digger Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 Don't feed the troll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 the facts are very simple has any one actually gone into a school or public place with a cricket bat and committed mass murder NO, vehicles serve a purpose they are integral to our everyday lives, but there have been attempts to use them as a weapon but with little or no success, knifes have been used but again with little success, the same old argument comes up about illegal guns, how many "Dunblane" mass killings have occurred in the UK with illegal guns, the simple fact is if you want to kill a lot of people in a confined space then a hand gun is perfect,its also a fact that these event happen when they are in legal ownership. so let me ask this again what is it that makes your life so empty without without a handgun what it is about owning one thats so all consuming what is it you cant do as far as i can see its the ability to put a hole in a piece of paper thats it so tell me is this more important than someones life would you look in the eye of those parents and say my ability to own a hand gun and shoot paper is more important than the life of your child, its that simple I'll do my best to answer this despite noticing you still haven't answered my questions by elaborating on your initial post which started this thread. No, no one has gone into a school and committed mass murder with a cricket bat, but many many vehicles have been used as such weapons with hugely catastrophic effect, despite you claiming they have been used with 'little or no success'. It is the favoured projectile of many terrorist organisations, which you seem to have conveniently overlooked, used as a container within which to pack explosives ( fertiliser etc ) which on detonation turns the vehicle itself into a mass of projectiles. The suggestion they should be banned is of course ludicrous, as you rightly point out; they serve a purpose. Hundreds of people are killed by knives each year in this country, much much more than are killed by either legally or illegally held firearms, ( three I know of just this week, and the week isn't over yet ) but they are mostly isolated events; nonetheless devastating for those involved, but obviously comparatively insignificant in political circles as they are much harder to legislate against. No mass killings have occurred with illegally held guns, again, they tend to be isolated event s and again much harder to legislate against. The next killing spree will occur with either legally held handguns ( again ), but this time cap and ball or LBR, or most likely a legally held shotgun, as in Cockermouth. I'm assuming you still own a shotgun? Given the events there I have to wonder why, given your comments about Dunblane and indeed your reason for starting this thread. Speaking for myself, I really enjoy my life, even without my handguns ( I could start shooting handguns again tomorrow if I wished ) but the thing that sticks in my craw is the cynical injustice of the ban, milked for all it was worth by the Labour party, eager to get into power. Like I say, if guns were the problem we wouldn't be having this conversation; not on this forum anyhow. The last two lines of your post above, are as pathetic and as stunning as your hypocrisy for owning the firearms you own. So tell me, why should the viewing of the documentary be a prerequisite for anyone wanting the return of handguns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocette Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 Must say spelling and using punctuation marks and all the other stuff is not my strongest point, but it should not be prerequisite to having an opinion and debating it. There are people out there who are dyslectic or intelligent but poorly educated. I quite agree,,but facetiousness in response to silliness is usually acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old'un Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 I quite agree,,but facetiousness in response to silliness is usually acceptable. Point taken ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 the facts are very simple has any one actually gone into a school or public place with a cricket bat and committed mass murder NO, vehicles serve a purpose they are integral to our everyday lives, but there have been attempts to use them as a weapon but with little or no success, knifes have been used but again with little success, the same old argument comes up about illegal guns, how many "Dunblane" mass killings have occurred in the UK with illegal guns, the simple fact is if you want to kill a lot of people in a confined space then a hand gun is perfect,its also a fact that these event happen when they are in legal ownership. so let me ask this again what is it that makes your life so empty without without a handgun what it is about owning one thats so all consuming what is it you cant do as far as i can see its the ability to put a hole in a piece of paper thats it so tell me is this more important than someones life would you look in the eye of those parents and say my ability to own a hand gun and shoot paper is more important than the life of your child, its that simple Typical meretricious argument that really does not stand up to objective assessment, but quite frankly I have better things to do with my time than to challenge you and I hope that the rest of PW see likewise. You are nothing other than an attention seeking whore who makes deliberately provocative and offensive posts where you know you will get a reaction. If in all conscience you believe your post, quoted above, is not intended to be deliberately provocative and offensive then you are an ignorant fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougy Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 Incorrect Dougy. Go read the facts and come back and apologize to the FEO involved please. Have a pop at his boss but not him! Sorry, but that's incorrect. The officer in not only recommending that his renewal should not be approved was also minded to have Hamilton taken to task regarding his activities in a boys' summer camp. He was over-ridden on both counts. Well I stand corrected, Failing of the officer then to go higher, failing of the system. Which the FEO was part of the system, from grass routes level to the top. Boys clubs, which we have all recently all commented on regarding the BBC,another boys club some of the top politicians another boys