Right Wing: Your dead kids don’t trump my constitutional rights

First topic message reminder :

A US conservative activist has written an open letter to the families of mass killer Elliot Rodger’s victims, arguing the deaths of innocent people “don’t trump” his constitutional rights.

Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known by the nickname “Joe the Plumber”, said his letter is directed “only to the families of the gunshot victims in Santa Barbara” and not the families of three others who were stabbed before the shooting spree.

Rodger, 22, killed seven people, including himself, and wounded 13 others when he went on a killing spree in Isla Vista, California, on Friday.

But the bloodbath wasn’t enough to convince conservatives like Wurzelbacher that America has a problematic gun culture, where the issue of the right to bear arms is hotly contested.

“I am sorry you lost your child. I myself have a son and daughter and the one thing I never want to go through, is what you are going through now. But: As harsh as this sounds — your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights,” Wurzelbacher wrote.

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/joe-the-plumber-your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/story-fnh81jut-1226934020252

Didge wrote:Cars are designed to transport people not kill them, that is called an accident, a person who uses a gun to kill someone is not an accident, people rarely target people with cars, they do with guns, as it is far easier to get away with, something again you are not able to comprehend


You really are stupid

Cars and Cigarettes kill more people in the uk than guns

Your argument is to remove the methods by which people are killed then cars and cigarettes should be banned

You really are hating this aren't you didge??

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:Cars are designed to transport people not kill them, that is called an accident, a person who uses a gun to kill someone is not an accident, people rarely target people with cars, they do with guns, as it is far easier to get away with, something again you are not able to comprehend


You really are stupid

Cars and Cigarettes kill more people in the uk than guns

Your argument is to remove the methods by which people are killed then cars and cigarettes should be banned

You really are hating this aren't you didge??

Oh my, what a daft argument, people choose to smoke, and people do not choose in the main to run over people, but many murderers do choose guns as the method to kill people

DOH

I am loving tear apart your arguments, it is always easy with you

So again is there a reason to have guns as a hobby?


Nope

ha ha ha

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:


Guns are strictly controlled in the uk and still we have weekly shooting

How has outlawing guns stop those who want them from getting them??

Take your time

They buy them from countries where it is legal and smuggle them in.


Hilarious and shows why you are stupid.

Now can people do without guns as a hobby>

Yes


Checkmate

So gun control only stops law abiding citizens from having firearms it does nothing to stop the criminals from getting them

Interesting why you support gun control

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:

They buy them from countries where it is legal and smuggle them in.


Hilarious and shows why you are stupid.

Now can people do without guns as a hobby>

Yes


Checkmate

So gun control only stops law abiding citizens from having firearms it does nothing to stop the criminals from getting them

Interesting why you support gun control

Gun control can reduce the chances of getting guns, it does not stop it though does it, thus the highest moral argument would be to have no guns in the first place, now do you really want to go there because I hope you do and you will look rather silly. I am all for a world wide ban of weapons to the general public


Please do????

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

Cars and Cigarettes kill more people in the uk than guns

Your argument is to remove the methods by which people are killed then cars and cigarettes should be banned

You really are hating this aren't you didge??

Oh my, what a daft argument, people choose to smoke, and people do not choose in the main to run over people, but many murderers do choose guns as the method to kill people

DOH

I am loving tear apart your arguments, it is always easy with you

So again is there a reason to have guns as a hobby?


Nope

ha ha ha

You're only tearing yourself apart didge

Your argument is ban guns to reduce deaths

So if your aim is to reduce death then banning guns will only reduce a small amount, banning cars and cigarettes would reduce more individually than guns alone

Your argument doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny when your own criteria are applied

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

So gun control only stops law abiding citizens from having firearms it does nothing to stop the criminals from getting them

Interesting why you support gun control

Gun control can reduce the chances of getting guns, it does not stop it though does it, thus the highest moral argument would be to have no guns in the first place, now do you really want to go there because I hope you do and you will look rather silly. I am all for a world wide ban of weapons to the general public


Please do????

If it doesn't stop illegal firearms then it's pointless

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


Oh my, what a daft argument, people choose to smoke, and people do not choose in the main to run over people, but many murderers do choose guns as the method to kill people

DOH

I am loving tear apart your arguments, it is always easy with you

So again is there a reason to have guns as a hobby?


