Nigel Farage calls for UK gun laws to be relaxed

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 11:10 pm

First topic message reminder :

Nigel Farage calls for UK gun laws to be relaxed
Ukip leader says ban on handguns brought in after Dunblane massacre is 'ludicrous'

Nigel Farage has called for firearm laws to be relaxed, calling the current ban on handguns "ludicrous".

The Ukip leader criticised the "kneejerk" restrictions on handguns imposed after the 1996 Dunblane massacre in which Thomas Hamilton killed 16 schoolchildren and a teacher before shooting himself.

The laws were brought in by Sir John Major, the then Tory prime minister, and extended to a total ban by Tony Blair's Labour government in 1997.

Asked about gun controls, Farage said: "I think proper gun licensing is something we've done in this country responsibly and well for a long time, and I think the kneejerk legislation that Blair brought in that meant that the British Olympic pistol team have to go to France to even practise was just crackers.

"If you criminalise handguns then only the criminals carry the guns. It's really interesting that since Blair brought that piece of law in, gun crime doubled in the next five years in this country."

"I think that we need a proper gun licensing system, which to a large extent I think we already have, and I think the ban on handguns is ludicrous."

Ian Mearns, Labour MP for Gateshead, said the comments were an example of "how extremely dangerous Ukip are".

"Families facing a cost-of-living crisis will find it bizarre that one of Nigel Farage's priorities would be to relax Britain's tough gun controls," he added.

The remarks come after Farage was caught in a storm over his party's 2010 election policies, which he entirely disowned this week and later described as "drivel".

The Ukip leader said he had never read the 486 pages of policy documents that were published alongside Ukip's manifesto in 2010, which included plans to repaint trains in traditional colours, bring in a uniform for taxi drivers, and ban offshore windfarms amid fears they could hurt fish.

After rejecting the entire collection of policies, he told LBC 97.3 that they were put together by Ukip's then policy chief David Campbell Bannerman, who is now a Conservative MEP.

"We had a manifesto – and I'm going to put some inverted commas around it – that was produced in 2010. It was basically a series of policy discussion papers that was put up on the website as a manifesto," he said.

"It was 486 pages long. I'm pleased to say that the idiot that wrote it has now left us and joined the Conservatives. They are very welcome to him.

"Malcolm Pearson, who was leader of Ukip at the time, was picked up in interviews for not knowing the manifesto. Of course he didn't know the manifesto. It was 486 pages of excessive detail.

"Eighteen months ago, I said I wanted the whole lot taken down off the website. We reject the whole thing. We'll start again with a blank sheet of paper. So there's nothing new in that story.

"I didn't read it. It was drivel. 486 pages of drivel. I didn't read it and nor did the party leader."

However, his attempt to distance himself from the documents was undermined on Friday, after it emerged he wrote the foreword to the party's manifesto and helped launch it at an event in London.

A video started circulating of Farage speaking as Ukip's chief spokesman at the launch of the manifesto in Westminster in 2010, promising "straight talking" about the party's policies. The Ukip leader also co-authored the summary 16-page manifesto that now appears to have disappeared from the party's website.

The 2010 policy documents – which also appear to have been blocked – detail plans such as capping the number of foreign players in football teams, bringing back "proper dress" at the theatre, scrapping paid maternity leave, allowing corporal punishment in schools and holding referendums on new places of worship such as mosques.

Other ideas included making the Circle line on the London tube circular again, investigating alleged discrimination against white people at the BBC and teaching schoolchildren more about the role of Arabs and African states in slavery.

Farage's attempt to distance Ukip from its manifesto of four years ago may put him under more scrutiny about what the party stands for in the runup to the May elections.

On Thursday, the usually assured politician floundered on live television as he was asked about the party's proposal to scrap Trident, saying he was not sure where the interviewer had got this suggestion from.

When told it was on the Ukip website, he said: "When it comes to websites, I'm not the expert."

Challenged over a compulsory dress code for taxi drivers, he said: "Do we? News to me."

And asked about a policy to repaint trains in traditional colours, Farage said: "I've never read that. I've no idea what you're talking about."

However, he said it was not "obvious nonsense" that he could cut £90bn of taxes and increase spending by £30bn, even though that would be "ambitious".

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/24/nigel-farage-uk-gun-control-laws-relaxed

Rolling Eyes

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:09 pm

Didge wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

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?

is the injection for euthanasia immoral...

no the gun was designed to defend you said its purpose makes it immoral the purpose of my gun was to scare not kill..

