The Right to Bear Arms

britboy4321 said:
If I could send a link proving that 96% of people say they feel safer without handguns legally available in the UK, I propose you still wouldn't be satisfied and call it a lie or smear the source or something - so - as I wrote earlier a huge essay about - there's no point in bothering with links to the fact. See earlier for a more detailed explanation exactly why ..
Click to expand...

So you make up numbers and when challanged on said numbers state "numbers aren't improtant". Why exactly should I pay attention to his paragraph?

britboy4321 said:
Next, of course it impacts their daily lives. If someone feels less safe they have less nice lives. Again I could prove this with links from all-over, but I presume you'd just smear the source. Deep down you know as well as I do this fact anyway as it's basic common sense. I hope you don't pull me on this paragraph as that'd send us down a naff route of argument ..
Click to expand...

Use of underline and bold to make it even more patronising and then assuming you already know my answer and trying to dismiss it before I even write it. Also telling me how I feel deep down without ever having met me. Why exactly should I pay attention to this paragraph?


britboy4321 said:
Next the problem with the gun argument as we've said 100 times now is that no-one knows how much benefit/risk it does or doesn't give within society, if we allow handguns within society. Gosh they've been debating the 'they are dangerous/they make no odds/they increase safety' thing over the pond for 150 years and no-one's got anywhere! Don't you see yet, NO-ONE REALLY KNOWS, EVERYONE, ON ALL SIDES OF THE DEBATE, IS KINDA GOING OFF GUT FEEL. The formula of 'the whole of society' is too complex. Too many variables. We do not have the capability to form water-tight conclusions, with regards to teh safety, we've only got gut feel[/i] :( .
Click to expand...


Use of capitals, wandering all over the place and not really trying to make a point and then saying it is all too complex anyway. Why exactly should I pay attention to this paragraph?


britboy4321 said:
So, bearing that in mind, and the fact we don't have a constitution over here demanding guns, the only factors remaining to decide the handgun issue is, heaven forbid, what the people actually want.
Click to expand...

Again, telling us something we already know. Why exactly should I pay attention to this paragraph?


britboy4321 said:
The vast, vast majority of people's lives are, maybe placebo like (but what difference does it make), happier without guns. Mainly for percieved safety reasons. A few arn't, ironically often for percieved safety reasons, sometimes for other reasons (such as hobbys). When there is no reliable data with regards to their impact on society, people's opinions and what they want, however misguided, are all we have left.. And that, as they say, is that.
Click to expand...


Made up facts again, the same percieved safety argument, no data argument again. Again, why exactly should I pay attention to this paragraph?

britboy4321 said:
#559

That was the problem.

I spent a while on that post. I was pleased when it was done it sounded pretty good I thought ... And you completely ignored it. Like it didn't exist. At which point I subconsciously thought 'whats the point if they just ignore my piece-d'resistance??'

#559 was a blimin' masterpeice I tells ya. And remains unanswered :( So, indeed, back to the ******** .. if you're gonna ignore when I produce something half-reasonable .. ;)
Click to expand...

Your masterpeice was rubbish, went all over ground we have already been over, was patronising, full of hyperbole and you had already decided what my answer was and that I was going to lie to you because deep down I know you are right. Hence I ignored it.

I would say "See me after school" but frankly, you are beyond saving.
 
RDM said:
I can't think of an answer so will moan on about how many capital letters you used instead .. etc
Click to expand...

In other words, 'Ok Britboy fair enough you got me'.

That's all you had to say mate! No disgrace, no problem, no big deal. It's only a silly internet forum - don't worry about it. You'll have your day mate - you've got the basics down, just probably not the right subject for you that's all TBH. Carry on soldier .. we'll meet again and you'll probably give me another run for my money .. until then :) don't worry, debating just gets easier and easier as you get used to it :)
 
Last edited:
britboy4321 said:
In other words, 'Ok Britboy fair enough you win'.

That's all you had to say mate! No disgrace, no problem, no big deal. It's only a silly internet forum - don't worry about it. You'll have your day mate - you've got the basics down, just probably not the right subject for you that's all TBH. Carry on soldier .. we'll meet again and you'll probably give me another run for my money .. until then :)
Click to expand...

