Nigel Farage calls for UK gun laws to be relaxed

PhilDidge wrote:I could care less what people do tree hugger, facts are facts are gun laws have made it extremely difficult to obtain guns which proves they are working.


No body disputes that our tough gun laws are working, and I certainly do not want to see them weakened, but including hand guns BACK in to the list of "permitted" guns will NOT weaken things at all. The effectiveness of our present laws comes not from what is or isnt permitted but from the careful vetting of people who are allowed to hold guns and the need for many firearms of "good reason"

Again I care little to what they bring to the economy again an absurd argument to make to back the use of guns which are nothing more than instruments of death.

thats not an argument...thats "didges opinion" and nothing more than an emotive wail....

Now was it not you that told me i billion equates to very little now you are using a similar amount to defend it.

1.6 billion...plus 70,000 jobs plus the unquantified cost of the upkeep of 2 million hectares for conservation plus 205 million in direct spend on conservation...which benefits EVERYONE....

PMSL

grumpy old git wrote:



No body disputes that our tough gun laws are working, and I certainly do not want to see them weakened, but including hand guns BACK in to the list of "permitted" guns will NOT weaken things at all. The effectiveness of our present laws comes not from what is or isnt permitted but from the careful vetting of people who are allowed to hold guns and the need for many firearms of "good reason"



thats not an argument...thats "didges opinion" and nothing more than an emotive wail....


1.6 billion...plus 70,000 jobs plus the unquantified cost of the upkeep of 2 million hectares for conservation plus 205 million in direct spend on conservation...which benefits EVERYONE....

PMSL

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:



No body disputes that our tough gun laws are working, and I certainly do not want to see them weakened, but including hand guns BACK in to the list of "permitted" guns will NOT weaken things at all. The effectiveness of our present laws comes not from what is or isnt permitted but from the careful vetting of people who are allowed to hold guns and the need for many firearms of "good reason"



thats not an argument...thats "didges opinion" and nothing more than an emotive wail....


1.6 billion...plus 70,000 jobs plus the unquantified cost of the upkeep of 2 million hectares for conservation plus 205 million in direct spend on conservation...which benefits EVERYONE....

PMSL

Dear me the argument gets more desperate as it goes along, so are you now saying 1 billion is after all?

Read what I said...its overall considerably MORE than the simple cash sum of 1.6 billion....

Second why can they not use non lethal guns to shoot in shooting galleries.

awww.. thats so.....condescending....of you......

Hunting for fun is daft to say the least, it is an egotistic barbaric practice to satisfy the need for empowerment over other animals with an unbalanced match.

Now you are talking crap....utter crap about a subject you know NOTHING about....

game shooters may well enjoy their days out....Good healthy excercise it is too.....but what they shoot is not wasted...it goes in the pot....
as I asked...are you a simpleton veggie??? or do you get your meat in the shops, bred on farms often in vile conditions transported , slaughtered often in terrible conditions...
at least my meat grows free and wild and gets a quick clean decent death.

and ....just a question...would you be happy , as a result of stopping shooting....to have 5p per pint on your milk, about the same per loaf on your bread, and prices of many other staples rise.......
Oh I forget you would....you dont care, you have had your Psuedo poverty, and have now a life of plenty...sod the ones on bottom level income...I suppose they will just have to eat less????


As seen you are very wrong on the effectiveness of our laws, so funny those desperate to shoot guns to feel god like have little cause or counter to justify their use in ordinary life

ALLAKAKA wrote:


It is not the GUN that you worry about ,it is not the person BEHIND the gun you worry about , it is the INTENT of the person behind the gun you worry about.

grumpy old git wrote:
Now you are talking crap....utter crap about a subject you know NOTHING about....
Why because you say so and are so bad at posting you cannot keep in the sections?

game shooters may well enjoy their days out....Good healthy excercise it is too.....but what they shoot is not wasted...it goes in the pot....
PMSL, so now it is excercise, not that they can get this from walking anyway.
So its okay they have eaten what they killed now in every case is it?
Debunked

as I asked...are you a simpleton veggie???  or do you get your meat in the shops, bred on farms often  in vile conditions transported , slaughtered often in terrible conditions...
at least my meat grows free and wild and gets a quick clean decent death.
I get my meat from the supermarket, which again I think the methods of killing farmed animals are wrong, I still eat meat though which is different to arguing about idiots who get a hard on by feeling so empowered in an uneven match with animals

and ....just a question...would you be happy , as a result of stopping shooting....to have 5p per pint on your milk, about the same per loaf on your bread, and prices of many other staples rise.......
Yes I would

Oh I forget you would....you dont care, you have had your Psuedo poverty, and have now a life of plenty...sod the ones on bottom level income...I suppose they will just have to eat less????
Oh dear a poor argument directed at me which again is nonsense, you need to wipe your backside old man, because clearly you seem upset



I have seen NOTHING to show where I am wrong....you are again talking rubbish and deliberately confusing two quite seperate issues...THE CRIMINAL use of guns, is NOTHING to do with the legitimate gun user....no matter how tough you made the gun laws..the crims would still get them
Blah blah, nothing to support your view, accept alot of hot air and again I see no reason for hunting for sport and I see no reason why gun clubs do not have non-lethal guns, this is all about getting off on firing a gun, again a feeling off empowerment, I suggest wanking that lust instead or try playstation

why if the hand gun ban was so good, did gun crime...with hand guns rocket ...AFTER the ban????
Did it, is it rocketing today? Nope

as usual you cling to straws to support you own emotive, nonsensical drivel. which follows NO logic other than didge knows whats best....
No that is you clutching at straws, trying to back the use of guns into society, how absurd as seen

Now how about answering the FACTS i gave you.....In Order  and with proper FACT based arguments...rather than emotive nonsense

nicko wrote:didge, do not call me a dickless wimp,i risked my life in two wars fighting for what I believed was right.

grumpy old git wrote:What YOU see is irelevant, you No relevance to the debate now left to poor direct insults, game over are a self opinionated dickles fool, with no life.
you have NOT answered ANY of the facts I gave you and are now running scared from the discussion, behind a smokescreen of emotive nonsense....
What facts? Hunting for sport is wrong, would be very happy to see every last one of them lose there jobs and get real ones

you have not answered the point of 1.6 billion pounds...(and its YOU that says its significant....) NOR the 70.000 jobs in RURAL areas, where jobs are almost impossible to find....how are you going to replace them
As stated happy they all lose their industry and jobs and find real ones

you have NOT answered the points on conservation...How are you going to continue the conservation work...or are you going to let the environment rot...
What a crock, have heard this gobbledygook before, what conversation, for the benefit of humans, or animals, take your time on that one

Do we assume you are happy to loose the rich biodiversity that exists on shoot managed land?
and you have NO answer to the cost savings that the pest control provided by shooters contributes to society in general....
Is this the only method used or needed?

all you have is "I dont like what you do, so I dont think you should either"...in other words the soviet republic of didge backe by emotive tomfoolery and little of substance
Really yet another abusrd claim, so where things are banned in this country makes it the Soviet Union?
 ://?roflmao?/: gets dafter by the minute

you are seen now to be making more smoke than a navy in full retreat....

grumpy old git wrote:What YOU see is irelevant, you No relevance to the debate now left to poor direct insults, game over are a self opinionated dickles fool, with no life.
you have NOT answered ANY of the facts I gave you and are now running scared from the discussion, behind a smokescreen of emotive nonsense....
What facts? Hunting for sport is wrong, would be very happy to see every last one of them lose there jobs and get real ones

you have not answered the point of 1.6 billion pounds...(and its YOU that says its significant....) NOR the 70.000 jobs in RURAL areas, where jobs are almost impossible to find....how are you going to replace them
As stated happy they all lose their industry and jobs and find real ones

you have NOT answered the points on conservation...How are you going to continue the conservation work...or are you going to let the environment rot...
What a crock, have heard this gobbledygook before, what conversation, for the benefit of humans, or animals, take your time on that one

Do we assume you are happy to loose the rich biodiversity that exists on shoot managed land?
and you have NO answer to the cost savings that the pest control provided by shooters contributes to society in general....
Is this the only method used or needed?

all you have is "I dont like what you do, so I dont think you should either"...in other words the soviet republic of didge backe by emotive tomfoolery and little of substance
Really yet another abusrd claim, so where things are banned in this country makes it the Soviet Union?
 ://?roflmao?/: gets dafter by the minute

you are seen now to be making more smoke than a navy in full retreat....