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:10 pm

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

So it is moral to leave the family unprotected?

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:11 pm

Didge wrote:
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?

Because I am crap at fighting and would not be able to fight off a large male intent on strangling me.

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:13 pm

Maybe it would be moral to fight him off with a knife which was not designed to kill.

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:14 pm

sphinx wrote:
Didge wrote:

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

Because I am crap at fighting and would not be able to fight off a large male intent on strangling me.

Can you run or barricade yourself against harm, can you call someone? Do you know your own strengh unless tested in such a situation?
No

So no again poor excuse

by nicko Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:14 pm

many years ago a man,[ several men actually] tried to kill me with guns. they didn't succeed. I had a rifle, I killed 3 of them. I love guns,they saved my life. If you have never used a gun to kill,shut the fcuk up, you don't know what your talking about!!!

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:14 pm

sphinx wrote:
Didge wrote:

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

So it is moral to leave the family unprotected?

Protection is in numbers is it not?

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:15 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Didge wrote:

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?

is the injection for euthanasia immoral...

no the gun was designed to defend you said its purpose makes it immoral the purpose of my gun was to scare not kill..

Again someone has to do the injection and thus they have to kill

by Lone Wolf Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:16 pm

I have the perfect solution :

1. Relax gun laws for one day;

2. Declare "open season" on Nigel Farage;

3. Reimpose existing gun controls.

'You know it makes sense !' pirat

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:16 pm

nicko wrote:many years ago a man,[ several men actually] tried to kill me with guns. they didn't succeed. I had a rifle, I killed 3 of them. I love guns,they saved my life. If you have never used a gun to kill,shut the fcuk up, you don't know what your talking about!!!

behave you were in the armed forces which is different which is not part of the debate, so no I will not shut up you old fart

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:17 pm

sphinx wrote:Maybe it would be moral to fight him off with a knife which was not designed to kill.

Why not a frying pan, less likely to kill is it not?

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:18 pm

Didge wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

is the injection for euthanasia immoral...

no the gun was designed to defend you said its purpose makes it immoral the purpose of my gun was to scare not kill..

Again someone has to do the injection and thus they have to kill

in switzerland you press the button and it kills you so does that make it immoral..

someone has to shoot the gun...it doesn't do it itself you know...

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:19 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Didge wrote:

Again someone has to do the injection and thus they have to kill

in switzerland you press the button and it kills you so does that make it immoral..

someone has to shoot the gun...it doesn't do it itself you know...

Who ever presses the button enacts the kill

I never said a gun does shot itself, but it can be made to trigger such an action by a trap, but again to kill is immoral

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:20 pm

Didge wrote:
nicko wrote:many years ago a man,[ several men actually] tried to kill me with guns. they didn't succeed. I had a rifle, I killed 3 of them. I love guns,they saved my life. If you have never used a gun to kill,shut the fcuk up, you don't know what your talking about!!!

behave you were in the armed forces which is different which is not part of the debate, so no I will not shut up you old fart

Yeah Nicko you were killing sponsored by the state and we all know that is totally different from trying to stop someone killing your family - especially if the person trying to kill your family was sponsored by their state - in that situation they are being totally moral and the only moral option you have is let them do their moral duty.

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:21 pm

Didge wrote:
sphinx wrote:Maybe it would be moral to fight him off with a knife which was not designed to kill.

Why not a frying pan, less likely to kill is it not?

What if I sharpen the handle to a blade with the express intent of cutting but not killing?

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:21 pm

Didge wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

in switzerland you press the button and it kills you so does that make it immoral..

someone has to shoot the gun...it doesn't do it itself you know...

Who ever presses the button enacts the kill

I never said a gun does shot itself, but it can be made to trigger such an action by a trap, but again to kill is immoral

so whoever pulls the trigger enacts the kill and therefore the gun itself is not immoral the shooter is...

you can't have it both ways..

is to kill in self defence immoral...

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:23 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Didge wrote:

Again someone has to do the injection and thus they have to kill

in switzerland you press the button and it kills you so does that make it immoral..

someone has to shoot the gun...it doesn't do it itself you know...

Maybe I could build an app for that so people could shoot guns (immoral) using their iphones (moral) - although the app would probably be immoral cause it is intended to work a gun even if I design it just so people could shoot targets?