In other words RDM, Britboy cannot address any of the criticisms levelled at his position and instead chooses to take his ball and go home and try to blame you...
 
Dolph said:
Are the victims less dead than if they had been shot?

Surely the issue is the fact that they are dead, not the method by which they were killed?
Click to expand...

Really got no idea what's going on... All I do know is RDM is having a go at their mention, and you're defending their mention. Anyway, footwear tightening devices aside, the point with with all these devices is their effectiveness of course.


Give someone a device such as a:-
- Gun
- Knife
- Or Death By Shoelace ™Dolph

We all know which is most likely result in the quickest most efficient deaths, and/or the most deaths.


As with my previous example of Mr Dad going jihad on his wife and teenage kids. With which of the three weapons are any of the victims likely to stand more of a chance of survival? In which scenario might some of them be able to run away more easily, or even fight off an attack?

Which device allows Mr Jihad to deliver death most quickly and efficiently, and which, would rely on him getting close and personal and dirty, risking possibly lengthy close quarter contact?

I think we can all agree that Mr Jihad with a gun is the worse news for his intended victims...


So ask yourself, given people do commit murder, do have fights and have momentary lapses of judgement, why on earth risk arming these people with the best weapon to carry out a murder?

You'll no doubt bring up 1990's stats again- which I've repeatedly mentioned are irrelevant to this particular debate, start a new thread if you want to go there. Or suggest infact be it that Mr Jihad has a gun, a knife or pencil sharpner, the fate of his victims would no doubt play out just he same. The victims are just as doomed no matter which tool he has at his disposal.

The problem is, the majority of people believe (realise) that if we do inject a lot of guns into this country, so unfortunate situations as mentioned above happen to take place where a gun is also unfortunately present in the house, then the likely hood of it being used to kill must also rise proportionately too... Some of those Mr Jihad's will take the easy route of using that gun instead of that knife (or shoelace) and the chances of any of his victims surviving must surely fall too.

In short, poo happens... Why risk poo with a gun happening!
 
NeilFawcett said:
Really got no idea what's going on... All I do know is RDM is having a go at their mention, and you're defending their mention. Anyway, footwear tightening devices aside, the point with with all these devices is their effectiveness of course.


Give someone a device such as a:-
- Gun
- Knife
- Or Death By Shoelace ™Dolph

We all know which is most likely result in the quickest most efficient deaths, and/or the most deaths.


As with my previous example of Mr Dad going jihad on his wife and teenage kids. With which of the three weapons are any of the victims likely to stand more of a chance of survival? In which scenario might some of them be able to run away more easily, or even fight off an attack?

Which device allows Mr Jihad to deliver death most quickly and efficiently, and which, would rely on him getting close and personal and dirty, risking possibly lengthy close quarter contact?

I think we can all agree that Mr Jihad with a gun is the worse news for his intended victims...


So ask yourself, given people do commit murder, do have fights and have momentary lapses of judgement, why on earth risk arming these people with the best weapon to carry out a murder?

You'll no doubt bring up 1990's stats again- which I've repeatedly mentioned are irrelevant to this particular debate, start a new thread if you want to go there. Or suggest infact be it that Mr Jihad has a gun, a knife or pencil sharpner, the fate of his victims would no doubt play out just he same. The victims are just as doomed no matter which tool he has at his disposal.

The problem is, the majority of people believe (realise) that if we do inject a lot of guns into this country, so unfortunate situations as mentioned above happen to take place where a gun is also unfortunately present in the house, then the likely hood of it being used to kill must also rise proportionately too... Some of those Mr Jihad's will take the easy route of using that gun instead of that knife (or shoelace) and the chances of any of his victims surviving must surely fall too.

In short, poo happens... Why risk poo with a gun happening!
Click to expand...

What do you suppose the risk is in giving everyone each of those three things? After all, most people have access to two of those things now and somehow manage not to murder everyone in sight?

