MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
TJ - overall, the UK population has their lives shortened by, on average, 7 to 8 months because of air pollution in the UK. Up to 50,000 people a year may die prematurely because of air pollution.
Get some sort of proportional response will you? Rage about something useful.
Zulu-Eleven - MemberNo one has done so yet other that "I like shooting things"
And that is not answer enough?
Nope - not when the result is people get killed
[quote=TJ-LAW]
Killing things is the only USE for a gun. shooting paper targets is just a pastime - there is no utility to it.
[b]No one has given any good reason for anyone owning guns[/b] apart from a very small number of people who use them to kill vermin
Sadly for you TJ, they all have.
In the eyes of the [b]Real Law[/b] they have anyway, sport shooting is a perfectly valid reason for owning a gun.
maybe not in the made up world of TJ-LAW
(where putting the word USE in capitals somehow changes its legal meaning 😯 )
.
but lets be honest, TJ-LAW isnt real is it ?
its just stuff you make up to sound important and superior 😳
Swelper - / tootall- I am not raging - but I am pointing out the massive hypocrisy in your positions.
Becvause yo uwant to be able to shoot guns thenthe rest of the population has to accept the risks? the is no utility to trade this risk off against
TJ
you get pleasure from killing whats more violent than that
pleasure from cutting up a poor defenceless animal and eating it - pretty violent extreme application of blood lust that it really, innit?
Have i got this right I should not call someone a tosser but it ok to attack somone with a bottle?
NO 🙄
[b]you said /implied it took back bone to attack someone[/b]
I said your moral compass was broken which would be enough i assumed for you to realise i disagreed that it took back bone to have pub fights with bottles etc
Nope - not when the result is people get killed
Like when people get killed by motorbikes flouting the speed limit?
Becvause yo uwant to be able to ride your motorbike above the speed limit then the rest of the population has to accept the risks? the is no utility to trade this risk off against
I repeat. Have you demonstated any actual justification for banning them?
Again - TJ don't try the utility bullshit
nobody needs to own a car - you've testified as much in numerous threads
Similarily, nobody in the UK needs to eat meat, we could all happily survive on a vegan diet
your utility argument is utterly flawed, as none of us NEED those things.
Now if we banned cars other than "utility cars" then the world really would be a safer place. I suggest banning anything with over 40 bhp/ton and/or 15 bhp/passenger place.
So - is anyone able to provide any actual justification or reasonable reason for owning guns other than killing vermin for the very few who have guns for that reason?No one has done so yet other that "I like shooting things"
Whilst this may not be enough for some (TJ being the obvious example), it is a reasonable reason for others. Once more a thread descends into little more than a difference of opinion that has turned into a war of attrition, when it could so easily have been an interesting debate. I should have known better 🙁
Oh look - another fantasist. What was your claim to military prowess that was show to be bunkum Zulu?
Becvause yo uwant to be able to shoot guns thenthe rest of the population has to accept the risks? the is no utility to trade this risk off against
The risk is mitigated with the checks and balances in place. You only see a threat because you have been indoctrinatd with the tabloid press fear of guns. Guns are tools to be used as an when required. They require skill, training and responsibility - the same as cars, motorbikes and other items that require training, licensing and responsible ownership. You have the proportionality all out of kilter here - the rest of us are happy(ish) with how things are.
Still not sure why you think people have to justify anything to you epescially as you don't think you have to justify putting people lives at risk by driving dangerously. In fact you appear to brag about it.TandemJeremy - Member
So - is anyone able to provide any actual justification or reasonable reason for owning guns
Sounds good to me, although it should read "I like the skill involved in killing things"No one has done so yet other that "I like shooting things"
Becvause yo uwant to be able to shoot guns thenthe rest of the population has to accept the risks?
i put myself at risk because of car drivers every day. i think they kill about 16 people a day*
*could be a spurious internet rumour so don't shoot me if it's a bit less.
it is a spurious claim to suggest that cars are more dangerous as they would tend to be accidental deaths where as gun kills would tend to be almost 100 % deliberate - drunk american hunters aside]. Nearly every sing;e car journey has no injuries and every gun shooting [ unless you are a very bad shot] is quite bad.
If you want to compare chalk and cheese and labour the point you are not that far behind TJ IMHO
cars kill people would be a driver training issue guns killing people would be a design feature iirc it is why we give them to soldiers in war zones rather than a car
Ooh, there's a development TJ
Argument falling apart a bit?
Getting rattled there TJ?
New here?
I wish, unfortunately I'm well aware that TJ is just demonstrating his usual levels of ignorance.
Tootall - nothing to do with being indoctrinated by the tabloids.
The risk could be almost eliminated with the banning of private ownerships of guns without good cause. The cost to society would be minimal as there is no utility in owning guns - they serve no purpose ( bar the few rural workers who use them to kill vermin).
So - is anyone able to provide any actual justification or reasonable reason for owning guns other than killing vermin for the very few who have guns for that reason?
Not that I feel the need to justify but justification for owning a gun is for killing my food. Far better than the factory farmed stuff you buy from your local Tesco.
druidh - MemberOn the bright side, there seems to be only one poster on this forum with obvious mental health issues and he, as luck would have it, doesn't own or want a gun.
Funny but encapsulates TJ's point though don't ya think?
TBH though I'm more woried about the weapons we happily sell to maniacal despots worldwide.
The risk could be almost eliminated with the banning of private ownerships of motorbikes without good cause. The cost to society would be minimal as there is no utility in owning motorbikes - they serve no purpose ( bar the few emergency professionals who need them).
Take a train. That way you wouldn't come across as such a hypocrite.
It already has been. It's just that the laws definition of "good" and your definition are at odds.TandemJeremy - Member
Tootall - nothing to do with being indoctrinated by the tabloids.The risk could be almost eliminated with the banning of private ownerships of guns without good cause.
TJ- Every Wednesday when i was in 3rd year at school i was taught to shoot along with 100 other kids in my year.
We were taught in a range on site, scrutinised by an ex commando and subject to what seemed at the time to be excessive levels of harshness when we were learning how to use them. We used 22's and they were for target practice.
In 6th form for 2 years in CCF we were allowed to conduct outdoor manoeuvres with GP rifles with blanks and i tended to use the light assault version of this as rear group with my pal at the time Ed.
I have instilled in me the most deep regard for what these weapons are for and am glad that we live in a country where children have the opportunity to learn about correct handling and ultimately respect for what they are.
Perhaps with more teaching and awareness of what weapons are truly capable of and the responsibility of ownership and use we might be in a better place.
you will be pleased to know I used to be a marksman (proud at the time but it was really only an Empire test so means absolutely nothing) and have zero desire to pick up a gun for sport at all. Even offered with the chance to go clay shooting with BIGGER guns i have declined as they hold no mystique and I have a fear for them. Not irrational fear, just a healthy amount of exposure in my school days means i am very meh towards them.
People are capable of holding a gun with the last thing on their mind being to kill or maim a living thing. There is a whole different side to using weapons in society. Sport is a valid reason for ownership.
Humans pull triggers - they don't have a mind of their own.
(sorry for the rambling!)
I repeat again. Have you demonstated any actual justification for banning them?
Why should millions of people have their recreational sport banned because a few people lose their lives?
Why should people lose jobs becasue a few lose their lives?
Surely the real problem here is the failing health system that allows these mentally unstable killers to be on the streets.
So CFH - no answer to my post from the previous page?
I do find it amusing that two of the strongest protagonists of gun ownership on here are both fantsists who have invented military backgrounds that they got found out on and whos justification for gun ownereship is they like killing things.
violent fantasists? point proven.
No.
I dispute the fact car deaths are accidental, Junkyard. The statistics clearly show that people are killed because of deliberate actions, mainly drinking before driving and speeding. People know not to pull the trigger of a gun when pointing it at someone, they have yet learn not to continue preesing the accelerator when the speed limit has been reached.
Invented military background? Beyond a military family and CCF at school, I've never claimed anything else. As a result of growing up in a military environment, I do know rather a lot about it though. Beyond that, not entirely sure what you're talking about.
Violent? No, not really. Sorry about that. I was rather violent on a rugby pitch, but that was rather different, I think.
Given we have this failed system DS would you rather said mentally unstable person
a) had a gun
b) Did not have a gun
Me I am gong for b what about you ?
invented military backgrounds that they got found out on
Making stuff up again TJ 🙄
The risk could be almost eliminated with the banning of private ownerships of guns without good cause.
Erm, yeah, it already is - we've been pointing that out to you for about ten pages now 😯
no answer to my post from the previous page?
I've [b]repeatedly[/b] asked you to write down or explain what exactly is wrong with killing things, you've not done so yet....
CFH - you did and you were called on it and shut up about it - as were you zulu
TandemJeremy - MemberSo CFH - no answer to my post from the previous page?
Yeah Flashy, give the man an answer.
If that is the case, I apologise, but I really don't remember what your talking about. Sorry.
The statistics clearly show that people are killed because of deliberate actions, mainly drinking before driving and speeding. People know not to pull the trigger of a gun when pointing it at someone, they have yet learn not to continue preesing the accelerator when the speed limit has been reached.
you contradict your self how can they both do it deliberately and also not have learnt?
Look I can see your broad point but it is not a good one for the reason outlined above [chalk and cheese].If you want to keep labouring the point about this go persuade the army to give everyone a car as it is a better killing weapon 🙄
thats because you are ignoring everyone else that raises valid points TJ
like you usually do..
you dont seem to realise, that Your version of Justification, is at odds with the LAWS of the country you live in.
TJ-LAW isnt real, you make it up.
nobody else needs to live their life by it (thank god)
Just so long as we have the same vetting system for cars, motorcycles, boxes of matches, hammers and the like, junkyard.
Junkyard - MemberHave i got this right I should not call someone a tosser but it ok to attack somone with a bottle?
NO
you said /implied it took back bone to attack someone
I said nothing of the sort. I think you are making a mistake there I said if your wife had been attacked on the way home from the pub (an actual incident) that the husband would have had the backbone to give the attacker a kicking but didn't becasue he had a gun licsense. Are you sure you are not mixing me up with someone else?
Yep you are not reading my post correctly or you have mixed me up with someone else. At no time did I say it took back bone to hit someone with a glass.I said your moral compass was broken which would be enough i assumed for you to realise i disagreed that it took back bone to have pub fights with bottles etc
Given we have this failed system DS would you rather said mentally unstable person
a) had a gun
b) Did not have a gunMe I am gong for b what about you ?
I'd probably take the position that if said mentally unstable wanted to do damage, they would do damage and they would find a way to do it. The gun is simply the simplest and easiest way to do alot of headline making damage. Remove the gun and we'll start to see more hijacked buses or cars driven at high speed down high streets or homemade bombs.
CaptainFlashheart - MemberIf that is the case, I apologise, but I really don't remember what your talking about. Sorry.
Fairy snuff - it was a while ago
as were you zulu
Really, I've [b]never[/b] claimed to have been more than a STAB scaley in my past...
if I was going to Walt, I'd walt it up as more than a part-time signalman 😆
still I did my bit, signed on the line, but was later medicaled out after development of a genetically inherited skin disorder...
I think you must be losing it TJ 😯
There's nothing wrong with my lexique*, Junkyard. You can go on doing something even though you know it to be wrong because you have not yet learnt not to. Do you have children?
Edit: * lexico-grammar
Zulu - I remeber the one with you very well - you claimed to have been under fire in Iraq and bigged up your military involvement - however someone who knew more than you took you to task on it and showed you up as the lying fantasist you are.
You really were found out as a walt bigstyle
You can go on doing something even though you know it to be wrong because you have not yet learnt not to. Do you have a TJ?
😉
TJ, you're really making it up now 😯
Yeah, I really don't think that cars are better killing machines than rifles and I don't think he was implying it. I think he was kind of implying people show less regard for other peoples lives when behind the wheel as opposed to when they have a gun. People tend to be carefull when they have a gun.....no pointing and when shooting phesants the right distance apart so even if they do shoot your way they wouldn't injury you. Understand??Junkyard - MemberIf you want to keep labouring the point about this go persuade the army to give everyone a car as it is a better killing weapon
Zulu - I clearly remember it and I remember more details than that and I know who put you in your place.
