UK Gunman kills at least 12, then himself.

[adam_grif]

BB guns also required a gun licence down here. I don't know if they still do, because somebdoy told me that they bought theirs without any licencing woes, but I don't know if they were bullshitting, the laws have changed, or if they simply bought it second hand off somebody who didn't give a shit about that.

[Aaron]

BB guns also required a gun licence down here. I don't know if they still do, because somebdoy told me that they bought theirs without any licencing woes, but I don't know if they were bullshitting, the laws have changed, or if they simply bought it second hand off somebody who didn't give a shit about that.

Wiki (yeah, yeah) says you need a license. In Canada you need a PAL (non-restricted firearms license) for air guns with a muzzle velocity over 500 ft/s. Under that you can walk into Canadian Tire and buy one with no hassle.

[Alyeska]

Plekhanov, you are unwilling to consider options outside of your preconceived notions. Further discussion at this point is absolutely pointless. At this point we are literally talking past each other. I have neither the interest nor the time to discuss the topic given the circumstances.

[Plekhanov]

Plekhanov, you are unwilling to consider options outside of your preconceived notions. Further discussion at this point is absolutely pointless. At this point we are literally talking past each other. I have neither the interest nor the time to discuss the topic given the circumstances.

huh? I ended my previous post with an appeal for you to actually present your reasoning as to why owning firearms should be considered a right:

You very patronisingly tell me to "Consider alternatives. Try to examine the issue from the other side." well help me do so then and explain to me why I should view access to firearms as a basic right rather than a privilege. I'm aware of strong arguments why freedom of expressions, movement, assembly... are all essential rights necessary for any democracy to function why should I view "bearing arms" as belonging on that list of essential rights?

How do you figure from that that I'm "unwilling to consider options outside of your preconceived notions" when I specifically asked you to show me why my current "notions" are in error?

[[R_H]]

BBC is reporting that he used a shotgun and a .22lR rifle (bolt action, semi-auto?).

[Alyeska]

huh? I ended my previous post with an appeal for you to actually present your reasoning as to why owning firearms should be considered a right:

I never said it should be a right. I just do not believe it should be banned without just cause and rational decisions.

You very patronisingly tell me to "Consider alternatives. Try to examine the issue from the other side." well help me do so then and explain to me why I should view access to firearms as a basic right rather than a privilege. I'm aware of strong arguments why freedom of expressions, movement, assembly... are all essential rights necessary for any democracy to function why should I view "bearing arms" as belonging on that list of essential rights?

How do you figure from that that I'm "unwilling to consider options outside of your preconceived notions" when I specifically asked you to show me why my current "notions" are in error?

When you said you saw no purpose for guns. That they have no benefit of any sort. When you demand that I justify having a gun. You don't have to justify wanting to ban guns to me. I understand your perspective very well. I understand both sides of the equation. You do not.

[Plekhanov]

huh? I ended my previous post with an appeal for you to actually present your reasoning as to why owning firearms should be considered a right:

I never said it should be a right. I just do not believe it should be banned without just cause and rational decisions.

Seems rather like you're playing semantics here to try and avoid making an argument to me.

You very patronisingly tell me to "Consider alternatives. Try to examine the issue from the other side." well help me do so then and explain to me why I should view access to firearms as a basic right rather than a privilege. I'm aware of strong arguments why freedom of expressions, movement, assembly... are all essential rights necessary for any democracy to function why should I view "bearing arms" as belonging on that list of essential rights?

How do you figure from that that I'm "unwilling to consider options outside of your preconceived notions" when I specifically asked you to show me why my current "notions" are in error?

When you said you saw no purpose for guns. That they have no benefit of any sort. When you demand that I justify having a gun. You don't have to justify wanting to ban guns to me. I understand your perspective very well. I understand both sides of the equation. You do not.

But I never said I "saw no purpose for guns" or that "they have no benefit of any sort" so please don't pretend I did.

I said very few people have a need for a gun in the way they do motor vehicles to rebut your attempt to equate guns with motor vehicles.

I also explicitly stated that "If someone can show a good reason why they need a firearm as it would serve a truly "useful purpose" to them (mere fun doesn't cut it) and that they're reasonably trustworthy I think they should they should have access to one".

Will you please debate competently/honestly and respond to what I actually post. It's a bit much you patronisingly lecturing me about how superb your understanding of this issue when I do when you seemingly don't even have the ability to read plain English.

[Alyeska]

Seems rather like you're playing semantics here to try and avoid making an argument to me.

You are demanding I justify something that I do not believe. I do not believe gun ownership should be an intrinsic right. It certainly doesn't need to be a constitutional right.

But I never said I "saw no purpose for guns" or that "they have no benefit of any sort" so please don't pretend I did.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit


ben·e·fit
   /ˈbɛnəfɪt/ Show Spelled [ben-uh-fit] Show IPA noun, verb,-fit·ed, -fit·ing.
–noun
1.
something that is advantageous or good; an advantage: He explained the benefits of public ownership of the postal system.
2.
a payment or gift, as one made to help someone or given by a benefit society, insurance company, or public agency: The company offers its employees a pension plan, free health insurance, and other benefits.
3.
a theatrical performance or other public entertainment to raise money for a charitable organization or cause.
4.
Archaic. an act of kindness; good deed; benefaction.

Self Defense, Target shooting, collecting, and hunting would all qualify under the first definition of Benefit.

You blatantly said that guns have no benefit of any sort what so ever. Benefit has a conotation of usefulness, good, or advantageous. So if it has no benefit, there is no useful purpose or reason. Your argument belies your beliefs.

I said very few people have a need for a gun in the way they do motor vehicles to rebut your attempt to equate guns with motor vehicles.