What is the percentage of average people who are even at risk of using a weapon, any weapon, to kill or attempt to kill?
 
with the outcry over knife crime over recent years wouldnt it be best to make it as difficult as possible for all those little ****s to get hold of firearms?
Yes you can get illegal ones, but they are more expensive and more difficult to source.
 
britboy4321 said:
In other words, 'Ok Britboy fair enough you got me'.

That's all you had to say mate! No disgrace, no problem, no big deal. It's only a silly internet forum - don't worry about it. You'll have your day mate - you've got the basics down, just probably not the right subject for you that's all TBH. Carry on soldier .. we'll meet again and you'll probably give me another run for my money .. until then :) don't worry, debating just gets easier and easier as you get used to it :)
Click to expand...

If it makes you feel better, no problem at all. I stopped taking this seriously many, many posts ago. When you actually know how to debate your last point may actually have some relevance, until then, must try harder.
 
britboy4321 said:
Yes that is all cool. Work is calling and it will take me a while to put together my first post so I'm going to go silent for a few hours but watch this space.

Of course different states have different guns laws I presume we can discuss the 2nd as interpreted by, say, 'Texas' rather than say 'New York City' which is quite close to the UK for example doesn't even allow handguns in their private houses (I think) ...?
Click to expand...

By the Heller interpretation, I'm meaning specifically only repealling laws that are incompatible with heller within the UK.

Now, on to some sources.

http://asymptoticlife.com/2009/01/26/more-on-guns-and-violence.aspx

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/blanks/081400.htm

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...resnum=4&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I've tried to avoid any blatantly biased sites (eg the NRA, gunsaregreat.com or anything of the like), instead concentrating on referenced sources and academic papers or academic opinions where possible.

I'd especially recommend the Harvard Law piece.

All of these show clearly that while gun control alters the gun crime rate, it doesn't alter the overall crime rate, eg murders and violent crime don't go down, at best they stay static, and at worst they increase dramatically when you disarm the legal population.

Please stick to arguing facts, not feelings, in the critique and counter.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
What do you suppose the risk is in giving everyone each of those three things? After all, most people have access to two of those things now and somehow manage not to murder everyone in sight?

What is the percentage of average people who are even at risk of using a weapon, any weapon, to kill or attempt to kill?
Click to expand...

Risk? Personally, to quantify it, I'd put the risk of one unecessary school shooting as too high.

If we were to reach some of the ownership levels found in europe (ignore the US) we're suggesting that for any so inclined teenager, who at the moment is most likely facing a very hard job getting a firearm (and yes he is), we're instead suggesting there's going to be a 1 in 10 (for example) chance that individual may bump into the scenario where there's a gun in the house.

Again, why take that risk? Why even go there? Why tempt it? Just so a few can make some holes from 50yrds in some sheets of paper?


Now, bring into play your 1990's ownership levels and the chance flitters away to 'far more unlikely'... But still worth the risk? Don't know... Still feel uncomfortable to be honest!?

ps: I assume the fact you didn't actually answer the question put forward in that post, you agree with it? It's surely a very fair suggestion? Give those Mr Jihads a gun or isntead a knife, the Mr Jihads with the gun will more than likely result in more deaths?
 
Last edited:
NeilFawcett said:
Risk? Personally, to quantify it, I'd put the risk of one unecessary school shooting as too high.

If we were to reach some of the ownership levels found in europe (ignore the US) we're suggesting that for any so inclined teenager, who at the moment is most likely facing a very hard job getting a firearm (and yes he is), we're instead suggesting there's going to be a 1 in 10 (for example) chance that individual may bump into the scenario where there's a gun in the house.

Again, why take that risk? Why even go there? Why tempt it? Just so a few can make some holes from 50yrds in some sheets of paper?


Now, bring into play your 1990's ownership levels and the chance flitters away to 'far more unlikely'... But still worth the risk? Don't know... Still feel uncomfortable to be honest!?
Click to expand...

There are european countries with high gun ownership rates, switzerland, Norway, finland among others. The main thing they have in show is lower violent crime and murder rates (normalised) in most cases (finland's murder rate being the exception) than the UK. Read the harvard law link I provided above which covers this portion of your argument in detail.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom