Stop and think - and you will realise that banning guns is a waste of time

[FlyingJesus]

Does this refer to the Second Amendment? again, no actual substance just vague and broad points.

What do you want done in the United States over gun rights? explain to me.

Are you genuinely suggesting that any practice put into law in one time and place ought to be accepted forever more despite changes in society and civilised standards? There were previously laws that allowed for the ownership of other human beings, the rape of any "unclaimed" landmass and the destruction of any and all opposition to a governor's creed. If you want to argue for the sanctity of these legal rights then go ahead, but you'll just make yourself look an even bigger fool. What I want done you know full well - restriction of gun carrying to include ONLY the carrier's property, as outside of that one has no right whatsoever to invoke terror through promise of violence.

Sounds like a self description to me.

NO YOU is such a good argument, well done

The logic of your side of the debate throughout has been, guns = kill people and are bad, so let's ban guns.

No it hasn't

Of which my response has been, why not ban other things which also result in high death rates?

To which the only response you lot have had has been "OMGZ BUT GUNZ R MENT TO KILL PEOPLE" - that's not an argument or logically consistent.

The fact that you are somehow either STILL unaware or merely unwilling to accept the fact (and yes it is fact, not opinion like the "facts" that you state while only being personal statements) that guns were invented, manufactured, and distributed purely for the purpose of destruction of other human life says to me that your bigotry isn't likely to end no matter how many times you're subjected to the real world. Sport on ones own private property I do not oppose, shooting at ones own feet for amusement I do not oppose, but gun ownership *+*IN PUBLIC PLACES*+* (I've put it in a way that you can't possibly miss now) I do oppose because (hey let's try that technique again) *+*GUNS OUTSIDE OF PRIVATE AREAS HAVE NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO KILL*+*. That is not to say that other things can't be used to harm others, and no-one has actually attempted to suggest that (but nice use of false equivalences and strawmanning) as literally nothing else that is legal in the Western world at this time has the sole property of harm. If you'd like to suggest an actual reason for why that isn't a valid and logical argument then please do try, but all you've said so far is "nope not true, I'm right"

[-:Undertaker:-]

Are you genuinely suggesting that any practice put into law in one time and place ought to be accepted forever more despite changes in society and civilised standards? There were previously laws that allowed for the ownership of other human beings, the rape of any "unclaimed" landmass and the destruction of any and all opposition to a governor's creed. If you want to argue for the sanctity of these legal rights then go ahead, but you'll just make yourself look an even bigger fool. What I want done you know full well - restriction of gun carrying to include ONLY the carrier's property, as outside of that one has no right whatsoever to invoke terror through promise of violence.

When oppressive government has ended around the world (which it won't) then i'll consider binning off those sacred documents, until then they stand just as solid as they did back in their day. The US Constitution and the British constitution are timeless documents.

The United States is a constitutional republic and we are a constitutional monarchy, those protections are in place to protect us from the hysteria of the masses. The entire point in these documents is to defend against the tyranny of the majority (democracy) when it threatens the basic rights of the individual.

NO YOU is such a good argument, well done

If you're going to respond with 'UR ARGUMENT IS RUBBISH' then what else can I say? it's boring and has already been done.

No it hasn't

Yes it has, thats why we've had a thread posted everytime a gun goes off in a country with a population of 300 million people.

The fact that you are somehow either STILL unaware or merely unwilling to accept the fact (and yes it is fact, not opinion like the "facts" that you state while only being personal statements) that guns were invented, manufactured, and distributed purely for the purpose of destruction of other human life says to me that your bigotry isn't likely to end no matter how many times you're subjected to the real world.

Again, you ignore the logic. If you and your side of the debate (although now that you've clarified your position, as least your not on the hard end of it) feel that guns should be restricted or even banned because they kill human life in sporadic attacks - then I don't see why that logic isn't applied in a Daddy-knows-best manner to a whole host of other issues.

I accept there's a risk with guns, but it's a very small risk in terms of statistics - in the same way with salt, cars etc. But because guns are designed to kill (which I don't see makes a difference, surely people dying is the issue not the intent) somehow British people who probably haven't held a gun before have this strange phobia to guns..