Nope

ha ha ha

You're only tearing yourself apart didge

Your argument is ban guns to reduce deaths

So if your aim is to reduce death then banning guns will only reduce a small amount, banning cars and cigarettes would reduce more individually than guns alone

Your argument doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny when your own criteria are applied

Hilarious, we are talking about accidents and self induced risks of death, where shooting people is deliberate. where people can survive smoking, making your vie point utterly absurd and comical to say the least. People can always stop smoking and we can find better measures with cars, but my opinion on cars is we should do away with them also to reduce deaths


Oh my, where are you going to go with your argument now smelly ha ha ha ha

I have you cornered like a rat, as I can advocate anything to stop unwarranted deaths

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


Gun control can reduce the chances of getting guns, it does not stop it though does it, thus the highest moral argument would be to have no guns in the first place, now do you really want to go there because I hope you do and you will look rather silly. I am all for a world wide ban of weapons to the general public


Please do????

If it doesn't stop illegal firearms then it's pointless

If no guns are available, how do people die from gun deaths?


DOH

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

If it doesn't stop illegal firearms then it's pointless

If no guns are available, how do people die from gun deaths?


DOH

According to you they smuggle them in and sell them illegally

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


If no guns are available, how do people die from gun deaths?


DOH

According to you they smuggle them in and sell them illegally

Oh my, love how you clearly are unable to read.

Ha Ha Ha

Anyway as seen you have no answer to the points what a suprise.

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

According to you they smuggle them in and sell them illegally

Oh my, love how you clearly are unable to read.

Ha Ha Ha

Anyway as seen you have no answer to the points what a suprise.

Have you just seen the trap you've fallen into didge??

You say banning guns will reduce deaths

Then you say it doesn't matter if guns are banned because they get smuggled in

Then amazingly you ask how people die from guns if they are banned

Well you kinda answered your own question there didge - they get smuggled in and therefore any ban would be ineffective

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


Oh my, love how you clearly are unable to read.

Ha Ha Ha

Anyway as seen you have no answer to the points what a suprise.

Have you just seen the trap you've fallen into didge??

You say banning guns will reduce deaths

Then you say it doesn't matter if guns are banned because they get smuggled in

Then amazingly you ask how people die from guns if they are banned

Well you kinda answered your own question there didge - they get smuggled in and therefore any ban would be ineffective

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 


I said having no guns would men no gun deaths, fucking hilarious, so if there are no guns available, would people die from guns?

Take your time

Next

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

Have you just seen the trap you've fallen into didge??

You say banning guns will reduce deaths

Then you say it doesn't matter if guns are banned because they get smuggled in

Then amazingly you ask how people die from guns if they are banned

Well you kinda answered your own question there didge - they get smuggled in and therefore any ban would be ineffective

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 


I said having no guns would men no gun deaths, fucking hilarious, so if there are no guns available, would people die from guns?

Take your time

Next

So you're argument is now that there are no gun deaths in the uk because there are no guns available

Ah bless didge, the uk is a major spanner in your argument because guns are banned and yet guns are still available and still responsible for deaths

So prey tell why and how a ban would stop gun deaths when the uk is a perfect example of how it doesn't

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 


I said having no guns would men no gun deaths, fucking hilarious, so if there are no guns available, would people die from guns?

Take your time

Next

So you're argument is now that there are no gun deaths in the uk because there are no guns available

Ah bless didge, the uk is a major spanner in your argument because guns are banned and yet guns are still available and still responsible for deaths

So prey tell why and how a ban would stop gun deaths when the uk is  a perfect example of how it doesn't

No you need to actually read the posts, I mean no guns full stop anywhere available to the public, you see I can batter your arguments all day, by going one level higher as you poorly attempted to do to diverge on other deaths people suffer at.

So if there was no guns, how would people die from gun deaths?

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

So you're argument is now that there are no gun deaths in the uk because there are no guns available

Ah bless didge, the uk is a major spanner in your argument because guns are banned and yet guns are still available and still responsible for deaths

So prey tell why and how a ban would stop gun deaths when the uk is  a perfect example of how it doesn't

No you need to actually read the posts, I mean no guns full stop anywhere available to the public, you see I can batter your arguments all day, by going one level higher as you poorly attempted to do to diverge on other deaths people suffer at.

