an xbox, where you can shoot up as much as you like to your hearts content. There is no moral argument to own a working gun, because guns are designed to kill

You know the sad thing is I can see where you are coming from - and why you are so wrong, while you remain oblivious to a whole spectrum of other peoples views.

Wow you claim I am wrong great counter, not, how?
Owning workable guns is morally wrong, nothing to do with the views of some people, when I know some people advocate using guns.
So I ignore nothing but laugh at such a silly reply

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You know the sad thing is I can see where you are coming from - and why you are so wrong, while you remain oblivious to a whole spectrum of other peoples views.

Wow you claim I am wrong great counter, not, how?
Owning workable guns is morally wrong, nothing to do with the views of some people, when I know some people advocate using guns.
So I ignore nothing but laugh at such a silly reply

So you are saying that state is morally wrong because it owns workable guns.

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


Wow you claim I am wrong great counter, not, how?
Owning workable guns is morally wrong, nothing to do with the views of some people, when I know some people advocate using guns.
So I ignore nothing but laugh at such a silly reply

So you are saying that state is morally wrong because it owns workable guns.

No just citizens, the state needs weapons for its armed forces

How can workable guns be immoral in citizens hands but moral in the hands of the state?

sphinx wrote:How can workable guns be immoral in citizens hands but moral in the hands of the state?

I never said it was moral did I, as there is no moral argument to kill, as I have tried to argue there is, but you cannot,
So I never stated the state has a moral right to either, but I can see the greater need to me, that we need to have trained armed men to combat conflicts,
So you can still grasp at desperation Sphinx, there is no real argument to own a gun for pleasure, as that is what it amounts to

So in other words you dont give a shit about the moral stance you just believe private individuals should not be allowed guns but state sponsored groups should be without any logical basis to explain why each should be so.

sphinx wrote:So in other words you dont give a shit about the moral stance you just believe private individuals should not be allowed guns but state sponsored groups should be without any logical basis to explain why each should be so.

Wrong again I do give a shit about the moral stance, the fact is to me the state needs an armed force it does not need guns for pleasure , this was made very clear no matter how pathetic your replies are because you back idiots to have the ability to get their gun off, which is utterly pathetic. There is a moral need for an armed force for protection to a nation, even if the higher moral argument would still be it is wrong to kill but no moral argument for having guns for pleasure dummy

how has taking pistols from legal and responsible gun owners helped anything...

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:So in other words you dont give a shit about the moral stance you just believe private individuals should not be allowed guns but state sponsored groups should be without any logical basis to explain why each should be so.

Wrong again I do give a shit about the moral stance, the fact is to me the state needs an armed force it does not need guns for pleasure , this was made very clear no matter how pathetic your replies are because you back idiots to have the ability to get their gun off, which is utterly pathetic. There is a moral need for an armed force for protection to a nation, even if the higher moral argument would still be it is wrong to kill but no moral argument for having guns for pleasure dummy

So guns for pleasure immoral (even though not being used to kill people) but guns for defence of realm moral (even when being used to kill people)

It is moral for the country to use guns to kill to defend itself but not moral for the individual to use guns to shoot paper targets.

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:how has taking pistols from legal and responsible gun owners helped anything...

They owned them for pleasure which is immoral. If they had joined the army and used them to kill people in defence of the country that would have been moral.

sphinx wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:how has taking pistols from legal and responsible gun owners helped anything...

They owned them for pleasure which is immoral.  If they had joined the army and used them to kill people in defence of the country that would have been moral.

lol...how is owning a gun for pleasure immoral....

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:



Wrong again I do give a shit about the moral stance, the fact is to me the state needs an armed force it does not need guns for pleasure , this was made very clear no matter how pathetic your replies are because you back idiots to have the ability to get their gun off, which is utterly pathetic. There is a moral need for an armed force for protection to a nation, even if the higher moral argument would still be it is wrong to kill but no moral argument for having guns for pleasure dummy

So guns for pleasure immoral (even though not being used to kill people) but guns for defence of realm moral (even when being used to kill people)

It is moral for the country to use guns to kill to defend itself but not moral for the individual to use guns to shoot paper targets.

Seems you are a dummy, as what did I say really say?