club cover ups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 You are nothing other than an attention seeking whore who makes deliberately provocative and offensive posts where you know you will get a reaction. + 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old'un Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 Does anyone know anything about chrisjh, is he/she a shooting, hunting, fishing person or just a member of the public who does not like any of the above or anyone who takes part in them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 I bet you supported the ban on punctuation too. I really miss the full stop but really,,,there is nothing preventing me from running amok with an inappropriate comma now and again ! Careful with the exclamation mark as well!! they were talking about those in the press this week!! Now, was that 4 to many? Typical meretricious argument that really does not stand up to objective assessment, but quite frankly I have better things to do with my time than to challenge you and I hope that the rest of PW see likewise. You are nothing other than an attention seeking whore who makes deliberately provocative and offensive posts where you know you will get a reaction. If in all conscience you believe your post, quoted above, is not intended to be deliberately provocative and offensive then you are an ignorant fool. Don't sit on the fence, you weren't clear enough in your views there Grr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digger Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 Does anyone know anything about chrisjh, is he/she a shooting, hunting, fishing person or just a member of the public who does not like any of the above or anyone who takes part in them? It pops up. posts something to get a response then either vanishes or posts more irrelevant gibberish to get a rose. classic troll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drut Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 "Typical meretricious argument that really does not stand up to objective assessment, but quite frankly I have better things to do with my time than to challenge you and I hope that the rest of PW see likewise. You are nothing other than an attention seeking whore who makes deliberately provocative and offensive posts where you know you will get a reaction. If in all conscience you believe your post, quoted above, is not intended to be deliberately provocative and offensive then you are an ignorant fool." +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjh Posted March 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 Typical meretricious argument that really does not stand up to objective assessment, but quite frankly I have better things to do with my time than to challenge you and I hope that the rest of PW see likewise. You are nothing other than an attention seeking whore who makes deliberately provocative and offensive posts where you know you will get a reaction. If in all conscience you believe your post, quoted above, is not intended to be deliberately provocative and offensive then you are an ignorant fool. one assumes this type of childish tantrum is a clear indication you have lost the argument, my position is quite clear legally held hand guns were responsible for the murder of innocent people and their removal from society is a good thing, only a very small minority of people in the UK would suggest they are made accessible again and i would suggest those that want one should be the ones kept away from them. Does anyone know anything about chrisjh, is he/she a shooting, hunting, fishing person or just a member of the public who does not like any of the above or anyone who takes part in them? i know about Chrisjh he / she shoots hunts and has enjoyed fishing in the past, just because i believe the UK has a good handle on gun law, i would have thought a debate on gun ownership on a gun forum was the right place, its somewhat worrying the tone and vitriol expressed at the inaccessibility of handguns denied because a class room of small children were shot dead and denied you opportunity to shoot at paper sad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digger Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 A troll picks posts to respond to and ignores others. Usually posts responses designed to illicit outraged replies. Your a troll, this thread should be locked as it's not about you and your "look at me!!!" posts. RIP the little ones, none of us will be here when the truth comes out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 my position is quite clear legally held hand guns were responsible for the murder of innocent people and their removal from society is a good thing, Firearms are inanimate objects Thomas Hamilton was responsible not the firearms he used. i would suggest those that want one should be the ones kept away from them. Why do you think that. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjh Posted March 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 A troll picks posts to respond to and ignores others. Usually posts responses designed to illicit outraged replies. Your a troll, this thread should be locked as it's not about you and your "look at me!!!" posts. RIP the little ones, none of us will be here when the truth comes out i dont have the time to respond to all posts sorry, i also dont offer responses designed to illicit outraged replies, i dont believe i am a troll i am just offering a reasonable opinion about guns on a gun forum where else would you debate guns, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 i dont have the time to respond to all posts sorry, Thought so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digger Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 nope. no rise from me, I've been here long enough to know your MO. Any search of your posts will testify to that. Mh thoughts are with the families. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjh Posted March 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 Firearms are inanimate objects Thomas Hamilton was responsible not the firearms he used. Why do you think that. ? thats completely wrong if he didnt have the gun then he couldn't / wouldn't have committed the crime and please dont tell me he would have used a cricket bat, hand guns are designed to efficiently kill people at relatively close range they are extremely effective people like Hamilton exist today if they could get hold of a hand gun they would undertake mass acts of violence we simply cant risk it, i do appreciate that 99.999% of hand gun owners are safe but it only takes 1 and 1 is to many and owning a hand gun is not worth the life of an innocent person ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) one assumes this type of childish tantrum is a clear indication you have lost the argument, my position is quite clear legally held hand guns were responsible for the murder of innocent people and their removal from society is a good thing, only a very small minority of people in the UK would suggest they are made accessible again and i would suggest those that want one should be the ones kept away from them. i know about Chrisjh he / she shoots hunts and has enjoyed fishing in the past, just because i believe the UK has a good handle on gun law, i would have thought a debate on gun ownership on a gun forum was the right place, its somewhat worrying the tone and vitriol expressed at the inaccessibility of handguns denied because a class room of small children were shot dead and denied you opportunity to shoot at paper sad Actually, over use of emoticons in contradiction to a post rather than responding with reasoned debate is deemed as admission the poster has lost the argument and is attempting to save face. Legally held firearms were indeed responsible for the murder of innocent ( as opposed to guilty?) people, as they were in Cockermouth, yet your constant refusal to comment on your ownership of the same type of firearms used in that instance, and your refusal to accept this ownership as therefore hypocritical, defies all common sense. Very strange. thats completely wrong if he didnt have the gun then he couldn't / wouldn't have committed the crime and please dont tell me he would have used a cricket bat, hand guns are designed to efficiently kill people at relatively close range they are extremely effective people like Hamilton exist today if they could get hold of a hand gun they would undertake mass acts of violence we simply cant risk it, i do appreciate that 99.999% of hand gun owners are safe but it only takes 1 and 1 is to many and owning a hand gun is not worth the life of an innocent person ever This would be hilarious if I didn't know you were serious. Again, your hypocrisy is disturbingly startling. Edited March 10, 2016 by Scully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drut Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 As an aside,my sympathy rests with the victims families and I think a lifting of the 100yr D notice to give them at least an honest account of what led up to this tragedy is the very least they are entitled to. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/11901710.Who_is_really_being_protected_by_Dunblane_100_year_ban_/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smig4373 Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) i would suggest those that want one should be the ones kept away from them. i know about Chrisjh he / she shoots hunts and has enjoyed fishing in the past, just because i believe the UK has a good handle on gun law, i would have thought a debate on gun ownership on a gun forum was the right place, its somewhat worrying the tone and vitriol expressed at the inaccessibility of handguns denied because a class room of small children were shot dead and denied you opportunity to shoot at paper sad I owe handguns,I need them for my job..do I need to be kept away from children..would be awkward,I have 5 kids..and no,I don't shoot at paper Edited March 10, 2016 by smig4373 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smig4373 Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 thats completely wrong if he didnt have the gun then he couldn't / wouldn't have committed the crime and please dont tell me he would have used a cricket bat, hand guns are designed to efficiently kill people at relatively close range they are extremely effective people like Hamilton exist today if they could get hold of a hand gun they would undertake mass acts of violence we simply cant risk it, i do appreciate that 99.999% of hand gun owners are safe but it only takes 1 and 1 is to many and owning a hand gun is not worth the life of an innocent person ever 357 magnum pistols were designed to kill mountain lions and bears..not people....just saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 thats completely wrong if he didnt have the gun then he couldn't / wouldn't have committed the crime and please dont tell me he would have used a cricket bat, hand guns are designed to efficiently kill people at relatively close range they are extremely effective people like Hamilton exist today if they could get hold of a hand gun they would undertake mass acts of violence we simply cant risk it, i do appreciate that 99.999% of hand gun owners are safe but it only takes 1 and 1 is to many and owning a hand gun is not worth the life of an innocent person ever Yes he could have committed the crime just not using a handgun, i do appreciate that 99.999% of hand gun owners are safe but it only takes 1 and 1 is to many and owning a hand gun is not worth the life of an innocent person ever Make your mind up you posted erlier bellow. i would suggest those that want one should be the ones kept away from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 As an aside,my sympathy rests with the victims families and I think a lifting of the 100yr D notice to give them at least an honest account of what led up to this tragedy is the very least they are entitled to. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/11901710.Who_is_really_being_protected_by_Dunblane_100_year_ban_/ That's a cracking bit of reporting; thanks for the link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted March 10, 2016 Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 thats completely wrong if he didnt have the gun then he couldn't / wouldn't have committed the crime and please dont tell me he would have used a cricket bat, hand guns are designed to efficiently kill people at relatively close range they are extremely effective people like Hamilton exist today if they could get hold of a hand gun they would undertake mass acts of violence we simply cant risk it, i do appreciate that 99.999% of hand gun owners are safe but it only takes 1 and 1 is to many and owning a hand gun is not worth the life of an innocent person ever Would you ban .22 semi autos? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.