TJ, what's wrong with shooting animals? Either as pest control, controlled population management or as a bit of fun which provides some damned tasty food for the pot? Or, perhaps, as a way of generating income in rural locations? Or, what's wrong with target/clay shooting for fun, a skilled act certainly. Care to expand on any of that?
I seem to remember you supporting controlled culling of deer in your beloved Scotland. What would be better than taking the opportunity to generate £1000s of much needed revenue while doing that?
Zulu - I remeber the one with you very well -etc
Links please TJ ?
for Zulu and CFH otherwise your just talkin cack.
while your at it.
How about some proof that legal Gun ownership costs lives, when compared with a huge clampdown.
(Home Office statistics, [b]that you chose to ignore[/b], disagree with your wild claim)
TJ - can I just check, have you killfiled me, or are the questions I'm asking of you too awkward?
Just in case, here's another:
people are regularly killed by legally held guns.
Numbers? Your assertion is fundamentally untrue.
I'd suggest that the number of deliberate killings due to legally held cars is actually likely to be higher than the number of deaths due to legally held guns. I mean if you wanted to kill somebody and get away with it, wouldn't using a car as a weapon be high on your list of possible methods?
TJ - read this from over two years ago:
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-stw-having-been-a-soldier-thread#post-544632
apology please
Neal - its was years ago and I ain't searching for it. Might even have been the pre hack forum.
people are regularly killed by legally held guns.
but not necessarily by the legal owners... 😉
Aracer - I ain't ignoring you. People are regularly killed by legally held guns - I made no reference to how may or how often but it does happen on a more than one off basis hence it is regular - several times a year
TJ - you really are full of shite 🙄
Plus, you've still not answered - [b]what exactly is wrong with killing things[/b]
People are regularly killed by legally held guns - I made no reference to how may or how often but it does happen on a more than one off basis hence it is regular - several times a year
I'm sure you have some evidence you can provide us with to back up that assertion...
Zulu -= you wnat to dispute it?
It would be several years ago maybe even the pre hack forum. You claimed ( or insinuated) that you had been under fire doing patrols outside the green zone. When an Iraq veteran who was really there called you on it you had to backtrack hastily as yo couldn't back it up. I am not surprised you have banished it from your mind as yo must have been well embarrassed - so yes -you were outed as a Walt.
regular - several times a year
How regularly? Very, very rarely. Compared to the numbers killed on motorbikes, I'd suggest we all know which should be banned first!
Then again, I wouldn't just adopt some stupid knee jerk, headline grabbing "BAN IT!" approach. Motorbikes are licenced. This works. Guns are also licenced. This works.
People steal motorbikes. People steal guns.
Most legal gun owners don't flout the laws. I would suggest that most legal motorbike owners do.
...and if you're not ignoring me, here's another one of mine you presumably just missed:
guns are almost unique in their ability to kill easily from a distance
What exactly is the significance of "from a distance" which makes guns so unique? If you mean when not standing right next to somebody so that they're in a position to defend themselves, or being far enough away to have emotional detachment, then I can think of one obvious instrument which is used to kill several orders of magnitude more people than legally held guns which meets both of those criteria.
TJ, I will debate with you when you are wrong and agree with you when you are right.
You're on your own with this one, i'd stop whilst you're behind.
Is your moral compass so faulty you do not understand why killing things for fun is wrong?
'Night all, citing the pre-hack forum is definitely the weakest reference I've yet to see on the post-hack forum. Hopefully I'll find the energy to do something more constructive tomorrow.
TandemJeremy - Member
Neal - its was years ago and I ain't searching for it. Might even have been the pre hack forum.
That's handy Eh. 😳
Not bothering to back up the other thing I asked for either ?
Or are you simply glossing over the fact that Official Home Office statistics, (released under the freedom of information act) say exactly the opposite of what you claimed.
i'd stop whilst you're behind.
Except there's plenty of evidence to show that's exactly what TJ refuses to do.