So if there was no guns, how would people die from gun deaths?

No guns full stop??

How do you propose that??

Are you going to personally track down every gun on earth and destroy them and then kill every human that knows what a gun is so that the secret o their making dies??

Guns exists and won't just stop existing because you're throwing a tantrum

A ban won't stop gun deaths as the uk proves so this debate is pointless

Your approach is a hypothetical pipedream that has no foundation in reality

Banning guns wont stop gun crime

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:

No you need to actually read the posts, I mean no guns full stop anywhere available to the public, you see I can batter your arguments all day, by going one level higher as you poorly attempted to do to diverge on other deaths people suffer at.

So if there was no guns, how would people die from gun deaths?

No guns full stop??

How do you propose that??

Are you going to personally track down every gun on earth and destroy them and then kill every human that knows what a gun is so that the secret o their making dies??

Guns exists and won't just stop existing because you're throwing a tantrum

A ban won't stop gun deaths as the uk proves so this debate is pointless

Your approach is a hypothetical pipedream that has no foundation in reality

Banning guns wont stop gun crime

A ban on all guns world wide to the public would stop gun deaths, oh my, showing you lost the argument before it started.
All it takes is for nations to make it happen.
Never stated crime would stop, but you are thus able to reduce the capability and ease of committing those crimes, by denying them such lethal fire power.

I tell you what you go into a bank with a knife and threaten the cashier to hand over her money from behind her protected screen and see how you get on


Good luck

A worldwide ban on guns??

That's your solution

  

Some once said "if you want my gun you will have to prise it from my cold dead fingers".I think that could be repeated millions of times across the world!!

Dodge you tit.


The bank robber would do what they normally do and that is threaten to kill the other people in the bank.


And other violent criminals will just choose another weapon to kill with.

Guy from the OP does have a valid point even if he is being a prick about it.

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

No guns full stop??

How do you propose that??

Are you going to personally track down every gun on earth and destroy them and then kill every human that knows what a gun is so that the secret o their making dies??

Guns exists and won't just stop existing because you're throwing a tantrum

A ban won't stop gun deaths as the uk proves so this debate is pointless

Your approach is a hypothetical pipedream that has no foundation in reality

Banning guns wont stop gun crime

A ban on all guns world wide to the public would stop gun deaths, oh my, showing you lost the argument before it started.
All it takes is for nations to make it happen.
Never stated crime would stop, but you are thus able to reduce the capability and ease of committing those crimes, by denying them such lethal fire power.

I tell you what you go into a bank with a knife and threaten the cashier to hand over her money from behind her protected screen and see how you get on


Good luck

Yeah and are the police going to attack him with swords or something?

Besides didge....I could kill you from 200m away ...with a (relatively) short bow, not quite so easy to conceal as a hand gun...but non the less deadly and of far greater range.

I could do the same from 30m with a "mini" crossbow (the small one handed things) Nearly as easy to conceal...and almost as deadly.

both the above are silent
both the above are easily "home made" if you have an average machine shop
both are deadly accurate with a small amount of practice

the short bow has a rate of fire of 6 aimed shots per minuit
the pistol x bow has a rate of fire of about the same

not, I would concede quite as fast a hand gun (although the sustained rate of fire over several loading sequences is almost the same) but non the less it would be quite possible for some one determined enough to cause mega chaos, and serious loss of life...

also even a world wide ban would NOT stop the criminal element from MAKING guns, the technology to make a hand gun , a revolver for instance, is easy to implement with simple tools....
as for ammunition , that also is simple and the propellant is not beyond the average nutter..( black powder is quite sufficient and anyone who has studied chemistry to "a" level should be able to do it, easily and safely..)

Quite right victor.


The blame in this case is obviously with the individual himself, and also with the authorities who were informed about his high risk behaviour who failed to intervene earlier.



Also I feel the family could have maybe done more in the way of direct intervention, if they felt he was so much of a danger, which they did because it was them who notified police, maybe they should have packed him off to some more secure type of psychiatric treatment centre, or at least monitored him more closely etc.



The lad was obviously mentally unstable but seemingly left much to his own devices, free to come and go at will, had access to money and a car etc.



Just blaming the weapon of choice is a little too simplistic and false argument to me....

Tommy Monk wrote:Quite right victor.


The blame in this case is obviously with the individual himself, and also with the authorities who were informed about his high risk behaviour who failed to intervene earlier.



Also I feel the family could have maybe done more in the way of direct intervention, if they felt he was so much of a danger, which they did because it was them who notified police, maybe they should have packed him off to some more secure type of psychiatric treatment centre, or at least monitored him more closely etc.



The lad was obviously mentally unstable but seemingly left much to his own devices, free to come and go at will, had access to money and a car etc.



Just blaming the weapon of choice is a little too simplistic and false argument to me....

Simplistic? Seriously?

It's the pro-gun crowd that is acting as though anybody has said, "This would never have happened/never happen again, if only there were no guns."

Nobody has said any such thing.

It's just logical, however, that fewer guns in circulation means everyone is statistically safer. Just as you're statistically safer crossing a street that contains two cars than you are if the street contains 20.

Also, the killer was in his early 20s -- nobody had any right to tell him he couldn't do as he pleased unless they knew he was planning to attack people, and it seems nobody knew he was until after it happened.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Quite right victor.


The blame in this case is obviously with the individual himself, and also with the authorities who were informed about his high risk behaviour who failed to intervene earlier.



Also I feel the family could have maybe done more in the way of direct intervention, if they felt he was so much of a danger, which they did because it was them who notified police, maybe they should have packed him off to some more secure type of psychiatric treatment centre, or at least monitored him more closely etc.



The lad was obviously mentally unstable but seemingly left much to his own devices, free to come and go at will, had access to money and a car etc.



Just blaming the weapon of choice is a little too simplistic and false argument to me....

Simplistic? Seriously?

It's the pro-gun crowd that is acting as though anybody has said, "This would never have happened/never happen again, if only there were no guns."

Nobody has said any such thing.

It's just logical, however, that fewer guns in circulation means everyone is statistically safer. Just as you're statistically safer crossing a street that contains two cars than you are if the street contains 20.

I think that is actually poor logic Ben two cars may be statistically safer than twenty if all things are equal, but if the two cars are being driven by homicidal maniacs then that logic goes out the window...

YOUR problem..in the U.S is not so much the number or even types and calibers of the guns as it is who has access to them and the ease with which they can be obtained...I mean...seriously wall-mart selling them shrink wrapped, along with ammo, right next to the frozen peas...ye gods....
and you let almost ANY fruit loop get their hands on them...you dont even need to show "good reason"

victorisnotamused wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Quite right victor.


The blame in this case is obviously with the individual himself, and also with the authorities who were informed about his high risk behaviour who failed to intervene earlier.



Also I feel the family could have maybe done more in the way of direct intervention, if they felt he was so much of a danger, which they did because it was them who notified police, maybe they should have packed him off to some more secure type of psychiatric treatment centre, or at least monitored him more closely etc.



The lad was obviously mentally unstable but seemingly left much to his own devices, free to come and go at will, had access to money and a car etc.



Just blaming the weapon of choice is a little too simplistic and false argument to me....

Simplistic? Seriously?

It's the pro-gun crowd that is acting as though anybody has said, "This would never have happened/never happen again, if only there were no guns."

Nobody has said any such thing.

It's just logical, however, that fewer guns in circulation means everyone is statistically safer. Just as you're statistically safer crossing a street that contains two cars than you are if the street contains 20.

I think that is actually poor logic Ben  two cars may be statistically safer than twenty if all things are equal, but if the two cars are being driven by homicidal maniacs then that logic goes out the window...

YOUR problem..in the U.S is not so much the number or even types and calibers of the guns as it is who has access to them and the ease with which they can be obtained...I mean...seriously wall-mart selling them shrink wrapped, along with ammo, right next to the frozen peas...ye gods....
and you let almost ANY fruit loop get their hands on them...you dont even need to show "good reason"

No quite the more legal guns the more illegal guns... because the easiest way to get a gun is to steal it off a legit owner.   