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:
Now you are talking crap....utter crap about a subject you know NOTHING about....
Why because you say so and are so bad at posting you cannot keep in the sections?

game shooters may well enjoy their days out....Good healthy excercise it is too.....but what they shoot is not wasted...it goes in the pot....
PMSL, so now it is excercise, not that they can get this from walking anyway.
So its okay they have eaten what they killed now in every case is it?
Debunked

nonsense answer....emotive ....

as I asked...are you a simpleton veggie???  or do you get your meat in the shops, bred on farms often  in vile conditions transported , slaughtered often in terrible conditions...
at least my meat grows free and wild and gets a quick clean decent death.
I get my meat from the supermarket, which again I think the methods of killing farmed animals are wrong, I still eat meat though which is different to arguing about idiots who get a hard on by feeling so empowered in an uneven match with animals

more emotive nonsense...and very poor sterotyping...from juvenile sources

and ....just a question...would you be happy , as a result of stopping shooting....to have 5p per pint on your milk, about the same per loaf on your bread, and prices of many other staples rise.......
Yes I would

Oh I forget you would....you dont care, you have had your Psuedo poverty, and have now a life of plenty...sod the ones on bottom level income...I suppose they will just have to eat less????
Oh dear a poor argument directed at me which again is nonsense, you need to wipe your backside old man, because clearly you seem upset

no didge...you need to directly answer a direct question.....what about those on very low income...or dont they matter....??
not everyone is in the position to spend spens spend, but never mind the "poor old didge" argument comes out again



I have seen NOTHING to show where I am wrong....you are again talking rubbish and deliberately confusing two quite seperate issues...THE CRIMINAL use of guns, is NOTHING to do with the legitimate gun user....no matter how tough you made the gun laws..the crims would still get them
Blah blah, nothing to support your view, accept alot of hot air and again I see no reason for hunting for sport and I see no reason why gun clubs do not have non-lethal guns, this is all about getting off on firing a gun, again a feeling off empowerment, I suggest wanking that lust instead or try playstation  

I see no reason why town dwellers should have cars either ...but.....


why if the hand gun ban was so good, did gun crime...with hand guns rocket ...AFTER the ban????
Did it, ( yes it did) is it rocketing today? Nope (nope but its still very high)

as usual you cling to straws to support you own emotive, nonsensical drivel. which follows NO logic other than didge knows whats best....
No that is you clutching at straws, trying to back the use of guns into society, how absurd as seen

no thats twisting the argument....

Now how about answering the FACTS i gave you.....In Order  and with proper FACT based arguments...rather than emotive nonsense

What facts, I answer your nonsense given (actually you didnt...you dodged twisted and smokescreend as usual...but failed to answer verifiable fact with verifiable fact).... and as seen there is no justifying arguments to have guns in society, there never has been one, it is only dickless wimps you need to feel empowered

grumpy old git wrote:(snip)you have NOT answered the points on conservation...How are you going to continue the conservation work...or are you going to let the environment rot...


well , since you ask, much to the benefit of the animals...with predators controlled, and the land properly managed, biodiversity is highest in those areas managed by shoots, this is an established fact, admitted even by the RSPB and other such organisations and backed by many studies....ant "benefit to humans coms as an incidental one...of having a better environment.

grumpy old git wrote:And Finally Didge...thanks, you no debate just personal have shown your no debate just personaltrue colours...a nasty mean and small minded individual who no debate just personal would happily put 70,000 people out of work in areas where there is no other work, rob the country of 1.6 billion pounds, destroy years of conservation work....all because YOU no debate just personal dont like something....NOT because LIGITIMATELY HELD guns are demonstrably a danger in society (which is a FACT) but because you no debate just personal are a wussy bunny hugging wimp
 ://?roflmao?/:  An ANTI...with no real argument except to stereotype a group of people as some sort of monster because they kill their dinner and remove vermin (for free).
and at the same time you display your stinking hypocracy by eating meat from a supermarket with all that implies, I'd have greater respect for your view if you WERE a commited veggie, but no...just a hypocrite.
fortunately your views are in todays world, old hat, so yesterday, so 60's  your sort of anti is going down the pan just the same as the ALF and PETA...you are of the same material.

