A good kicking

[markie]

No offence markie, but that's not helping.

I know, but me and bas have got this understanding going on, he hates me and i ......him,

 

[markie]

No offence markie, but that's not helping.

Don't take this the wrong way , but i was not helping, i was highlighting that sometimes bas acts in a aggressive and bully-ish manner.

 

[Softus]

Don't take this the wrong way , but i was not helping, i was highlighting that some times bas acts in a aggressive and bully-ish manner sometimes.

I knew that you meant that, but I'm trying, and failing, to imagine a less appropriate moment in which you could choose to make your stand.

 

[markie]

Don't take this the wrong way , but i was not helping, i was highlighting that some times bas acts in a aggressive and bully-ish manner sometimes.

I knew that you meant that, but I'm trying, and failing, to imagine a less appropriate moment in which you could choose to make your stand.

I don't mind, i enjoy winding him up,

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ok Softus - let's try this.

The coloured highlights etc weren't shouting, they were highlighting what you had said in order to make your position absolutely clear.

You said that the desire to own a gun was reason in itself to deny ownership, and that is what you want.

Clearly, people who are good at the sport, and want to represent their country will want to own a gun in order that they may do so. Their desire to own a gun is rooted in their desire to compete in their sport

Therefore you were saying that the desire to represent one's country was reason in itself to deny people that opportunity.

And then you tried to claim that you weren't saying that.

 

[Pensdown]

I thoroughly agree, concur, and sympathise, even though I have strong feelings about gun ownership. I believe that any ordinary citizen who applies for a license ought to have their application automatically rejected, if their only reason for applying is because they want a gun.

I don't want to get involved in this very interesting debate but I think you should understand the current fire arm controls.

If you applied for a Fire Arms Certificate (as opposed to a Shotgun Certificate) you would automatically be rejected if you just wanted to own a gun.

For example, some deer stalkers used hand guns at close range to ensure a humane kill if the deer was not killed outright with the rifle. This practice has almost stopped because the police fire arms department do not see this as a good enough reason to own a hand gun even though the shooter may have a licence for a rifle that will kill at 2km.

Hm. One school of thought is that a system that is difficult to operate correctly is not a good system. Rather than blame the operators I would blame the architects of the original system, and also those who stand to lose from the removal of the priviledge of owing a gun

The existing system that regulates FAC’s is very simple and as long it’s implemented (unlike at Dunblane where the fire arms officer wanted to revoke the FAC but was over ruled) it’s very effective.

Shooting is not a sport, nor is hunting, nobody would give a dam if it was outlawed apart from them freaks who think they are upper-class.

I am not a freak or upper class (nor are any of the other people I shoot with) and I would give a dam if it was outlawed.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

"The Firearms Act was passed for the worst possible reason - not in order to secure a specific objective, but do show how strongly MPs felt about something."

 

[Softus]

The coloured highlights etc weren't shouting, they were highlighting what you had said in order to make your position absolutely clear.

Well, I don't think they made anything clear at all, other than your interpretation of my intent, which was an extremist one at best.

Here's an example of someone stating something abundantly clearly:

If you applied for a Fire Arms Certificate (as opposed to a Shotgun Certificate) you would automatically be rejected if you just wanted to own a gun.

This is new knowledge to me, and it changes my perspective slightly. This statement was made calmly, and without the use of colours, or bold text, and without making an assertion of such magnitude that it effectively squeezed out other perfectly valid possibilities that you appear to wish not to consider.

You said that the desire to own a gun was reason in itself to deny ownership, and that is what you want.

I said "apply for a license"; you say "own". I have no idea, in practise, whether or not these two distinct concepts are divisible, but I don't make the assumption that they are not. If someone who appears to know more about the subject explains to me why they are not, and it makes sense to me, then I will happily believe it.

Moreover, I specifically wrote "I believe that any ordinary citizen who applies for a license...".
You cited the example of an athlete who specialises in shooting. Such a specialist is not an ordinary citizen, in my book, any more so than someone who is licensed to train in a martial art for use in self-defence. If you had really been interested in understanding my point of view, I would have expected you to have sought clarification of the word "ordinary", rather than unleash your own rather ugly prejudice.

Clearly, people who are good at the sport, and want to represent their country will want to own a gun in order that they may do so. Their desire to own a gun is rooted in their desire to compete in their sport

I don't know whether or not that's true - it's not something I was aware of. However, you're saying that you know it and you're implying that I should know it because it's clear to you.