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:23 pm

sphinx wrote:
Didge wrote:

behave you were in the armed forces which is different which is not part of the debate, so no I will not shut up you old fart

Yeah Nicko you were killing sponsored by the state and we all know that is totally different from trying to stop someone killing your family - especially if the person trying to kill your family was sponsored by their state - in that situation they are being totally moral and the only moral option you have is let them do their moral duty.

Again self defense has to have justification if indeed your life really is in threat, which you know the moral implications of this.
Again I am arguing for the sake of arguing because I know you cannot win the moral high ground here.
To own a gun on the unlikely off chance you will need to defend your life is remote, where as a soldier in combat faces this reality every time they are in combat. So again the chances of you being in a situation where your life is under threat has happened how many times Sphinx in your life?

by Lone Wolf Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:24 pm

Didge wrote:
nicko wrote:
many years ago a man,[ several men actually] tried to kill me with guns. they didn't succeed. I had a rifle, I killed 3 of them. I love guns,they saved my life. If you have never used a gun to kill,shut the fcuk up, you don't know what your talking about!!!

behave you were in the armed forces which is different which is not part of the debate, so no I will not shut up you old fart

WHAT'S the odds good ol' Nicko is still suffering from "shell shock"/PTSD from his circa WWII services, hey Didge !?!

AT LEAST that could account for some of his more loopy and senile mutterings on here from time to time ?

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:24 pm

sphinx wrote:
Didge wrote:

Why not a frying pan, less likely to kill is it not?

What if I sharpen the handle to a blade with the express intent of cutting but not killing?

Why would you sharpen the handle, to do that would be morally wrong, as your use then is to harm with it?

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:25 pm

sphinx wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

in switzerland you press the button and it kills you so does that make it immoral..

someone has to shoot the gun...it doesn't do it itself you know...

Maybe I could build an app for that so people could shoot guns (immoral) using their iphones (moral) - although the app would probably be immoral cause it is intended to work a gun even if I design it just so people could shoot targets?

lol...like your thinking... Smile

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:26 pm

Didge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Yeah Nicko you were killing sponsored by the state and we all know that is totally different from trying to stop someone killing your family - especially if the person trying to kill your family was sponsored by their state - in that situation they are being totally moral and the only moral option you have is let them do their moral duty.

Again self defense has to have justification if indeed your life really is in threat, which you know the moral implications of this.
Again I am arguing for the sake of arguing because I know you cannot win the moral high ground here.
To own a gun on the unlikely off chance you will need to defend your life is remote, where as a soldier in combat faces this reality every time they are in combat. So again the chances of you being in a situation where your life is under threat has happened how many times Sphinx in your life?

Well if you keep me in this hysterical laughter for much longer I might have to conclude it is right now............

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:26 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Didge wrote:

Who ever presses the button enacts the kill

I never said a gun does shot itself, but it can be made to trigger such an action by a trap, but again to kill is immoral

so whoever pulls the trigger enacts the kill and therefore the gun itself is not immoral the shooter is...

you can't have it both ways..

is to kill in self defence immoral...

You are right who ever shoots the gun to kill is immoral.

You miss the point though, you own a gun on the remote chance you may face such a situation, when the reality is the chances of that happening are very slim, thus not justifying having one in the first place. Again if there were no guns, why would you need to have one?

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:27 pm

sphinx wrote:
Didge wrote:

Again self defense has to have justification if indeed your life really is in threat, which you know the moral implications of this.
Again I am arguing for the sake of arguing because I know you cannot win the moral high ground here.
To own a gun on the unlikely off chance you will need to defend your life is remote, where as a soldier in combat faces this reality every time they are in combat. So again the chances of you being in a situation where your life is under threat has happened how many times Sphinx in your life?

Well if you keep me in this hysterical laughter for much longer I might have to conclude it is right now............

I have been laughing at you the whole way through, because you know you do not have the higher moral ground, is hilarious really

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:27 pm

sphinx wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

in switzerland you press the button and it kills you so does that make it immoral..

someone has to shoot the gun...it doesn't do it itself you know...

Maybe I could build an app for that so people could shoot guns (immoral) using their iphones (moral) - although the app would probably be immoral cause it is intended to work a gun even if I design it just so people could shoot targets?

It would be immoral, it is the trigger mechanism to shoot the gun to kill

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:27 pm

Didge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

What if I sharpen the handle to a blade with the express intent of cutting but not killing?

Why would you sharpen the handle, to do that would be morally wrong, as your use then is to harm with it?

So do harm to guy trying to kill me with flat end of frying pan is moral
do harm with unsharpened handle to guy trying to kill me is moral
do harm with sharpened handle to guy who is trying to kill me is immoral

Wow I am learning a lot tonight.

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:28 pm

Didge wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

so whoever pulls the trigger enacts the kill and therefore the gun itself is not immoral the shooter is...

you can't have it both ways..

is to kill in self defence immoral...

You are right who ever shoots the gun to kill is immoral.

You miss the point though, you own a gun on the remote chance you may face such a situation, when the reality is the chances of that happening are very slim, thus not justifying having one in the first place. Again if there were no guns, why would you need to have one?

so now it's not the gun that is immoral its the shooter, but i shouldn't own a gun just in case as that is immoral.....

I think you really have lost the plot.... Smile

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:28 pm

sphinx wrote:
Didge wrote:

Why would you sharpen the handle, to do that would be morally wrong, as your use then is to harm with it?

So do harm to guy trying to kill me with flat end of frying pan is moral
do harm with unsharpened handle to guy trying to kill me is moral
do harm with sharpened handle to guy who is trying to kill me is immoral

Wow I am learning a lot tonight.

Your view is to kill, why not knock out which you could easily do with a frying pan, you chose the immoral option again, when there is no need
Yes I am learning you look to kill

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:29 pm

Didge wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

so whoever pulls the trigger enacts the kill and therefore the gun itself is not immoral the shooter is...

you can't have it both ways..

is to kill in self defence immoral...

You are right who ever shoots the gun to kill is immoral.

You miss the point though, you own a gun on the remote chance you may face such a situation, when the reality is the chances of that happening are very slim, thus not justifying having one in the first place. Again if there were no guns, why would you need to have one?

TO. SHOOT. PAPER. TARGETS.

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:30 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Didge wrote:

You are right who ever shoots the gun to kill is immoral.

You miss the point though, you own a gun on the remote chance you may face such a situation, when the reality is the chances of that happening are very slim, thus not justifying having one in the first place. Again if there were no guns, why would you need to have one?

so now it's not the gun that is immoral its the shooter, but i shouldn't own a gun just in case as that is immoral.....

I think you really have lost the plot....

The gun is designed to kill thus its invention is immoral, it is still the instrument that kills, thus making it also immoral as well as the person firing the gun

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:30 pm

Didge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Maybe I could build an app for that so people could shoot guns (immoral) using their iphones (moral) - although the app would probably be immoral cause it is intended to work a gun even if I design it just so people could shoot targets?

It would be immoral, it is the trigger mechanism to shoot the gun to kill

No it is the trigger mechanism to shoot the gun to hit a paper target.

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:31 pm

sphinx wrote:
Didge wrote:

You are right who ever shoots the gun to kill is immoral.

You miss the point though, you own a gun on the remote chance you may face such a situation, when the reality is the chances of that happening are very slim, thus not justifying having one in the first place. Again if there were no guns, why would you need to have one?

TO. SHOOT. PAPER. TARGETS.

use your finger and flick the pellets into the target, far harder and more challenging

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:31 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Didge wrote:

You are right who ever shoots the gun to kill is immoral.

You miss the point though, you own a gun on the remote chance you may face such a situation, when the reality is the chances of that happening are very slim, thus not justifying having one in the first place. Again if there were no guns, why would you need to have one?

so now it's not the gun that is immoral its the shooter, but i shouldn't own a gun just in case as that is immoral.....

I think you really have lost the plot....

Actually I dont think he had the plot to loose it in the first place.

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:31 pm

sphinx wrote:
Didge wrote:

It would be immoral, it is the trigger mechanism to shoot the gun to kill

No it is the trigger mechanism to shoot the gun to hit a paper target.

use your finger, far more challenging and non lethal

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:32 pm

Didge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

TO. SHOOT. PAPER. TARGETS.

use your finger and flick the pellets into the target, far harder and more challenging

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:32 pm

Didge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

So do harm to guy trying to kill me with flat end of frying pan is moral
do harm with unsharpened handle to guy trying to kill me is moral
do harm with sharpened handle to guy who is trying to kill me is immoral

Wow I am learning a lot tonight.

Your view is to kill, why not knock out which you could easily do with a frying pan, you chose the immoral option again, when there is no need
Yes I am learning you look to kill

So it is impossible to stab or cut just to injure and cause pain without killing?

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:33 pm

sphinx wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

so now it's not the gun that is immoral its the shooter, but i shouldn't own a gun just in case as that is immoral.....