There is a moral need for an armed force for protection to a nation, even if the higher moral argument would still be it is wrong to kill but no moral argument for having guns for pleasure.
You see you poorly try to twist what I say to justify owning guns for pleasure, when owning guns for pleasure can lead to them being used to kill and where as we arm men to defend our country, we should not arm people for simple pleasure, when again it can lead to them being used to kill, of which in many cases it is used to kill, with hunting and the worst extreme murder


Simple enough to understand it seems, except you sphinx

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So guns for pleasure immoral (even though not being used to kill people) but guns for defence of realm moral (even when being used to kill people)

It is moral for the country to use guns to kill to defend itself but not moral for the individual to use guns to shoot paper targets.

Seems you are a dummy, as what did I say really say?

There is a moral need for an armed force for protection to a nation, even if the higher moral argument would still be it is wrong to kill but no moral argument for having guns for pleasure.
You see you poorly try to twist what I say to justify owning guns for pleasure, when owning guns for pleasure can lead to them being used to kill and where as we arm men to defend our country, we should not arm people for simple pleasure, when again it can lead to them being used to kill, of which in many cases it is used to kill, with hunting and the worst extreme murder


Simple enough to understand it seems, except you sphinx

but people can buy a crossbow, or a long type bow both of which could reek havoc yet they are still quite easy to purchase...

it took one lunatic to do what 40 years of legal campaigning would never have done..

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:


Seems you are a dummy, as what did I say really say?

There is a moral need for an armed force for protection to a nation, even if the higher moral argument would still be it is wrong to kill but no moral argument for having guns for pleasure.
You see you poorly try to twist what I say to justify owning guns for pleasure, when owning guns for pleasure can lead to them being used to kill and where as we arm men to defend our country, we should not arm people for simple pleasure, when again it can lead to them being used to kill, of which in many cases it is used to kill, with hunting and the worst extreme murder


Simple enough to understand it seems, except you sphinx

but people can buy a crossbow, or a long type bow both of which could reek havoc yet they are still quite easy to purchase...

it took one lunatic to do what 40 years of legal campaigning would never have done..

Both weapons wrong also


Next

How can it be declared that ownership of the gun is immoral if the person using it to kill is not the owner and took it from the owner by immoral processes.

Also what is the moral situation when a former hand gun owner who had to give up or deactivate their weapons is shot dead by a burglar with an illegal handgun when if they had still had their weapons they could have defended themselves?

Also is ownership of air rifles moral or immoral? Is ownership of muzzle-loading "black powder" guns, pistols produced before 1917, pistols of historical interest (such as pistols used in notable crimes, rare prototypes, unusual serial numbers and so on), starting pistols, pistols that are of particular aesthetic interest (such as engraved or jewelled guns) and shot pistols for pest control moral or immoral?

Didge wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

but people can buy a crossbow, or a long type bow both of which could reek havoc yet they are still quite easy to purchase...

it took one lunatic to do what 40 years of legal campaigning would never have done..

Both weapons wrong also


Next

you would be very unpopular with the Olympic archery team...lol

Is it still a law that all males must be proficient with a long bow by the age of fourteen..

sphinx wrote:How can it be declared that ownership of the gun is immoral if the person using it to kill is not the owner and took it from the owner by immoral processes.
Yes it is if he uses it to hunt to kill for fun, that is immoral

Also what is the moral situation when a former hand gun owner who had to give up or deactivate their weapons is shot dead by a burglar with an illegal handgun when if they had still had their weapons they could have defended themselves?
He would be unlucky and a remote possibility in this country as seen by the amount of gun deaths, of which the most are gang related

Also is ownership of air rifles moral or immoral?  Is ownership of muzzle-loading "black powder" guns, pistols produced before 1917, pistols of historical interest (such as pistols used in notable crimes, rare prototypes, unusual serial numbers and so on), starting pistols, pistols that are of particular aesthetic interest (such as engraved or jewelled guns) and shot pistols for pest control moral or immoral?

If they can kill or injure, yes.


You are fucked Sphinx, I love these debates, as you well know I have actually no issue with people having guns to defend etc, what I love is battering your poor arguments, which are very easy because you get wound up over it, when you shouldn't!