Therefore you were saying that the desire to represent one's country was reason in itself to deny people that opportunity.

I could not have been saying that, other than by an implication borne out of my own ignorance, because I wasn't even aware of the premise that you're using to 'prove' the relationship between something that I wrote and an otherwise distinct assertion that you wish to attribute to me.

And then you tried to claim that you weren't saying that.

I haven't tried to do anything, or claim anything, let alone tried to claim anything.

I have a hunch that you'll accuse me weaselling, or backpedalling, or some other emotive term that's intended to rile or provoke, but if you draw inferences that are weakly based, as you've been doing, then we won't be having a discussion of ideas and thoughts, you'll just be contradicting me, which is pointless.

Getting back on track, it's a huge pity that our government believes that a way of winning votes is to create legislation that panders to a poor analysis of disasters such as the one in Dunblane. You may call it knee-jerk if you wish, but it really doesn't matter what term is used because I agree with you that the decision was poorly thought out.

Where we diverge most significantly in opinion, I suspect, is in the strength of feeling about such injustices - I see them as a fact of life, not, for example, a modern blight on attempts to become more civilised. It's important to uphold civil liberties, but, sadly, the pragmatic reality is that football, which is first and foremost a sport, will always be permitted, and handguns, which are first and foremost weapons, are likely to be prohibited, at least for some time to come.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Softus, I will respond to your post when I have a little more time, but as a bit of a diversion, given what you said above about shouting, I can't resist this:

do not assume anything.
.
.
.
As you have no other information, you have to assume that the co-efficient of friction is one.
.
.
.
Bearing friction, etc, not given, therefore assume is zero

An excellent lesson in how not to make assumptions. Not.

take assume to mean regard. Shouting doesn't work with me.

FYI, THIS IS SHOUTING, but the large text certainly worked with you, since it got your attention.

 

[kendor]

Ban Softus is an ignoramus, his posts aren't worth a toss

 

[Softus]

Softus, I will respond to your post when I have a little more time, but as a bit of a diversion, given what you said above about shouting, I can't resist this:

It's a perfectly valid point, but I would have thought the explanation obvious - I'm prone to using bold when I'm frustrated, and you're prone to do it when you are. I pointed that you didn't need to use it on this topic, that's all; it's not hypocrisy, just part of both of us being human.

Ban Softus is an ignoramus, his posts aren't worth a toss.

Hi kendor; no physics lesson for you here I'm afraid - move along, nothing to see...

 

[hermes]

I'm prone to using bold when I'm frustrated,

Do you find it gets your whites whiter?

 

[Softus]

 

[AndersonC]

Right. here's another game where people get p!ssed and they show them doing it on TV. Darts. How much violence erupts at darts matches? Do you see hoards of people throwing pint glasses at one another?

No, but what's your point?

Football brings the emotions out which when mixed with booze are often a potent combination.

Is that your point? Really? The strongest point you have to make in favour of banning football? What about the fact that the emotions that are brought out are more often, by far, NOT potent, or dangerous?

I, as a taxpayer, want my taxes to go on stuff that's good for the community not providing "free security" to football pitches.

Presumably you have grounds for claiming the the security provided is "free"?

The point is that certain members of the population seem to behave like morons just because there are a load of blokes in shorts running after a bag of wind on some grass. It doesn't seem to happen as much in other sports.

I don't think football should be banned. It's the braindead violent types that want banning. The emotions aren't dangerous in themselves but on the wrong end of 10 pints of stella they quite often can be.

What I am saying about the security is that the police are funded by taxpayers, not football clubs, so effectively we are paying for the 'security staff' at the football games whenever large numbers of police are present.

 

[Softus]

The point is that certain members of the population seem to behave like morons just because there are a load of blokes in shorts running after a bag of wind on some grass. It doesn't seem to happen as much in other sports.

I completely agree. But is the proportion any different? I don't know the answer - that's why I'm asking.

I don't think football should be banned. It's the braindead violent types that want banning. The emotions aren't dangerous in themselves but on the wrong end of 10 pints of stella they quite often can be.

Too true. It disturbs and disappoints me.

What I am saying about the security is that the police are funded by taxpayers, not football clubs, so effectively we are paying for the 'security staff' at the football games whenever large numbers of police are present.

I wasn't aware of this. It would seem more natural to me to assume that the clubs do pay extra. Again, I don't know the facts - those are what I'm looking for.