Nigel Farage calls for UK gun laws to be relaxed

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 11:10 pm

First topic message reminder :

Nigel Farage calls for UK gun laws to be relaxed
Ukip leader says ban on handguns brought in after Dunblane massacre is 'ludicrous'

Nigel Farage has called for firearm laws to be relaxed, calling the current ban on handguns "ludicrous".

The Ukip leader criticised the "kneejerk" restrictions on handguns imposed after the 1996 Dunblane massacre in which Thomas Hamilton killed 16 schoolchildren and a teacher before shooting himself.

The laws were brought in by Sir John Major, the then Tory prime minister, and extended to a total ban by Tony Blair's Labour government in 1997.

Asked about gun controls, Farage said: "I think proper gun licensing is something we've done in this country responsibly and well for a long time, and I think the kneejerk legislation that Blair brought in that meant that the British Olympic pistol team have to go to France to even practise was just crackers.

"If you criminalise handguns then only the criminals carry the guns. It's really interesting that since Blair brought that piece of law in, gun crime doubled in the next five years in this country."

"I think that we need a proper gun licensing system, which to a large extent I think we already have, and I think the ban on handguns is ludicrous."

Ian Mearns, Labour MP for Gateshead, said the comments were an example of "how extremely dangerous Ukip are".

"Families facing a cost-of-living crisis will find it bizarre that one of Nigel Farage's priorities would be to relax Britain's tough gun controls," he added.

The remarks come after Farage was caught in a storm over his party's 2010 election policies, which he entirely disowned this week and later described as "drivel".

The Ukip leader said he had never read the 486 pages of policy documents that were published alongside Ukip's manifesto in 2010, which included plans to repaint trains in traditional colours, bring in a uniform for taxi drivers, and ban offshore windfarms amid fears they could hurt fish.

After rejecting the entire collection of policies, he told LBC 97.3 that they were put together by Ukip's then policy chief David Campbell Bannerman, who is now a Conservative MEP.

"We had a manifesto – and I'm going to put some inverted commas around it – that was produced in 2010. It was basically a series of policy discussion papers that was put up on the website as a manifesto," he said.

"It was 486 pages long. I'm pleased to say that the idiot that wrote it has now left us and joined the Conservatives. They are very welcome to him.

"Malcolm Pearson, who was leader of Ukip at the time, was picked up in interviews for not knowing the manifesto. Of course he didn't know the manifesto. It was 486 pages of excessive detail.

"Eighteen months ago, I said I wanted the whole lot taken down off the website. We reject the whole thing. We'll start again with a blank sheet of paper. So there's nothing new in that story.

"I didn't read it. It was drivel. 486 pages of drivel. I didn't read it and nor did the party leader."

However, his attempt to distance himself from the documents was undermined on Friday, after it emerged he wrote the foreword to the party's manifesto and helped launch it at an event in London.

A video started circulating of Farage speaking as Ukip's chief spokesman at the launch of the manifesto in Westminster in 2010, promising "straight talking" about the party's policies. The Ukip leader also co-authored the summary 16-page manifesto that now appears to have disappeared from the party's website.

The 2010 policy documents – which also appear to have been blocked – detail plans such as capping the number of foreign players in football teams, bringing back "proper dress" at the theatre, scrapping paid maternity leave, allowing corporal punishment in schools and holding referendums on new places of worship such as mosques.

Other ideas included making the Circle line on the London tube circular again, investigating alleged discrimination against white people at the BBC and teaching schoolchildren more about the role of Arabs and African states in slavery.

Farage's attempt to distance Ukip from its manifesto of four years ago may put him under more scrutiny about what the party stands for in the runup to the May elections.

On Thursday, the usually assured politician floundered on live television as he was asked about the party's proposal to scrap Trident, saying he was not sure where the interviewer had got this suggestion from.

When told it was on the Ukip website, he said: "When it comes to websites, I'm not the expert."

Challenged over a compulsory dress code for taxi drivers, he said: "Do we? News to me."

And asked about a policy to repaint trains in traditional colours, Farage said: "I've never read that. I've no idea what you're talking about."

However, he said it was not "obvious nonsense" that he could cut £90bn of taxes and increase spending by £30bn, even though that would be "ambitious".

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/24/nigel-farage-uk-gun-control-laws-relaxed

Rolling Eyes

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:45 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I reckon that the fox that I shot outside my poultry shed a couple of months ago would have heartily agreed with you. I'm afraid that I don't, though, JD.

For instance, I am required to control (or at least be seen to be trying to control) vermin such as rabbits and wood pigeons which live on my land and in my woodland from which they sally forth to damage my neighbours' cereals, rapseed and vegetable crops.

Not being very skilled in the use of a catapult or blowpipe, I really do need a shotgun in order to fulfill my obligations.

try a club moley....

I have done so in the past, but my country estate ain't now vast enough to warrant the interest of one. And I doubt in any case whether they would be obliging enough to ride shotgun on my chicken shed at 10pm on a cold, wet winter night!

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:47 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

try a club moley....

I have done so in the past, but my country estate ain't now vast enough to warrant the interest of one. And I doubt in any case whether they would be obliging enough to ride shotgun on my chicken shed at 10pm on a cold, wet winter night!

He he....I was thinking more of the large blunt instrument type as an alternative to catapult or blowpipe..........

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:47 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

He wouldn't have been if you had hit him by mistake...

true, but if I ever become THAT bad an aim...I promise I'll pack it in Moley

If I happened to be around at the time, I would be much obliged if you did!

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:48 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I have done so in the past, but my country estate ain't now vast enough to warrant the interest of one. And I doubt in any case whether they would be obliging enough to ride shotgun on my chicken shed at 10pm on a cold, wet winter night!

He he....I was thinking more of the large blunt instrument type as an alternative to catapult or blowpipe..........

Ah, senior moment! And talking of senior moments, I had forgotten that my steak and kidney pie has been in the oven too long. Toodle pip!

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:49 pm

oooh dear singed steak.....not good...now you will need a good beer to help wash it down.....

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:18 pm

Well, this is a strange scenario. Cutting back on troops because we can't afford them, and Didge is going to send them to every farm and smallholding and general areas of countryside where pests have to be kept under control, to shoot rabbits etc. I'm sure the Army would find that extremely appropriate and be thrilled to bits! Rolling Eyes

All that manpower for rabbits and rats.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:20 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

I am not admitting anything you claim I do which is not the case, as I do not even think the roles being done with the use of guns today are even needed except for the army, which you forget the fact of, I introduced the army to provide a means to counter your view of who could take up the roles, not that the roles ever really needed to be covered . To me the necessity is to limited the guns in society, which is achieved!

Right either way now I have also this angle covered.

So happy days off to eat! Might be back later or tomorrow

So as far as you are concerned farmers and landowners have no need of pest control, vets have no need to destroy suffering animals humanely, captive bolt guns are not guns, and presumably the police have no need of guns to defend themselves against the criminals who do have them and who will have them even if the only group legally allowed them is the army seeing as criminals are not that bothered by what is legal in the first place.

Of course vets are needed a quick swift throat cut job done, animal put out of its misery. Conservation, no problem, lets re-balance nature after humanity screwed up the balance in the first place , introduce more birds of prey and train them to cull any types of birds, these can be the new shotguns for the gamekeepers, bring back and train wolves to take out all the rabbits and other animals needed to cull. Yes you have no need for the army at all, as you can go back to allow nature to does its own course on culling. I mean lets face it, this culling is only in the benefit of the human after all is it not Sphinx.
How will the criminals have them when as seen they cannot hardly get hold of any, what chance do thy have when there are even less access to them.
You see no matter what you come out with there is always a counter

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:22 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

So as far as you are concerned farmers and landowners have no need of pest control, vets have no need to destroy suffering animals humanely, captive bolt guns are not guns, and presumably the police have no need of guns to defend themselves against the criminals who do have them and who will have them even if the only group legally allowed them is the army seeing as criminals are not that bothered by what is legal in the first place.

Of course vets are needed a quick swift throat cut job done, animal pot of its misery. Conservation, no problem, lets re-balance nature after humanity screwed up the balance, introduce more birds of prey to cull any types of birds, these can be the new shotguns for the gamekeepers, bring back and train wolves to take out all the rabbits. Yes you have no need for the army at all, as you can go back to allow nature to does its own course on culling. I mean lets face this culling is only in the benefit of the human after all is it not Sphinx.
How will the criminals have them when as seen they cannot hardly get hold of any, what chance do thy have when there are even less access to them.
You see no matter what you come out with there is always a counter

What the hell are you talking about. Vets don't put animals down by cutting their throats.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:23 pm

Sassy wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Of course vets are needed a quick swift throat cut job done, animal pot of its misery. Conservation, no problem, lets re-balance nature after humanity screwed up the balance, introduce more birds of prey to cull any types of birds, these can be the new shotguns for the gamekeepers, bring back and train wolves to take out all the rabbits. Yes you have no need for the army at all, as you can go back to allow nature to does its own course on culling. I mean lets face this culling is only in the benefit of the human after all is it not Sphinx.
How will the criminals have them when as seen they cannot hardly get hold of any, what chance do thy have when there are even less access to them.
You see no matter what you come out with there is always a counter

What the hell are you talking about. Vets don't put animals down by cutting their throats.

Without guns they do, this a hypothetical world you have missed most of, where there is no need for guns in society, so it maybe best to keep up with the debate, otherwise jog on

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:24 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

So as far as you are concerned farmers and landowners have no need of pest control, vets have no need to destroy suffering animals humanely, captive bolt guns are not guns, and presumably the police have no need of guns to defend themselves against the criminals who do have them and who will have them even if the only group legally allowed them is the army seeing as criminals are not that bothered by what is legal in the first place.

Of course vets are needed a quick swift throat cut job done, animal pot of its misery. Conservation, no problem, lets re-balance nature after humanity screwed up the balance, introduce more birds of prey to cull any types of birds, these can be the new shotguns for the gamekeepers, bring back and train wolves to take out all the rabbits. Yes you have no need for the army at all, as you can go back to allow nature to does its own course on culling. I mean lets face this culling is only in the benefit of the human after all is it not Sphinx.
How will the criminals have them when as seen they cannot hardly get hold of any, what chance do thy have when there are even less access to them.
You see no matter what you come out with there is always a counter

As noted elsewhere landowners have a legal obligation to control pests - any half intelligent look at ecosystem function would tell you that the natural controls you suggest in jest would not work anyway.

So landowners legally obliged to control pests.
Needs guns.
Right now there is supposedly no access whatsoever to handguns for the criminals. They still shoot people with them though.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:26 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Sassy wrote:

What the hell are you talking about. Vets don't put animals down by cutting their throats.

Without guns they do, this a hypothetical world you have missed most of, where there is no need for guns in society, so it maybe best to keep up with the debate, otherwise jog on

This is the hypothetical world dreamed up by phildidge where all vets having an animal that requires euthanasia by shooting will be required to either phone the army to do the job or work out how to slash the beasts throat without causing any suffering or being killed themselves.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:27 pm

I will just remind everyone that I am pro controlled gun ownership as we already have for rifles and shotguns being once again extended to cover handguns seeing as the ban on handguns has been totally pointless.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:28 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Of course vets are needed a quick swift throat cut job done, animal pot of its misery. Conservation, no problem, lets re-balance nature after humanity screwed up the balance, introduce more birds of prey to cull any types of birds, these can be the new shotguns for the gamekeepers, bring back and train wolves to take out all the rabbits. Yes you have no need for the army at all, as you can go back to allow nature to does its own course on culling. I mean lets face this culling is only in the benefit of the human after all is it not Sphinx.
How will the criminals have them when as seen they cannot hardly get hold of any, what chance do thy have when there are even less access to them.
You see no matter what you come out with there is always a counter

As noted elsewhere landowners have a legal obligation to control pests - any half intelligent look at ecosystem function would tell you that the natural controls you suggest in jest would not work anyway.

So landowners legally obliged to control pests.
Needs guns.
Right now there is supposedly no access whatsoever to handguns for the criminals. They still shoot people with them though.

Half intelligent oh my, well considering those so called intelligent people have manipulated the ecosystem in the first place then I am placing the balance of nature back and again I am using nature also to carry this out. So Landowners can still do this as seen with using nature. The whole point is this argument is not even centered around the ecosystem but your excuse to have a gun, to the absurd notion you are wishing to carry on manipulating the system to entitled you to carry a gun, without humans even being there the system would maintain itself.
You really wanna go further here as got bags to moot your arguiments

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:29 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Without guns they do, this a hypothetical world you have missed most of, where there is no need for guns in society, so it maybe best to keep up with the debate, otherwise jog on

This is the hypothetical world dreamed up by phildidge where all vets having an animal that requires euthanasia by shooting will be required to either phone the army to do the job or work out how to slash the beasts throat without causing any suffering or being killed themselves.

Vets would refuse, and the Army would fall about laughing at his suggestions.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:29 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Without guns they do, this a hypothetical world you have missed most of, where there is no need for guns in society, so it maybe best to keep up with the debate, otherwise jog on

This is the hypothetical world dreamed up by phildidge where all vets having an animal that requires euthanasia by shooting will be required to either phone the army to do the job or work out how to slash the beasts throat without causing any suffering or being killed themselves.

Definition of irony, quivering over the method an animal in agony is going to be dispatched.

Priceless

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:31 pm

sphinx wrote:I will just remind everyone that I am pro controlled gun ownership as we already have for rifles and shotguns being once again extended to cover handguns seeing as the ban on handguns has been totally pointless.

Yes we know you are a person on benefits able to go hunting with guns, as seen I can create a situation where you do not need a gun!

What an ego trip you have wanting a gun

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:31 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

This is the hypothetical world dreamed up by phildidge where all vets having an animal that requires euthanasia by shooting will be required to either phone the army to do the job or work out how to slash the beasts throat without causing any suffering or being killed themselves.

Definition of irony, quivering over the method an animal in agony is going to be dispatched.

Priceless

So you have made up a little world in your own head, with made up animals in agony. Think you need a doctor, never mind a pretend vet.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:32 pm

Sassy wrote:
sphinx wrote:

This is the hypothetical world dreamed up by phildidge where all vets having an animal that requires euthanasia by shooting will be required to either phone the army to do the job or work out how to slash the beasts throat without causing any suffering or being killed themselves.

Vets would refuse, and the Army would fall about laughing at his suggestions.

Really, Sassy now knows the thoughts of every single soldier, which again the view is not on the army but the roles they are to be given in this situation

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:33 pm

Sassy wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Definition of irony, quivering over the method an animal in agony is going to be dispatched.

Priceless

So you have made up a little world in your own head, with made up animals in agony. Think you need a doctor, never mind a pretend vet.

We are a talking about animals needing to be put down with both you and sphinx being absurd over how to dispatch the animal, when the outcome is it will be killed

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:34 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Sassy wrote:

So you have made up a little world in your own head, with made up animals in agony. Think you need a doctor, never mind a pretend vet.

We are a talking about animals needing to be put down with both you and sphinx being absurd over how to dispatch the animal, when the outcome is it will be killed

Nope, we are talking about a made up world inside your head that you are the God of, and tell everyone what to do. Come to think of it ..............

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:36 pm

Sassy wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

We are a talking about animals needing to be put down with both you and sphinx being absurd over how to dispatch the animal, when the outcome is it will be killed

Nope, we are talking about a made up world inside your head that you are the God of, and tell everyone what to do. Come to think of it ..............

Yes we are talking about rendering an argument for guns to be made redundant within society and it was easy to do so, hence why it is called debate, something you need to use others arguments for instead of your own

:D

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:40 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

So as far as you are concerned farmers and landowners have no need of pest control, vets have no need to destroy suffering animals humanely, captive bolt guns are not guns, and presumably the police have no need of guns to defend themselves against the criminals who do have them and who will have them even if the only group legally allowed them is the army seeing as criminals are not that bothered by what is legal in the first place.

Of course vets are needed a quick swift throat cut job done, animal put out of its misery. Conservation, no problem, lets re-balance nature after humanity screwed up the balance in the first place , introduce more birds of prey and train them to cull any types of birds, these can be the new shotguns for the gamekeepers, bring back and train wolves to take out all the rabbits and other animals needed to cull. Yes you have no need for the army at all, as you can go back to allow nature to does its own course on culling. I mean lets face it, this culling is only in the benefit of the human after all is it not Sphinx.
How will the criminals have them when as seen they cannot hardly get hold of any, what chance do thy have when there are even less access to them.
You see no matter what you come out with there is always a counter

even more what the hell....birds of prey....in a bird sanctuary.... WTF???
Yo cannot "let nature do its own culling"...nature is out of balance....man has to intervene to protect whats left. GET IT MORON....the damage has been done...its NOT going to get undone...no one is going to let the mad dictator didge destroy cities and towns, industry and infrastructure to allow nature to re-take its place. the fact exists...get used to it...man has to act as the rebalancing mechanism NOW.there IS no plan B
Bring back wolves??? and do what cause starvation and ruin whats left of our farming??? the sheep farmers would love it....
clue...you dont "train" birds of prey......
you dont "train" wolves

you may "imprint" them but you CANNOT remove their wild instincts....and DONT argue didge...or find wild or fanciful references OR go find pseudo technical literature that claims you can...because any wild animal expert with experience will tell you different OH and dont bother going finding good evidence and then deliberately misinterpret it and then argue the toss about the meaning of this word or that...It no longer washes

I handle birds of prey (a friend goes hawking) he has had these birds 5 years...you recon they are tameable....pfffft...they are "nice" to their human and co-operate because they get a feed from doing so...THAT doesnt stop them snatching a robin if they come across one, or anything else edible...especially if they are feeling a bit peckish(pardon the pun)

It is so hysterically funny when didge goes off on one of his flights of fancy and lets his nasty stalinist mouth flap about...I recon he/she is about 12.......a very poorly educated 12 at that...with NO idea of reality

reminds me of the 5 year old who reconed he could save the world from global warming.....why not get everyone to leave their fridge open he asked....

those cretinous suggestions above...which have NO validity and would certainly gain NO support from anyone are of about that level

summed up as...ridiculous

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:45 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Of course vets are needed a quick swift throat cut job done, animal put out of its misery. Conservation, no problem, lets re-balance nature after humanity screwed up the balance in the first place , introduce more birds of prey and train them to cull any types of birds, these can be the new shotguns for the gamekeepers, bring back and train wolves to take out all the rabbits and other animals needed to cull. Yes you have no need for the army at all, as you can go back to allow nature to does its own course on culling. I mean lets face it, this culling is only in the benefit of the human after all is it not Sphinx.
How will the criminals have them when as seen they cannot hardly get hold of any, what chance do thy have when there are even less access to them.
You see no matter what you come out with there is always a counter

even more what the hell....birds of prey....in a bird sanctuary.... WTF???
Yes why not
Yo cannot "let nature do its own culling"...nature is out of balance....man has to intervene to protect whats left. GET IT MORON....the damage has been done...its NOT going to get undone...no one is going to let the mad dictator didge destroy cities and towns, industry and infrastructure to allow nature to re-take its place. the fact exists...get used to it...man has to act as the rebalancing mechanism NOW.there IS no plan B
I said it would be trained animals, thus the culling is being done by the landlords for their own selfish needs
Bring back wolves??? and do what cause starvation and ruin whats left of our farming??? the sheep farmers would love it....
clue...you dont "train" birds of prey......
you dont "train" wolves
You can train many animals and you can use wolves in ones to be trained, I see no problem with that either

you may "imprint" them but you CANNOT remove their wild instincts....and DONT argue didge...or find wild or fanciful references OR go find pseudo technical literature that claims you can...because any wild animal expert with experience will tell you different OH and dont bother going finding good evidence and then deliberately misinterpret it and then argue the toss about the meaning of this word or that...It no longer washes
Any expert? Interesting, being as even wild cats have been tamed, even bears