It's entirely irrational in the grand scheme of things, yet because it's an emotional crime it's subject to OTT hostility.

Sport on ones own private property I do not oppose, shooting at ones own feet for amusement I do not oppose, but gun ownership *+*IN PUBLIC PLACES*+* (I've put it in a way that you can't possibly miss now) I do oppose because (hey let's try that technique again) *+*GUNS OUTSIDE OF PRIVATE AREAS HAVE NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO KILL*+*. That is not to say that other things can't be used to harm others, and no-one has actually attempted to suggest that (but nice use of false equivalences and strawmanning) as literally nothing else that is legal in the Western world at this time has the sole property of harm. If you'd like to suggest an actual reason for why that isn't a valid and logical argument then please do try, but all you've said so far is "nope not true, I'm right"

You say the purpose of a gun in a public place is to kill, so what about the many Americans who carry guns in their pocket/on their leg for the purpose of self defence? I don't see why you think making guns illegal in public will somehow stop madmen - because let's say it does (which you clearly believe) - then why not ban guns altogether and you'll solve gun violence overnight?

The logic doesn't add up.

[FlyingJesus]

Britain doesn't actually have a single written constitution, any A-level student knows that. As for considering a document to be infallible simply because of its age, that's simply hilarious. Slavery laws (as in laws issuing the rights of masters over slaves) existed for far longer than Britain has been a place, would you suggest that they are also "sacred" and "timeless"?

I haven't responded with "UR ARGUMENT IS RUBBISH" I've given reasons as to why I believe this to be the case - reasons which you have not responded to even now

MY argument is not that guns can kill and therefore should be banned - you are assuming that me opposing your ridiculous views means that I accept the views of all opposition, which is simply not the case

I still cannot fathom how you are unable to realise that there is a difference between widespread usage of items that are designed with only the destruction of life in mind and the availability (should one choose to indulge in it) of substances that may cause harm to the user. Look, once again I've emboldened the important clauses, but of course you'll totally ignore these as always and simply respond with "BUT I WANT SAFETY". Safety doesn't come from carrying a gun, since guns are offensive and not defensive. If you want to build yourself an armoured guard from unloaded firearms then go ahead, but that is a totally different issue, but unless that is your objective then you are not advocating for self-defense, you are advocating for outward attack.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Britain doesn't actually have a single written constitution, any A-level student knows that.

Where did I suggest it was a single written constitution? if you'd like me to list every constitutional document which make up our consitution then I will do so, but I would have thought anybody over A-Level would understand the documents i'm referring to when I say the British constitution.

As for considering a document to be infallible simply because of its age, that's simply hilarious. Slavery laws (as in laws issuing the rights of masters over slaves) existed for far longer than Britain has been a place, would you suggest that they are also "sacred" and "timeless"?

I never said mere age made them important, I stated that sensible barriers and protections to the individual are enshrined in the US constitution and the British constitution that are timeless in terms of protecting individual liberty.

Timeless in the sense that they are above the contemporary politics of the day.

I haven't responded with "UR ARGUMENT IS RUBBISH" I've given reasons as to why I believe this to be the case - reasons which you have not responded to even now

Point them out then, I can't for the life of me see anything you want me to address that I haven't already.

MY argument is not that guns can kill and therefore should be banned - you are assuming that me opposing your ridiculous views means that I accept the views of all opposition, which is simply not the case

Why are you pushing for more gun restrictions Tom? because guns kill/harm and your wanting to do something about it.

You still haven't replied to my point about public/private - if you want this restriction in place to save lives (why else would you want it?) then you must answer the point of, if this works, why not extend it to all property and we'd end gun violence overnight? A response is appreciated to this question rather than another accusation that i'm dodging any issues.

I still cannot fathom how you are unable to realise that there is a difference between widespread usage of items that are designed with only the destruction of life in mind and the availability (should one choose to indulge in it) of substances that may cause harm to the user. Look, once again I've emboldened the important clauses, but of course you'll totally ignore these as always and simply respond with "BUT I WANT SAFETY". Safety doesn't come from carrying a gun, since guns are offensive and not defensive. If you want to build yourself an armoured guard from unloaded firearms then go ahead, but that is a totally different issue, but unless that is your objective then you are not advocating for self-defense, you are advocating for outward attack.