I made it very clear that I wasn't directly comparing or equating guns with vehicles. I was using vehicles as an example where society is willing to except an inherent risk in something. And to point out the fallacy of the argument "even one life saved is worth banning something". If it were really worth a single life to ban something, anything remotely dangerous would be banned. Since this is not the case, there is an acceptable level of risk. What that level of risk is and comparison to the relative worth of the item, concept, or other element is to be determined.

I also explicitly stated that "If someone can show a good reason why they need a firearm as it would serve a truly "useful purpose" to them (mere fun doesn't cut it) and that they're reasonably trustworthy I think they should they should have access to one".

Mere fun doesn't cut it? OK, lets have all video games banned. They do not serve a useful purpose. Who the fuck are you to decide that entertainment is not a valid justification?

Will you please debate competently/honestly and respond to what I actually post. It's a bit much you patronisingly lecturing me about how superb your understanding of this issue when I do when you seemingly don't even have the ability to read plain English.

I have been quite honest. I am quite capable of seeing things from the other perspective. But your simple statement of "mere fun doesn't cut it" proves my very point. You have no intention of actually discussing this with any intent of understanding the other side. You've already made up your mind and have closed it to considering any alternative. You repeatedly make statements of my position that are patently false.

You demand I justify gun ownership as a right when I have never advocated it. You claimed I equated car use with gun use, which I made very clear I was not making a direct comparison.

You are being extremely dishonest in this discussion. Your continued pursuit has merely irritated me further. There is a reason why I have said I am leaving this thread. And with that, I am done with this thread. Talk all you want, I have no intention of reading anything else you post in this thread.

[Plekhanov]

Seems rather like you're playing semantics here to try and avoid making an argument to me.

You are demanding I justify something that I do not believe. I do not believe gun ownership should be an intrinsic right. It certainly doesn't need to be a constitutional right.

But I never said I "saw no purpose for guns" or that "they have no benefit of any sort" so please don't pretend I did.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit


ben·e·fit
   /ˈbɛnəfɪt/ Show Spelled [ben-uh-fit] Show IPA noun, verb,-fit·ed, -fit·ing.
–noun
1.
something that is advantageous or good; an advantage: He explained the benefits of public ownership of the postal system.
2.
a payment or gift, as one made to help someone or given by a benefit society, insurance company, or public agency: The company offers its employees a pension plan, free health insurance, and other benefits.
3.
a theatrical performance or other public entertainment to raise money for a charitable organization or cause.
4.
Archaic. an act of kindness; good deed; benefaction.

Self Defense, Target shooting, collecting, and hunting would all qualify under the first definition of Benefit.

You blatantly said that guns have no benefit of any sort what so ever. Benefit has a conotation of usefulness, good, or advantageous. So if it has no benefit, there is no useful purpose or reason. Your argument belies your beliefs.

Yet again you are straw manning me in the most absurd manner. In response to your previous blatantly false post amongst other things I said:

"Nor have I "stated guns have no value outside of negative aspects" I've simply said I don't think the positives even come close to balancing the negatives for your average citizen to be given access to them as a right."

To say that the negatives outweigh the positives is a world away from saying "that guns have no benefit of any sort what so ever" as you so dishonestly pretend I do.

It is just bizarre that you consider yourself to so patronisingly lecture me about what my beliefs and arguments are when you have no understanding of either.

I said very few people have a need for a gun in the way they do motor vehicles to rebut your attempt to equate guns with motor vehicles.

I made it very clear that I wasn't directly comparing or equating guns with vehicles. I was using vehicles as an example where society is willing to except an inherent risk in something. And to point out the fallacy of the argument "even one life saved is worth banning something". If it were really worth a single life to ban something, anything remotely dangerous would be banned. Since this is not the case, there is an acceptable level of risk. What that level of risk is and comparison to the relative worth of the item, concept, or other element is to be determined.

But I never said "even one life saved is worth banning something" did I? Once again you are blatantly strawmanning me. It's almost as if you are trying for a record for the most strawman attacks in a single thread or something.

I also explicitly stated that "If someone can show a good reason why they need a firearm as it would serve a truly "useful purpose" to them (mere fun doesn't cut it) and that they're reasonably trustworthy I think they should they should have access to one".

Mere fun doesn't cut it? OK, lets have all video games banned. They do not serve a useful purpose. Who the fuck are you to decide that entertainment is not a valid justification?

Oh please guns are deadly weapons are computer games deadly weapons? It's simply absurd that you try to equate the two.

Will you please debate competently/honestly and respond to what I actually post. It's a bit much you patronisingly lecturing me about how superb your understanding of this issue when I do when you seemingly don't even have the ability to read plain English.

I have been quite honest. I am quite capable of seeing things from the other perspective. But your simple statement of "mere fun doesn't cut it" proves my very point. You have no intention of actually discussing this with any intent of understanding the other side. You've already made up your mind and have closed it to considering any alternative. You repeatedly make statements of my position that are patently false.

Honest? Only your first post to me in this thread has been in the least bit honest, thereafter it's been one ridiculous strawman after another.

You demand I justify gun ownership as a right when I have never advocated it. You claimed I equated car use with gun use, which I made very clear I was not making a direct comparison.

This is what you said about cars:

"We allow alcohol. We allow cars. Tens of thousands of people are killed as a result. How many killing sprees with guns have ocurred in the UK in the last 10 years? Now how many people have been killed as a result of drunk driving?"

That was a clear attempt to try and draw an equivalence between cars & guns & how the law treats them.

You are being extremely dishonest in this discussion. Your continued pursuit has merely irritated me further. There is a reason why I have said I am leaving this thread. And with that, I am done with this thread. Talk all you want, I have no intention of reading anything else you post in this thread.

This tantrum and declaration might just carry a little more weight if your posts had suggested you'd actually properly read the posts you claimed to be responding to so far.