Go for it, lads!!

All guns should be taken away from everybody except policeman and soldiers nobody else need a gun for any reason. People who have guns must be sick in the mind very much even to protect themselves as the policeman will protect you no need for a gun. In my country Albania guns mean death and more death and lost famlies and much sadness, only policeman need the guns and some soldiers in case of attack by bad Germans and things.

I am 81 years and many friends and neighboures of my family are dead because of all the guns. Men who like guns are sick in their minds the must be very sick in their mind to want and shoot guns.

That person AJ Philips is a strange person who is in love with herself very much I think or maybe shes just very young person is all I think. Or maybe a lady who loves herself very much I wonder. But big minded for sure and rude to lego maybe AJ Philips is frighted of Lego for some-thing. Guns must be gone from everybody from the houses and everywhere. Sick people who are very mad in the head if they love guns at all.

Hi there MISANTHROPE...

Reading through your post, you appear to believe that all members of the public should be denied F/A's, except police and the military? Actually I don't agree with your proposition that F/A's should be arbitrarily banned from the public, provided those wishing to engage in lawful target shooting or hunting are carefully vetted and then licensed to possess and use the appropriate F/A.

I understand you have very legitimate reason(s) to take such a resistant stance on F/A availability, given your (apparent) background in Albania. However here in Australia there are sufficient laws in place to ensure only fit and proper persons are provided with a F/A licence, to ensure the public as far as possible are protected from irresponsible, even criminal use of a F/A.

Your other comments where you say inter alia; anyone who enjoys using F/A's must be mentally ill (or similar words?). I again don't agree with you! There are tens of thousands of people who enjoy lawful shooting pursuits, including Olympic sport competition, Farmers destroying feral pests, target shooting etc. in fact many other disciplines the use of a F/A is necessary and quite safe.

Your remarks concerning A.J.PHILIPS and/or LEGO, I'm not entirely sure what it is you're saying ? Thanks for your contribution.

https://youtu.be/xhD28XpiUDE

This is the Adler versus an 1887 Lever action shotgun that has been around for over a hundred years and which our law makers saw fit to licence in Category A back in 1996.

The only difference was that the 100 years ago gun was better made.

AJ wrote

"Then why do you have to duck and weave my challenges?"

I have challenged you to submit a position on race and crime, and to support it with reasoned arguments. This you have refused to do. So I find it amusing to have you claim that I am avoiding your challenges. You once posted 17 Dorothy Dixer questions at me in one triple post, and when I pointed it out, you said that they were just "rhetorical" questions. But the real reason was because you want to load me up. You want me to do all the work and explain everything, even demanding that I explain why some of your more outrageous and flippant replies are wrong, while you sit back and poke holes in everything I say. Try that on a novice, not me.

My position is to present rational, logical and reasonable arguments supporting my position that race and crime are linked. I am not going to be side tracked with red herring questions by a dishonest opponent who will not submit a position he needs to defend.

AJ wrote

"Firstly, I state a position that I am willing to defend every time I counter one of your arguments. Every time I present a challenge to your uneducated views, I’m saying that they are a problem for you, and you prove me right with your evasiveness. Secondly, even if I didn't, there would be nothing dishonest about that."

You do not counter my arguments with reasoned and consistent logic. You simply write sneery one liners, or sneery two, three and four liners. Since your responses are simply to reflexively deny everything I say, it is hardly surprising that you keep contradicting yourself. It is impossible to "debate" against an opponent who can not, and will not, submit a consistent position. All I can do is to keep my cool, and keep displaying to our audience that I am prepared to present reasoned arguments while you are just a compulsive naysayer who's "logic" is all over the shop

misanthrope,

I don’t think you even know what LEGO and I are discussing. I think you’ve just popped your head in now and are still sore at me for criticising religion that one time. Either that, or you’re very confused if you think that people who enjoy shooting are sick in the head, but that racists and racism are A-Okay.

As for my rudeness, I am as polite to people as they are to me, and often politer. When LEGO demonstrates that he is permanently done with the offensive and baseless accusations and insinuations, I will tone my manner of speaking down. Until then, he will get as good as he gives.

By the way, I don’t know where you get the idea that I’m female or young. Given you don’t like me, that sounds both sexist and ageist. Not all Germans are evil either. The Nazi regime is gone. You can relax now.

--

LEGO,

When did you specifically do that?

<<I have challenged you to submit a position on race and crime, and to support it with reasoned arguments.>>

And why isn’t what I’ve said in this thread and the last good enough?

<<So I find it amusing to have you claim that I am avoiding your challenges.>>

Even if I had been evasive, you are the one who made the initial claim. I have presented challenges to those claims to demonstrate that there are problems with your racial theories. It’s called the burden of proof, LEGO, and you still have it.

<<You once posted 17 Dorothy Dixer questions at me in one triple post …>>

Well, I don’t think the 17 questions part happened. I think you made that number up, hence the absence of a link.

<<… and when I pointed it out, you said that they were just "rhetorical" questions.>>

As if I had a need to get defensive. I don’t think this happened at all.

<<But the real reason was because you want to load me up.>>

You load yourself up with all the claims you make. I’m just calling you to account.

Continued…