Guns are defensive or offensive entirely on how you use them, just as heroin becomes offensive if you strap somebody down and drug them up every few days as people do with women in the sex 'industry'. If I am attacked in an alleyway and I whip out my hand gun and shoot the men attacking me dead, then that's a defensive act - not an offensive one.

The one who intiates the violence is the one at fault, not the one who responses with more power in self defence.

[peteyt]

I'm sorry, but drugs alter the brain - there have been many medical examples in the past where drugs have been considered perfectly safe and normal, and years later we discover the real effects they have on people. A nation addicted to mind bending drugs is not a healthy one, and the fact that most (if not all) of the mass murderer shootings are on these drugs certainly need investigating.

Yes drugs can effect the brain physically but so can guns in a mental way. I feel that the problem is Americans have been so used to guns being legal that it has in a sense corrupted their minds and they now can't see a world without them.

Oh for crying out loud, the constitution was written not for hunting rights or not even self defence - the reason why the second amendment was put into the constitution was that the Founding Fathers (many having come from tyrannies in Europe) wanted to make sure that a government would not be able to oppress its own people in the land of the free. You haven't done your homework and it shows.

I know why the constitution was written, never said it was actually written for self defence, I know it was written to protect the public from the government. My point is there are now lots of other stuff. Look at all the fuss with Libya. Other countries got involved trying to help the rebels. My point is when the constitution was wrote there wasn't all these things like the united nations, human right laws. Maybe the government could try and take over the country but they won't. It won't happen but people decide it will as an excuse to be allowed to keep guns.

My other point was that according to some online articles, the constitution can be amended and has been in the past. I'm no expert on it and I'm just saying what I have read. These articles have pointed that the constitution can be changed to fit with the times and that it isn't something that is set in stone forever, basically more of a basic idea. According to the articles online people don't accept this however because they hate to think of their gun rights been taking over.

Also your point about Obama being a hypocrite by having armed men. As someone pointed out if people prevented weapons from being distributed, revoking the gun law and taking down those smuggling weapons, then Obama wouldn't need to be protected.

But as I've said loads of times in one way or another, he isn't being a Hypocrite. America has missiles and other dangerous weapons, the main purpose to protect the country. Would you want normal members of the public to have access to these to? Obviously not because giving just anyone access to these weapons would be foolish and a massive risk. Now you can say well these weapons shouldn't exist, and why should the government have access to them but the people you support e.g. Ron Paul would have access to these weapons if he did get into power.

[FlyingJesus]

I never said mere age made them important, I stated that sensible barriers and protections to the individual are enshrined in the US constitution and the British constitution that are timeless in terms of protecting individual liberty.

Timeless in the sense that they are above the contemporary politics of the day.

This is once again just saying IT'S RIGHT BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT AND YOU MUST NOT CHALLENGE IT. The word for that kind of attitude is bigotry.

Why are you pushing for more gun restrictions Tom? because guns kill/harm and your wanting to do something about it.

You still haven't replied to my point about public/private - if you want this restriction in place to save lives (why else would you want it?) then you must answer the point of, if this works, why not extend it to all property and we'd end gun violence overnight? A response is appreciated to this question rather than another accusation that i'm dodging any issues.

Woooooooooo more strawmanning. No that isn't the reason and the way you question the possibility of any other reason for wanting guns to be banned shows just how limited your thinking is. I don't want guns out in public because they are nothing more than tools of fear and oppression - AGAIN, look up violent gang culture and not just what the Daily Mail thinks it is. Also I'm not sure why you're attempting to suggest that private and public areas are essentially the same, especially considering your own views on property law. Limiting dangerous equipment to be used only on private property or specialist areas makes absolute sense, unless you also advocate for everyone carrying nuclear warheads coated in francium when they go out shopping, in which case there really is no hope for you.

Guns are defensive or offensive entirely on how you use them, just as heroin becomes offensive if you strap somebody down and drug them up every few days as people do with women in the sex 'industry'. If I am attacked in an alleyway and I whip out my hand gun and shoot the men attacking me dead, then that's a defensive act - not an offensive one.