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:(snip)you have NOT answered the points on conservation...How are you going to continue the conservation work...or are you going to let the environment rot...


well , since you ask, much to the benefit of the animals...with predators controlled, and the land properly managed, biodiversity is highest in those areas managed by shoots, this is an established fact, admitted even by the RSPB and other such organisations and backed by many studies....ant "benefit to humans coms as an incidental one...of having a better environment.

Hilarious, you do know that hunting also manipulates the populations of hunted animals.

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:And Finally Didge...thanks, you no debate just personal have shown your no debate just personaltrue colours...a nasty mean and small minded individual who no debate just personal would happily put 70,000 people out of work in areas where there is no other work, rob the country of 1.6 billion pounds, destroy years of conservation work....all because YOU no debate just personal dont like something....NOT because LIGITIMATELY HELD guns are demonstrably a danger in society (which is a FACT) but because you no debate just personal are a wussy bunny hugging wimp
 ://?roflmao?/:  An ANTI...with no real argument except to stereotype a group of people as some sort of monster because they kill their dinner and remove vermin (for free).
and at the same time you display your stinking hypocracy by eating meat from a supermarket with all that implies, I'd have greater respect for your view if you WERE a commited veggie, but no...just a hypocrite.
fortunately your views are in todays world, old hat, so yesterday, so 60's  your sort of anti is going down the pan just the same as the ALF and PETA...you are of the same material.

 ://?roflmao?/: 

Shame there is no dummy throwing smillie

Again very happy to put all those in this business out of work whilst finding them alternative employment.
Oh how mean of me to have no guns in society, where it is adults wanting to play with dangerous toys, something we teach our children not to do, but thrown this out of the window as adults ourselves, it does not get anymore illogical than that.

To then make absurd claims to conservation, when it is well known for example that hunting manipulates the population of the hunted animal. I also find it absurd to claim conservation by killing, another illogical argument if there ever was one when it is humans that manipulate the populations again by hunting, building within their living space etc, that has again created the problem in the first place to then claim hunting is the only means to now try to balance something already created by humans.

Yep so on all counts you back the use of dangerous toys out of self need, thus being selfish

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


 ://?roflmao?/: 

Shame there is no dummy throwing smillie

Again very happy to put all those in this business out of work whilst finding them alternative employment.
Oh how mean of me to have no guns in society, where it is adults wanting to play with dangerous toys, something we teach our children not to do, but thrown this out of the window as adults ourselves, it does not get anymore illogical than that.

To then make absurd claims to conservation, when it is well known for example that hunting manipulates the population of the hunted animal. I also find it absurd to claim conservation by killing, another illogical argument if there ever was one when it is humans that manipulate the populations again by hunting, building within their living space etc, that has again created the problem in the first place to then claim hunting is the only means to now try to balance something already created by humans.

Yep so on all counts you back the use of dangerous toys out of self need, thus being selfish

You know what didge...I have never seen such tripe....
No argument just waffle now

the whole point of hunting , as vermin control, is to do exactly that......like it or not you have to accept that the world is as it is...the problems are there ...so we need to control them....like it or lump it...there ARE no alternatives...
Yes but what created the problem in the first place, humans?

try opening you eyes to REALITY....

and...nasty little mean minded man.......

grumpy old git wrote:
round and round we go with your nonsense
No it seems all you can do now is not debate and make claims on me, happy with that

facts please

guns not needed for pest control....show how
hunting as practiced today causes which populations to grow out of control...facts please...which populations have grown out of contol due to hunting?
[b]Are guns the only way to deal with pest control?
Some examples of manipulation

Population Control: Deer

In the United States, deer are a top choice for hunters. But regulations only allow a limited number of deer to be hunted. Some people say killing these animals helps control the deer population, which is quite high in some regions. According to these people, car accidents caused by deer where their population is high can cause deaths among both deer and humans. And where high populations of deer exist, farmers can suffer when the animals eat their crop

Population Control: Gray Wolf

The Gray Wolf was historically hunted by farmers who wanted to protect their livestock. In the early 1900s, before hunting regulations existed, the Gray Wolf was almost entirely wiped out of North America by humans. It was often killed for its fur, but mainly the animal was killed due to humans' fear of it. The Gray Wolf is listed on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Endangered Species List, but there have been moves in some states to take it off. There have been no known human deaths in North America linked to Gray Wolves. In fact, some people say that wolves are generally not dangerous to humans as long as they’re in low numbers, have enough food to eat, have little contact with humans and are occasionally hunted.






example...our shoot has a good healthy population of songbirds and a number of other species that are "less than common" elsewhere...why...because we control predators like magpies crows and squirrels...not exterminate note ...control If we didnt do that...who would...and who is going to pay...or are you happy to allow the species we PROTECT to be wiped out (which again is an established fact so dont ignore it) or do you have a magic wand to wave ???

PhilDidge wrote:Here is why this argument is absurd.

Imagine the argument just given to me by Victor.

Now imagine his son at age 9 hypothetically taking his fathers gun going around the local area and shooting all the domestic cats. When asked why he did this, he used the arguments based on his father, that he needed to cull the cats, as people were having to use food banks and that cats were an unnecessary consumption of money with food, thus they needed to be culled. Asked why he used a gun, he stated he felt empowered to blow the heads off defenseless cats.

I wonder how people would act to that?

PhilDidge wrote:http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/5-reasons-trophy-hunting-is-not-conservation/

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:
round and round we go with your nonsense
No it seems all you can do now is not debate and make claims on me, happy with that

facts please

guns not needed for pest control....show how
hunting as practiced today causes which populations to grow out of control...facts please...which populations have grown out of contol due to hunting?
Are guns the only way to deal with pest control?
Some examples of manipulation

Population Control: Deer

In the United States, deer are a top choice for hunters. But regulations only allow a limited number of deer to be hunted. Some people say killing these animals helps control the deer population, which is quite high in some regions. According to these people, car accidents caused by deer where their population is high can cause deaths among both deer and humans. And where high populations of deer exist, farmers can suffer when the animals eat their crop

Population Control: Gray Wolf

The Gray Wolf was historically hunted by farmers who wanted to protect their livestock. In the early 1900s, before hunting regulations existed, the Gray Wolf was almost entirely wiped out of North America by humans. It was often killed for its fur, but mainly the animal was killed due to humans' fear of it. The Gray Wolf is listed on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Endangered Species List, but there have been moves in some states to take it off. There have been no known human deaths in North America linked to Gray Wolves. In fact, some people say that wolves are generally not dangerous to humans as long as they’re in low numbers, have enough food to eat, have little contact with humans and are occasionally hunted.






example...our shoot has a good healthy population of songbirds and a number of other species that are "less than common" elsewhere...why...because we control predators like magpies crows and squirrels...not exterminate note ...control If we didnt do that...who would...and who is going to pay...or are you happy to allow the species we PROTECT to be wiped out (which again is an established fact so dont ignore it) or do you have a magic wand to wave ???

So basically you want to interfere with nature when it is humans that create this mess by urbanization?
Again absurd.

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Here is why this argument is absurd.

Imagine the argument just given to me by Victor.

Now imagine his son at age 9 hypothetically taking his fathers gun going around the local area and shooting all the domestic cats. When asked why he did this, he used the arguments based on his father, that he needed to cull the cats, as people were having to use food banks and that cats were an unnecessary consumption of money with food, thus they needed to be culled. Asked why he used a gun, he stated he felt empowered to blow the heads off defenseless cats.

I wonder how people would act to that?

OH dear how sad, when old didge has to resort to this idiocy, talk about reductio ad absurdum....YOU son might be such an idiot (if you have or were to have one) but still...lets humour him
More abuse when I say hypothetically, seems some posters really can only throw abuse

1 if my son was 9 HE WOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS to the guns, except under MY DIRECT supervision so this hypothetical situation is clearly emotive and hyperbolic stupidity, not logic
He sees where you hide the gun, steals the keys to where they are and takes the gun, no method of persuasion works as he has the bug to kill from his father after his father allowed his son to come on hunts and shoot himself
2 He would have more sense than to make the supposed link between owning cats and poverty, again you son probaly could, having had THOSE kind of values engendered by you..
Its called hypothetical, so is there a possibility he would? Yes
3 he would not consider culling them to be the first and obvious answer
How so, this is hypothetical and he has done so, as it is my hypothesis based not upon real characters, I used the notion of your son as an analogy
4 unlike your son who would have no respect for others ways. MY son would respect the right of the poor to own pets.
Never claimed he would not, seems you have taken this personally, so funny as it was not intended or even stated as such,
5 unlike you and yours didge, he would not feel "empowered" by the use of a gun.
Why would my children do so, just because you are upset now and making assumptions
6 unlike you he wouldnt be so spineless as to need a weap0on to be empowered, he would have learnt already that empowerment comes from within, from strength of character respect and consideration.
So I am spineless for wanted rid of all guns in society, that makes me spineless, so your whole counter is one of throwing your dummy out over no offense given, PMSL


so didge...childish, irrelevant and diversionary.....give it up you are out of your depth.....

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


So basically you want to interfere with nature when it is humans that create this mess by urbanization?
Again absurd.

so what do we do??? nothing...and allow extiction, destroy cities and cull 30 million people...or.....manage things...

nicko wrote:I have to come on again with this didge,take for example the Wood pigeon A farmer has a 50 acre field of ripening corn [or wheat or barley ect] A pigeon will eat at the least twice a day,a pigeons crop will hold 2 to 3 ozs of feed,A thousand pigeon settle on the field to eat,when full they fly back into tree's to digest the food.When they have digested the food they fly back to the field to "fill up"again.would you like to work out the weight of seed they have eaten? that is just one field on one farm.how much do they eat over the whole country? it has been estimated by the n.f.u.that we lose over 1 MILLION TONS a year and that is a low estimate.ther is no other way to control pigeons except to shoot them!!! gas "bangers" are useless as pigeons get used to them in a short time.scarcrows the same.ther is no other way except shooting.

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

OH dear how sad, when old didge has to resort to this idiocy, talk about reductio ad absurdum....YOU son might be such an idiot (if you have or were to have one) but still...lets humour him
More abuse when I say hypothetically, seems some posters really can only throw abuse

1 if my son was 9 HE WOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS to the guns, except under MY DIRECT supervision so this hypothetical situation is clearly emotive and hyperbolic stupidity, not logic
He sees where you hide the gun, steals the keys to where they are and takes the gun, no method of persuasion works as he has the bug to kill from his father after his father allowed his son to come on hunts and shoot himself
2 He would have more sense than to make the supposed link between owning cats and poverty, again you son probaly could, having had THOSE kind of values engendered by you..
Its called hypothetical, so is there a possibility he would? Yes
3 he would not consider culling them to be the first and obvious answer
How so, this is hypothetical and he has done so, as it is my hypothesis based not upon real characters, I used the notion of your son as an analogy
4 unlike your son who would have no respect for others ways. MY son would respect the right of the poor to own pets.
Never claimed he would not, seems you have taken this personally, so funny as it was not intended or even stated as such,
5 unlike you and yours didge, he would not feel "empowered" by the use of a gun.
Why would my children do so, just because you are upset now and making assumptions
6 unlike you he wouldnt be so spineless as to need a weap0on to be empowered, he would have learnt already that empowerment comes from within, from strength of character respect and consideration.
So I am spineless for wanted rid of all guns in society, that makes me spineless, so your whole counter is one of throwing your dummy out over no offense given, PMSL


so didge...childish, irrelevant and diversionary.....give it up you are out of your depth.....

No its called a hypothesis based on your own illogical views, which as seen hit home rather well to the absurdity of your claims

grumpy old git wrote:
deer..LEGALLY .Hunted deer IN BRITAIN all end up in the food chain as venison, you can get farmed venison, but again its treatment is appaling, whereas the "stalked" deer have a natural free life and a clean kill....look up the rules on stalking in this country which regulate caliber of gun etc in order to ensure clean kills.
OMG so it is over the method how to kill again as justification for shooting animals, dear me

so whats wrong with that?

grey wolves are hardly relevant here, but how about rabbits...which cost 300 million pounds in damage to agriculture last year? This cost does NOT include costs of damage to infrastructure due to undermining, nor does it
include the smaller cost of damage to the equestrian world.
Going to be re-introduced, so it may well come relevant

is shooting the best solution...yes it is...alternatives are poisoning...nasty, or introducing myxamatosis disease, have you seen the suffering THAT causes...
OMG here we go again, methods, when when all the methods set out to kill

as far as other pests are concerned, I suggest you read the conditions of the general licence, which is the permit by which we shoot "pest species" which clearly states that this is the method to be used when all others (such as crow scarers "carbdie "banger" guns, etc have failed)....

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

No its called a hypothesis based on your own illogical views, which as seen hit home rather well to the absurdity of your claims

No didge ..its not even a hypothesis...indeed you clkearly dont know the meaning of the world...Its a childish dummy throwing excercise irrelevant and pathetic as anyone reading will see...you are trying to defend an indefensible stance with emotive rubbish rather than facts....you actually have presented NO relevant facts to counter my argument

No it was a good hypothesis, which you sadly took as a personal slant on your son, of which I never even knew you had a son, so how could it be, it was a hypothesis, which was so good you tried to change the event from happening proving my point very well
and now base your argument upon some fevered flight of immagination of a "hypothetical son" who would in some strange way be able to penetrate the security on my guns...(and THAT would be laughable if it wasnt so ridiculous..steal my keys... ://?roflmao?/:  and I assume defeat the rest of the system too...at the risk of the resultant armageddon that would descend upon him??) Let alon have the mind set to do something as impossibly outrageous as that....you would be funny if you wernt so idiotic...

nicko wrote:what has created the problem didge?  they breed like rabbits and that's another story.

grumpy old git wrote:didge...be careful...there was only ONE nation this century where only the police and army had guns.......

quote...."my right to carry arms is what protects YOUR right to tell me I cant"

go figure......

PhilDidge wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:
deer..LEGALLY .Hunted deer IN BRITAIN all end up in the food chain as venison, you can get farmed venison, but again its treatment is appaling, whereas the "stalked" deer have a natural free life and a clean kill....look up the rules on stalking in this country which regulate caliber of gun etc in order to ensure clean kills.
OMG so it is over the method how to kill again as justification for shooting animals, dear me

so whats wrong with that?

grey wolves are hardly relevant here, but how about rabbits...which cost 300 million pounds in damage to agriculture last year? This cost does NOT include costs of damage to infrastructure due to undermining, nor does it
include the smaller cost of damage to the equestrian world.
Going to be re-introduced, so it may well come relevant

is shooting the best solution...yes it is...alternatives are poisoning...nasty, or introducing myxamatosis disease, have you seen the suffering THAT causes...
OMG here we go again, methods, when when all the methods set out to kill

as far as other pests are concerned, I suggest you read the conditions of the general licence, which is the permit by which we shoot "pest species" which clearly states that this is the method to be used when all others (such as crow scarers "carbdie "banger" guns, etc have failed)....

I really could not care Victor on that. Here is my view, only the army should have guns, nobody else.
If it means culling animals it becomes a job for the army, not a sport.
If there is no guns available to anyone, then I am decreasing the chance of guns falling into the wrong hands.
This is what you do not understand, to me there is no need or argument to justify guns being available to society, all things could and should be incorporated to use for the army, this could actually increase the army size again ensuring a better stronger and bigger army for the nation, so you have no case.

grumpy old git wrote:,

#
and round and round we go

that argument has been PROVED to be fallacious....times over...

and you have changed tack AGAIN.....

so...

your dislike of killing animals has been shown to be emotive rather than factual and based on your personal prejudices.
it has been proved hypocritical since you are happy to eat farmed and commercially slaughtered meat
your argument about "guns in the wrong hands has been shown to be fallacious in as much as LEGITIMATELY held firearms in the hands of PROPERLY vetted people rarely find their way into "the wrong hands"...far more are smuggled in.
You environmental arguments lack any understanding of the subject
You clearly fail to understand conservation as a concept
the argument over the few catastrophes that HAVE occured with legitimately held arms has been shown to be due to lack of police dilligence.

and you have PROVED just how mean minded and spirited you are.

QED

nicko wrote:jobs like this for the army. I'm sure the they would love that, much safer than shooting Taliban.no, serious didge that's hardly the job for the army, how about the airforce?

nicko wrote:didge,you'v lost this one mate,give it up.

PhilDidge wrote:

nicko wrote:jobs like this for the army. I'm sure the they would love that, much safer than shooting Taliban.no, serious didge that's hardly the job for the army, how about the airforce?

Why not? You would be employing the army at home to something they are trained to do, shoot accurately, they can also learn skills here. I see this as way better than giving access to guns to people who we do not know may one day turn the gun on someone, or that could be taken to be used

grumpy old git wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Why not? You would be employing the army at home to something they are trained to do, shoot accurately, they can also learn skills here. I see this as way better than giving access to guns to people who we do not know may one day turn the gun on someone, or that could be taken to be used

And the army are ALL 100% sane and not likely to EVER crack up????


what do you recon Nicko????