I think you really have lost the plot....

Actually I dont think he had the plot to loose it in the first place.

Game over

It did not take long for the fact no counter but only insults

Thanks was easy, again I have no issue with guns, the point is to tie you up in knots, it was easy

Ha ha

by Lone Wolf Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:33 pm

WHILE Sphinxy clumsily attempts to field her sharpened handle ~ presumably holding her chosen Weapon by the pan end...

MEANWHILE, You could smack her in the face and around the head a few times with the pan end of your own weapon, Didge ! tongue

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:33 pm

Didge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

TO. SHOOT. PAPER. TARGETS.

use your finger and flick the pellets into the target, far harder and more challenging

Yeah but I just cant get em strong enough to make the 100 yards no matter what I do............

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:34 pm

But the gollowing points ARE in the debate...so here goes....

Didge recons humanity is the cause of "pest" and invasive species problems...which I agree with to an extent

he recons that we shouldnt shoot em....BUT has no solution to the problem ....just that there are "better ways", without stating what these better ways are...

he recons we should ALL become vegetarian....but without any clues as to how this could be achieved, just that "it could be done...somehow...

All the while of course he eats meat...therefore all his MORAL arguments are crap, because clearly he does NOT share those moral sentiments...IF he did...HE would be a vegatarian....

Presumably from the above what he ACTUALLY means is that "YOU" should be vegetarian, whilst he sits amongst his imagined ~~liberalist~~ progressive elite munching on cow or whatever....

there can be no reasoned debate with some-one who states "there is a better way" and at the same time dodges the issue of exactly WHAT , these better ways are....

He clearly does NOT know of any better way, or is too scared of the possibility that his "alternatives" are so problematical that they would fall apart in his hands....

yesterday I posted a few...easy, straight forward questions for him to answer....

guess what....Didge the dodge ....dodged em.....

so here thay are again

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.....

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:34 pm

sphinx wrote:
Didge wrote:

Your view is to kill, why not knock out which you could easily do with a frying pan, you chose the immoral option again, when there is no need
Yes I am learning you look to kill

So it is impossible to stab or cut just to injure and cause pain without killing?

Do you know where you are stabbing and if you do not hit an artery?

Not many would or in the adrenaline rush of such a situation, the fact is your chances increase to kill using a knife more so than a pan

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:35 pm

Thanks for that Victor it made me laugh, yet more babble

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:35 pm

Hey I have just realized

affraid

The fishing rod is an immoral object because it was designed to kill fish by catching them and pulling them into air.

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:35 pm

sphinx wrote:
Didge wrote:

use your finger and flick the pellets into the target, far harder and more challenging

Yeah but I just cant get em strong enough to make the 100 yards no matter what I do............

Practice harder then, hence why it is more of a challenge

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:38 pm

Lone Wolf wrote:

WHILE Sphinxy clumsily attempts to field her sharpened handle ~ presumably holding her chosen Weapon by the pan end...

MEANWHILE, You could smack her in the face and around the head a few times with the pan end of your own weapon, Didge !

another intelligent offering from the resident village idiot.

I appologise Didge...I considered YOU to be the village idiot...but you are not...you are just 'ornery as out colonial cousins would say.

that specimen above ...now THAT'S the village idiot..... I have not seen one post from THAT , which actually adds anything of value to any thread here so far....just idiotic comment.

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:38 pm

Didge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

So it is impossible to stab or cut just to injure and cause pain without killing?

Do you know where you are stabbing and if you do not hit an artery?
Actually yes I do

Not many would or in the adrenaline rush of such a situation, the fact is your chances increase to kill using a knife more so than a pan

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:39 pm

Victor have a good evening have to go, as I say I have no issue really with gun control it is more for the fun in the debate

laters

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:39 pm

Oh and I am not many - and yes that has been proven and demonstrated.

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:40 pm

sphinx wrote:
Didge wrote:

Do you know where you are stabbing and if you do not hit an artery?
Actually yes I do

Not many would or in the adrenaline rush of such a situation, the fact is your chances increase to kill using a knife more so than a pan

See you avoided the next point though as you cannot predict how you would react or if you could not fail to hit an artery, knowing that you know where they are, when the adrenaline kicks in

Laters

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:41 pm

Didge wrote:Victor have a good evening have to go, as I say I have no issue really with gun control it is more for the fun in the debate

laters

Are you actually leaving or is this one of your goodbye posts you make repeatedly through out and evening while continuing to post as normal?

by Sponsored content