Hey ho, was fun again

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:How can it be declared that ownership of the gun is immoral if the person using it to kill is not the owner and took it from the owner by immoral processes.
Yes it is if he uses it to hunt to kill for fun, that is immoral

Also what is the moral situation when a former hand gun owner who had to give up or deactivate their weapons is shot dead by a burglar with an illegal handgun when if they had still had their weapons they could have defended themselves?
He would be unlucky and a remote possibility in this country as seen by the amount of gun deaths, of which the most are gang related

Also is ownership of air rifles moral or immoral?  Is ownership of muzzle-loading "black powder" guns, pistols produced before 1917, pistols of historical interest (such as pistols used in notable crimes, rare prototypes, unusual serial numbers and so on), starting pistols, pistols that are of particular aesthetic interest (such as engraved or jewelled guns) and shot pistols for pest control moral or immoral?

If they can kill or injure, yes.


You are fucked Sphinx, I love these debates, as you well know I have actually no issue with people having guns to defend etc, what I love is battering your poor arguments, which are very easy because you get wound up over it, when you shouldn't!


Hey ho, was fun again

is a hammer, a screwdriver, a fountain pen, a pen knife, a set of chop sticks, a length of rope immoral...

the list would be endless...

The collectors gun was never used to shoot any living thing - the collector was a vegetarian. He shot at paper targets for pleasure. Moral or immoral.

Unlucky is not a position on the moral scale - the scenario is possible so where does it lie on the moral scale.

All of those can kill or injure (in fact so can an deactivated weapon firing blanks) but they are legal.

I may be fucked in your version of the world - thankfully I don't have to live there.

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:

If they can kill or injure, yes.


You are fucked Sphinx, I love these debates, as you well know I have actually no issue with people having guns to defend etc, what I love is battering your poor arguments, which are very easy because you get wound up over it, when you shouldn't!


Hey ho, was fun again

is a hammer (tool), a screwdriver (tool), a fountain pen (tool), a pen knife (make illegal), a set of chop sticks (used for food), a length of rope immoral...Only the pen knife

the list would be endless...

Next

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:

If they can kill or injure, yes.


You are fucked Sphinx, I love these debates, as you well know I have actually no issue with people having guns to defend etc, what I love is battering your poor arguments, which are very easy because you get wound up over it, when you shouldn't!


Hey ho, was fun again

is a hammer, a screwdriver, a fountain pen, a pen knife, a set of chop sticks, a length of rope immoral...

the list would be endless...

They were not designed to kill so no they are not immoral - although I would wonder where the hangmans rope sits as that was designed to kill.

sphinx wrote:The collectors gun was never used to shoot any living thing - the collector was a vegetarian.  He shot at paper targets for pleasure.  Moral or immoral.

Unlucky is not a position on the moral scale - the scenario is possible so where does it lie on the moral scale.

All of those can kill or injure (in fact so can an deactivated weapon firing blanks) but they are legal.

I may be fucked in your version of the world - thankfully I don't have to live there.

Utter babble you just made up


You are fucked anyway, guns are very restricted and you get pissed off over something so mundane and pointless

sphinx wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

is a hammer, a screwdriver, a fountain pen, a pen knife, a set of chop sticks, a length of rope immoral...

the list would be endless...

They were not designed to kill so no they are not immoral - although I would wonder where the hangmans rope sits as that was designed to kill.

does the design of something make it immoral, does the use of an item make it immoral...

if you used a pistol to protect your family from a murderer or a rampaging animal is the pistol immoral, is the shooter immoral..

sphinx wrote:The collectors gun was never used to shoot any living thing - the collector was a vegetarian.  He shot at paper targets for pleasure.  Moral or immoral.

Unlucky is not a position on the moral scale - the scenario is possible so where does it lie on the moral scale.

All of those can kill or injure (in fact so can an deactivated weapon firing blanks) but they are legal.

I may be fucked in your version of the world - thankfully I don't have to live there.

i guess the guillotine was immoral yet it was designed by a doctor to make sure beheading was as clean and painless as possible...

is euthanasia immoral...

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

sphinx wrote:

They were not designed to kill so no they are not immoral - although I would wonder where the hangmans rope sits as that was designed to kill.

does the design of something make it immoral, does the use of an item make it immoral...

if you used a pistol to protect your family from a murderer or a rampaging animal is the pistol immoral, is the shooter immoral..

According to didge the morality of something is decided by what it was designed to do - a gun is immoral because it is designed to kill even if it used for anything but killing - other things are not immoral because they were not designed to kill even if used for nothing but killing.

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

sphinx wrote:The collectors gun was never used to shoot any living thing - the collector was a vegetarian.  He shot at paper targets for pleasure.  Moral or immoral.

Unlucky is not a position on the moral scale - the scenario is possible so where does it lie on the moral scale.

All of those can kill or injure (in fact so can an deactivated weapon firing blanks) but they are legal.

I may be fucked in your version of the world - thankfully I don't have to live there.

i guess the guillotine was immoral yet it was designed by a doctor to make sure beheading was as clean and painless as possible...

is euthanasia immoral...

Almost certainly not.

sphinx wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

does the design of something make it immoral, does the use of an item make it immoral...

if you used a pistol to protect your family from a murderer or a rampaging animal is the pistol immoral, is the shooter immoral..

According to didge the morality of something is decided by what it was designed to do - a gun is immoral because it is designed to kill even if it used for anything but killing - other things are not immoral because they were not designed to kill even if used for nothing but killing.

so killing someone with a hammer is not immoral as it was not designed to kill, that's an interesting idea..  

sphinx wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

does the design of something make it immoral, does the use of an item make it immoral...

if you used a pistol to protect your family from a murderer or a rampaging animal is the pistol immoral, is the shooter immoral..

According to didge the morality of something is decided by what it was designed to do - a gun is immoral because it is designed to kill even if it used for anything but killing - other things are not immoral because they were not designed to kill even if used for nothing but killing.

Just that to kill is immoral and guns were designed to kill making them immoral in the first place, as why invent something to kill, that is immoral


I told you that you are fucked

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

sphinx wrote:

According to didge the morality of something is decided by what it was designed to do - a gun is immoral because it is designed to kill even if it used for anything but killing - other things are not immoral because they were not designed to kill even if used for nothing but killing.

so killing someone with a hammer is not immoral as it was not designed to kill, that's an interesting idea..  

It is immoral to kill someone with a hammer, as to kill is immoral!


The hammer was not invented to kill though, a gun was invented to kill, hence the belief around making a gun is immoral, since its application is to kill

Didge wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

so killing someone with a hammer is not immoral as it was not designed to kill, that's an interesting idea..  

It is immoral to kill someone with a hammer, as to kill is immoral!


The hammer was not invented to kill though, a gun was invented to kill, hence the belief around making a gun is immoral, since its application is to kill

lol, so the intention to kill makes it immoral...

if I designed a gun to defend my family, is that immoral....

is a rat trap immoral.....

Actually the hammer is a refinement of the club - which was almost certainly intended as a weapon rather than a tool - while the gun traces its origins back to something invented to treat skin conditions.

Also what is the morality in letting someone attack and kill you without doing anything back?

sphinx wrote:Actually the hammer is a refinement of the club - which was almost certainly intended as a weapon rather than a tool - while the gun traces its origins back to something invented to treat skin conditions.

It was still designed as a tool, which is irrelevant anyway, as anything used to kill would be immoral!
So the gun was invented to treat skin conditions now

 ://?roflmao?/: 

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:


It is immoral to kill someone with a hammer, as to kill is immoral!


The hammer was not invented to kill though, a gun was invented to kill, hence the belief around making a gun is immoral, since its application is to kill

lol, so the intention to kill makes it immoral...

if I designed a gun to defend my family, is that immoral....

is a rat trap immoral.....

Again you have made a gun so that it can kill, that is immoral

sphinx wrote:Also what is the morality in letting someone attack and kill you without doing anything back?

Absurd claim, if there was no guns or trajectory weapons, why would you need a gun to defend yourself?

Didge wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

lol, so the intention to kill makes it immoral...

if I designed a gun to defend my family, is that immoral....

is a rat trap immoral.....

Again you have made a gun so that it can kill, that is immoral

no the gun was designed to defend not kill, that makes it moral by your standards surely...

what if i put a spiked fence round my house is that moral..

euthanasia moral or immoral.....

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:


Again you have made a gun so that it can kill, that is immoral

no the gun was designed to defend not kill, that makes it moral by your standards surely...

what if i put a spiked fence round my house is that moral..

No its is designed to kill, you are talking about justification to kill, there is a difference to why a gun is designed, which goes back to the point why make a gun, if there are no other guns?

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:euthanasia moral or immoral.....

Whilst I advocate euthanasia, but for the argument sake here someone still has to perform the act that kills someone, which again is immoral