Aracer - both.
If you mean when not standing right next to somebody so that they're in a position to defend themselves, or being far enough away to have emotional detachment,
it is a spurious claim to suggest that cars are more dangerous as they would tend to be accidental deaths where as gun kills would tend to be almost 100 % deliberate - drunk american hunters aside]. Nearly every sing;e car journey has no injuries and every gun shooting [ unless you are a very bad shot] is quite bad.
accidental? as in i accidentally went too fast? or accidentally drove like a prick? accidentally used my mobile while driving and accidentally failed to see the child/cyclist/other vehicle?
nearly every shot fired in the this country doesn't kill a human being.
under the mental health act about* 11 innocent people are killed every year due to vulnerable people being given free reign in the community. it's the price we pay for wanting to integrate people rather than have people locked up sedated and kept out of sight.
"26,096 people were killed or seriously injured on Britain's roads in 2009" (source BBC)
that number would be significantly reduced if speed limits were lowered and cars speed/power limited and tougher penalties for bad driving/mobile phone use while driving etc.
'fun' 'drivable' 'dynamic' cars are not a necessity yet people die every year because of their misuse.
ban guns.
ban cars
ban alcohol
ban cigarettes
ban knives (use onion slicer and get your meat cut at approved licensed) butchers)
ban the internet.
Or are you simply glossing over the fact that Official Home Office statistics say exactly the opposite of what you claimed.
🙄
C'Mon, TJ.
MrSmith, you forgot motorbikes, and specifically those who knowingly break the speed limit, and then almost seem to boast about it online. As we all know, speed kills.
Neal - are you trying to say that no one gets killed in the UK by legally held guns? Cos that is bunkum
ach - I really meant not to get into stupid pointless debates on here on stuff like this.
It is amusing tho to watch people trying to justify the unjustifiable.
I can definitely remember CaptainHaddock used to strongly hint about his time in the military and his implied membership of The Hereford Gun Club,fairly sure I can remember Jah-womble having a dig at him about it a couple of times,cos it was about the time I ordered a guitar off him.
Oddly enough, I was only wondering the other day why he'd stopped hinting about it 🙂
YesRecent gun murders like this have all been legally held guns.
there simply is no reason nor excuse for anyone to have guns except in some occasional circumstances such as farmers.
Everyone who holds guns without this sort of reason is the sort of person who should be denied a license
that way only criminals have guns, personally i think guns should be available for personal defence, after all can you think of any other way a 8 stone woman could defend her self against a 20 stone rapist..
Its funny in places were guns are legal,burglary is very low... self defence should be a human right
Is your moral compass so faulty you do not understand why killing things for fun is wrong?
its called hunting, its what humans have done since the dawn of time... i mean im three meals away from eating you...
Aracer - both.
Right - so see my point that a gun isn't unique on either ground, and in terms of legally owned things kills trivial numbers of people compared to the alternatives.
TJ - I'm afraid there's only one fantasist on here, and you've just proved who it is 😉
jumpupanddown, self defence is indeed a human right, but using guns for that purpose is not the way forward. That way an arms race lies, and that's not good.
What other things aracer - if you mean cars or knives both have another useage that is of benefit
It is amusing tho to watch people trying to justify the unjustifiable.
At least there's something everybody else on this thread agrees with you about.
What other things aracer - if you mean cars or knives both have another useage that is of benefit
What about speeding motorbikes, TJ?
jumpupanddown, self defence is indeed a human right, but using guns for that purpose is not the way forward. That way an arms race lies, and that's not good.
lol, then tell me how a 8 stone woman stops a high 20 stone rapist.....
TJ,
You need to change The Second Amendment (Amendment II) you know because they shoot everyone ...
😆
It is amusing tho to watch people trying to justify the unjustifiable.
And you still haven't justified why legally held guns should be banned to my satisfaction.
[i]after all can you think of any other way a 8 stone woman could defend her self against a 20 stone rapist[/i]
I'm pretty sure I could outrun one...
BTW, TJ i'll let my gf's dad know that you think (without meeting him) that he's a violent fantasist. 🙄