USA is a different level of crazy, guns in a dept store     

That's why I say "guns in circulation" rather than "total guns," Victor.

And the more cars on the street, the more likely one of them is to be driven by a homicidal maniac. My math holds up. Same with guns -- fewer of them in circulation means a lower probability of one falling into the hands of a murderer.

When we talk about gun control in the U.S., we talk exclusively about keeping them from dangerous people, about gun safety, and about restricting the kinds that are available to the general public -- I.E., sure, you can own a .45 automatic, but you need to pass a background check to own it and you can't have clips that hold more than 7 rounds.

Nobody in the U.S. has any serious hope of banning guns in general -- we have a Supreme Court decision that essentially makes that impossible without amending our constitution, and nobody thinks a constitutional amendment attempt would get anywhere.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Quite right victor.


The blame in this case is obviously with the individual himself, and also with the authorities who were informed about his high risk behaviour who failed to intervene earlier.



Also I feel the family could have maybe done more in the way of direct intervention, if they felt he was so much of a danger, which they did because it was them who notified police, maybe they should have packed him off to some more secure type of psychiatric treatment centre, or at least monitored him more closely etc.



The lad was obviously mentally unstable but seemingly left much to his own devices, free to come and go at will, had access to money and a car etc.



Just blaming the weapon of choice is a little too simplistic and false argument to me....

Simplistic? Seriously?

It's the pro-gun crowd that is acting as though anybody has said, "This would never have happened/never happen again, if only there were no guns."

Nobody has said any such thing.

It's just logical, however, that fewer guns in circulation means everyone is statistically safer. Just as you're statistically safer crossing a street that contains two cars than you are if the street contains 20.

Rather have 20 cars driven by responsible drivers than 2 driven by intoxicated drivers

It's swings in roundabouts and your argument alone is not the answer

victorisnotamused wrote:Besides didge....I could kill you from 200m away ...with a (relatively) short bow, not quite so easy to conceal as a hand gun...but non the less deadly and of far greater range.

I could do the same from 30m with a "mini" crossbow (the small one handed things)  Nearly as easy to conceal...and almost as deadly.

both the above are silent
both the above are easily "home made" if you have an average machine shop
both are deadly accurate with a small amount of practice

the short bow has a rate of fire of 6 aimed shots per minuit
the pistol x bow has a rate of fire of about the same

not, I would concede quite as fast a hand gun (although the sustained rate of fire over several loading sequences is almost the same) but non the less it would be quite possible for some one determined enough to cause mega chaos, and serious loss of life...

also even a world wide ban would NOT stop the criminal element from MAKING guns, the technology to make a hand gun , a revolver for instance, is easy to implement with simple tools....
as for ammunition , that also is simple and the propellant is not beyond the average nutter..( black powder is quite sufficient and anyone who has studied chemistry to "a" level should be able to do it, easily and safely..)

Irrelevant Victor as already I stated to ban all weaponry and also how do you make the ammunition if the resources to make them is not also available to the public? 
You know full well many chemicals etc have to be obtained through licences, this could be very much the same thus again showing that view point can also be stopped.
You have to have access to the means to make the ammunition and if it was that easy to make a gun and the ammo, then why have not many criminals not already exploited this being as many as documented in this country have to hire the same illegal guns to carry out attacks?

Utter shit didge

Time to end this stupidity

Does the uk have a ban in firearms??

Yes

Does it stop illegal firearms from finding their way into the hands of criminals?

No

Does a ban work??

No

Will a worldwide ban work??

No

smelly_bandit wrote:Utter shit didge

Time to end this stupidity

Does the uk have a ban in firearms??

Yes

Does it stop illegal firearms from finding their way into the hands of criminals?

No

Does a ban work??

No

Will a worldwide ban work??

No

Bless someone is very upset, my world ban would very much reduce the capability to murder people with firearms.

Bans help reduce the capability to use such weapons to murder people, thus they are effective and more effective than not having a ban


Doh

After a couple of horrible mass shootings in Britain, handguns and automatic weapons have been effectively banned. It is possible to own shotguns, and rifles if you can demonstrate to the police that you have a good reason to own one, such as target shooting at a gun club, or deer stalking, say. The firearms-ownership rules are onerous, involving hours of paperwork. You must provide a referee who has to answer nosy questions about the applicant's mental state, home life (including family or domestic tensions) and their attitude towards guns. In addition to criminal-record checks, the police talk to applicants’ family doctors and ask about any histories of alcohol or drug abuse or personality disorders.

Vitally, it is also very hard to get hold of ammunition. Just before leaving Britain in the summer, I had lunch with a member of parliament whose constituency is plagued with gang violence and drug gangs. She told me of a shooting, and how it had not led to a death, because the gang had had to make its own bullets, which did not work well, and how this was very common, according to her local police commander. Even hardened criminals willing to pay for a handgun in Britain are often getting only an illegally modified starter’s pistol turned into a single-shot weapon.

And, to be crude, having few guns does mean that few people get shot. In 2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of America’s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008.

I would also say, to stick my neck out a bit further, that I find many of the arguments advanced for private gun ownership in America a bit unconvincing, and tinged with a blend of excessive self-confidence and faulty risk perception.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/12/gun-control

N A turf war in Birmingham, the two gangs involved used the same gun for their tit-for-tat shootings, renting it in turn from the same third party, says Martin Parker, head of forensics at the National Ballistics Intelligence Service (NABIS). The paucity of guns in Britain is both testament to the success of its gun-control regime and one of the reasons for it.

TShootings are rare because guns are scarce. Some criminals steal legally owned shotguns. Some new ones are posted to Britain using fast-parcel services. Others are smuggled through ports. But the risks are higher and the returns lower than for smuggling drugs. Some crooks also reactivate decommissioned guns. Antique firearms are increasingly popular. During the 2011 riots a 19th-century St Etienne revolver was fired. The use of such heirlooms suggests that it is hard to find new weapons. Bullets are in short supply so volatile homemade ones are often deployed.

Shortages also mean criminals use weapons repeatedly, leaving a useful trail of evidence. Some, like the Birmingham gangsters, hire them from others. Clean guns—ones that have not been used before—are both rare and expensive. Other countries, such as Ireland and Spain, use the same database system, allowing NABIS to share information and track guns beyond Britain’s borders. America uses it too, but tracking the guns used in crimes there would be a Sisyphean task: few guns are used repeatedly there because it is so easy to buy new ones. Gun-starved Britons cannot be so cavalier.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21587270-small-police-agency-helping-keep-gun-crime-low-guns-hire

http://xaxor.com/bizarre/weird-homemade-firearms-.html/attachment/weird-homemade-firearms7

http://xaxor.com/bizarre/weird-homemade-firearms-.html/attachment/weird-homemade-firearms6

http://xaxor.com/bizarre/weird-homemade-firearms-.html/attachment/weird-homemade-firearms8

Is your ban going to ban metal pipes as well ??

Again why are criminal gangs hiring the same guns smelly?

Does that mean the ban has helped reduce the capability of using guns?

Take your time

Didge wrote:Again why are criminal gangs hiring the same guns smelly?

Does that mean the ban has helped reduce the capability of using guns?

Take your time

Open the links dickhead

The links will show you how a ban will fail

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:Again why are criminal gangs hiring the same guns smelly?

Does that mean the ban has helped reduce the capability of using guns?

Take your time

Open the links dickhead

The links will show you how a  ban will fail

I did, your links do not tell you anything, all they show is how they can be made, does it tell you if any have been used to kill and how many?


Oh dear

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

Open the links dickhead

The links will show you how a  ban will fail

I did, your links do not tell you anything, all they show is how they can be made, does it tell you if any have been used to kill and how many?


Oh dear

Exactly

You ban firearms and all the criminals will do is make improvised ones

So tell me how you plan to ban that??

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:

I did, your links do not tell you anything, all they show is how they can be made, does it tell you if any have been used to kill and how many?


Oh dear

Exactly

You ban firearms and all the criminals will do is make improvised ones

So tell me how you plan to ban that??

Which it seems are so ineffective you cannot even show me any cases in the Uk of their use to commit murder, how odd indeed.
As seen, the ban is working so well, many are having to use antiques, so why would they need to do that if it was so easy to make guns smelly?
Guess you missed the point in regards to ammunition as well from the other link.

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:


Exactly

You ban firearms and all the criminals will do is make improvised ones

So tell me how you plan to ban that??

Which it seems are so ineffective you cannot even show me any cases in the Uk of their use to commit murder, how odd indeed.
As seen, the ban is working so well, many are having to use antiques, so why would they need to do that if it was so easy to make guns smelly?
Guess you missed the point in regards to ammunition as well from the other link.

Thing is didge

Criminals don't need to improvise because the ban is so ineffective that real firearms are readily available

You're not grasping the fact that despite a ban being in place, guns are still available

So a ban doesn't work

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which it seems are so ineffective you cannot even show me any cases in the Uk of their use to commit murder, how odd indeed.
As seen, the ban is working so well, many are having to use antiques, so why would they need to do that if it was so easy to make guns smelly?
Guess you missed the point in regards to ammunition as well from the other link.

Thing is didge

Criminals don't need to improvise because the ban is so ineffective that real firearms are readily available

You're not grasping the fact that despite a ban being in place, guns are still available

So a ban doesn't work

As seen real firearms are not readily available, showing again you cannot read, ha ha, as why are criminal gangs having to use antiques and hire the same illegal guns?


Is it because there are so few?

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:


Thing is didge

Criminals don't need to improvise because the ban is so ineffective that real firearms are readily available

You're not grasping the fact that despite a ban being in place, guns are still available

So a ban doesn't work

As seen real firearms are not readily available, showing again you cannot read, ha ha, as why are criminal gangs having to use antiques and hire the same illegal guns?


Is it because there are so few?

As seen??

You're the only one seeing things here didge

Firearms are readily available in the uk for those who know how to acquire them

You even said that gangs will smuggle them in and sell them

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


As seen real firearms are not readily available, showing again you cannot read, ha ha, as why are criminal gangs having to use antiques and hire the same illegal guns?


Is it because there are so few?

As seen??

You're the only one seeing things here didge

Firearms are readily available in the uk for those who know how to acquire them

You even said that gangs will smuggle them in and sell them

Why would they need to smuggle them in if they were ready available?

 ://?roflmao?/: 

The reality is as seen by the evidence they are not ready available.

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

As seen??

You're the only one seeing things here didge

Firearms are readily available in the uk for those who know how to acquire them

You even said that gangs will smuggle them in and sell them

Why would they need to smuggle them in if they were ready available?

 ://?roflmao?/: 

The reality is as seen by the evidence they are not ready available.

They are readily available because they are smuggled in

This is your argument didge , YOU said they were smuggled in and then sold

Now you're taking the piss out of your OWN argument

You're very confused aren't you

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:



Why would they need to smuggle them in if they were ready available?

 ://?roflmao?/: 

The reality is as seen by the evidence they are not ready available.

They are readily available because they are smuggled in

This is your argument didge , YOU said they were smuggled in and then sold

Now you're taking the piss out of your OWN argument

You're very confused aren't you

I am laughing at you make contradictions in your argument using mine, that was hilarious, thus it is me talking the piss out of you, because as seen why would they need to smuggle in guns, of which they do?


Your arguments are hearsay, back them up mate as this is getting boring now

Take your time and rephrase that into something that makes sense didge

Talking shit and phrasing sentences into incoherent babble doesn't constitute an argument

I have no idea what you're trying to say to me

smelly_bandit wrote:Take your time and rephrase that into something that makes sense didge

Talking shit and phrasing sentences into incoherent babble doesn't constitute an argument

I have no idea what you're trying to say to me

Oh dear i ask for evidence and the old I cannot understand bull comes out


Game over I guess

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:Take your time and rephrase that into something that makes sense didge

Talking shit and phrasing sentences into incoherent babble doesn't constitute an argument

I have no idea what you're trying to say to me

Oh dear i ask for evidence and the old I cannot understand bull comes out


Game over I guess

Its a conversation not a game didge

And conversation relies on communication, if your communication is poor then the conversations stalls

I do notice that you generally only become incoherent when you get defensive, I think you do this on purpose to derail the conversation

I you want it to be "game over" then that is your call