The one who intiates the violence is the one at fault, not the one who responses with more power in self defence.

Not content with making baseless assumptions on just one topic at a time, Daniel moves on to showing his lack of knowledge about the sex industry and the effects of drugs.
Seriously that statement about heroin was hilarious. Partly because of how utterly wrong it was, but also because you STILL don't seem to understand the difference between something with harmful potential and something with harmful purpose. You also don't seem to understand the difference between offence and defence - as any martial artist will be able to tell you, the idea of self-defence is not to destroy your combatant but to cause them enough impediment for you to get away. If a kid throws a pebble at you and you respond by shooting them in the head with a carbine, that is absolutely not an appropriate way to deal with the matter.

[Kardan]

Can we use grenades as self defence?

[Ardemax]

So why did you say, and I quote;

"to the point you raised about Obama having armed guards with him: they would not be needed if every other US citizen didn't own a gun."

Here you imply that your stated goal is for not one US citizen to own a gun, which you've now admitted to me is an unattainable goal when I asked you to name one country which has 100% of it's citizens/subjects disarmed. So therefore, your stance on this issue then is that Obama and government officials are entitled to armed protection forever (even though your supposed to be totally against guns) but this principle doesn't apply to the people?

And also, if Obama and co are entitled to armed protection - this in turn implies that non-government citizens still have possession of guns (ie, the criminal class). So the deal you are offering to the vast majority of the law abiding American public is; you have your guns removed, Obama/the political class and the criminals keep theirs.

Somehow I don't see that deal being taken up, do you?

I don't know if I'm implying that there should be a goal for no-one in America to own a firearms, I'm simply saying if there was ever a time where citizens had no guns then there wouldn't be the need for all these fancy body guards roaming around with Obama.

To your second point about Obama being allowed protection but ordinary people aren't... well I just don't know where to begin. I don't see Obama suddenly turning on American people and starting a massacre but I do see some American people turning on Obama if they had the chance, don't you?

What are American people so scared about that they feel that they have to own a firearm? Other American people with firearms?! Like I said, if firearms were banned outright from the start it would be like the situation over here in Britain: better.

To your third point,
"And also, if Obama and co are entitled to armed protection - this in turn implies that non-government citizens still have possession of guns (ie, the criminal class). So the deal you are offering to the vast majority of the law abiding American public is; you have your guns removed, Obama/the political class and the criminals keep theirs."

Let's take the Queen as an example. There are police who keep an eye on her situation when she tours around the world and country and they have guns. Would you say that our beloved, blue-blooded protector should ever risk her safety as a point of principal? I think we need to be realistic and acknowledge that a clamp down on guns will never ever work. But in countries where guns are illegal and ones where they are legal, I think the gun-related crime statistics speak for themselves.

You'd feel a lot safer if the only entity that had guns was the state? wow, do you need to read a history book my friend.

Or even take a look at events in Syria as we speak.

Last time I checked we're not in a country that is run by lunatics (though I'm sure you'd argue differently, but you get my point). We currently live in a country where the only "entity" that has guns is the state (bar a few exceptions with licences for hunting rifles etc.). And therefore I believe I am safer in this country where gun-related deaths per 100,000 per year is 0.25 compared with 10.2 in the US.

[dbgtz]

I don't post statistics/studies barely ever as most of them are made up, I post detailed arguments along with my own thoughts.

Yes because you just like to say it without actually backing it up. - http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...63#post7797963
So what about the statistics you do post with some source? Are they accurate because you chose them? What makes them so reliable and accurate? You go on about picking and choosing what things you can ban with drugs, guns, salt (lol) and all of that, but you seem to pick and choose which sources you deem to be accurate which, coincidentally, seem to be the sources which back up your evidence.

I'm not debating drugs, nor do I really want to - the evidence I have looked at in the past shows to me that they are dangerous and only a fool would touch them. I don't have a justify my stance as I only apply it to myself, i'd legalise drugs tommorow.

Show me said evidence then.

[FiftyCal]

I'm going to start carrying around my automatic AK-47 around in the public, i better be careful i might kill somebody!