I handle birds of prey (a friend goes hawking) he has had these birds 5 years...you recon they are tameable....pfffft...they are "nice" to their human and co-operate because they get a feed from doing so...THAT doesnt stop them snatching a robin if they come across one, or anything else edible...especially if they are feeling a bit peckish(pardon the pun)
Not interested in your bird pulling :D

It is so hysterically funny when didge goes off on one of his flights of fancy and lets his nasty stalinist mouth flap about...I recon he/she is about 12.......a very poorly educated 12 at that...with NO idea of reality
Stalinist, hilarious more abuse and no evidence PMSL and love how you waste ages with these redundant replies when we just remove humans from these areas and give the land back to the animals

reminds me of the 5 year old who reconed he could save the world from global warming.....why not get everyone to leave their fridge open he asked....
Really never made that absurd claim, hilarious making things up now are we you are so desperate

those cretinous suggestions above...which have NO validity and would certainly gain NO support from anyone are of about that level

summed up as...ridiculous

No just your opinion which is really get you all wound up again and I am loving it!

:D

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:47 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:I will just remind everyone that I am pro controlled gun ownership as we already have for rifles and shotguns being once again extended to cover handguns seeing as the ban on handguns has been totally pointless.

Yes we know you are a person on benefits able to go hunting with guns, as seen I can create a situation where you do not need a gun!

What an ego trip you have wanting a gun

Uh where have I ever said I go hunting with guns?

I follow one fox hunt a year - follow as in watch not take part - activity involving people on horses and dogs.

My children go/have been to army cadets where they are using the SA80 in combat type simulations - their father goes rough shooting with shotguns and the children have accompanied him. My partners mother and deceased father were sports shooting enthusiasts and his dad collected handguns. His mother is still a small bore rifle hobbiest. My partner has gone shooting in the past. My fathers family are farming stock and have hunted with guns both rough shooting and on organized shoots.

My only experience with guns is limited to air rifles - at which my accuracy was so appalling I decided it was probably better if I did not try anything bigger. However I did show high proficiency with a long bow when younger.

I do fish and am happy to humanely kill my catch where it will be eaten or release it unharmed otherwise.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:51 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Sassy wrote:

So you have made up a little world in your own head, with made up animals in agony. Think you need a doctor, never mind a pretend vet.

We are a talking about animals needing to be put down with both you and sphinx being absurd over how to dispatch the animal, when the outcome is it will be killed

See this is one of those misconceptions - that people who hunt dont give a toss about suffering. Most people who hunt do so exactly because they do care about hunting. The mark of a good huntsman is his quarry is dispatched quickly without unnecessary suffering.

If you think it is absurd to feel that if an animal has to die for whatever reason (food, pest control, or it is suffering) its suffering should be minimized and does not matter I feel sorry for you.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:52 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Yes we know you are a person on benefits able to go hunting with guns, as seen I can create a situation where you do not need a gun!

What an ego trip you have wanting a gun

Uh where have I ever said I go hunting with guns?

I follow one fox hunt a year - follow as in watch not take part - activity involving people on horses and dogs.

My children go/have been to army cadets where they are using the SA80 in combat type simulations - their father goes rough shooting with shotguns and the children have accompanied him. My partners mother and deceased father were sports shooting enthusiasts and his dad collected handguns. His mother is still a small bore rifle hobbiest. My partner has gone shooting in the past. My fathers family are farming stock and have hunted with guns both rough shooting and on organized shoots.
The children accompany him, really. So they have hunted before for sport

My only experience with guns is limited to air rifles - at which my accuracy was so appalling I decided it was probably better if I did not try anything bigger. However I did show high proficiency with a long bow when younger.

I do fish and am happy to humanely kill my catch where it will be eaten or release it unharmed otherwise.

Humanely, a fish struggling for its life is humane now being reel in with a hook dragging it from the mouth, really!
You see what you may constitute as human can be construed not to be sphinx. Again I really have no issue with sport hunting, my counters here was created by grumpy getting his knickers in a twist and you thinking you are always right, so I like to bring people down a beg or two at times, because as seen it is easy to render many arguments or points moot if the need arises, but as seen grumpy gets too worked up, at least you didn't so fair play to that.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:54 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

We are a talking about animals needing to be put down with both you and sphinx being absurd over how to dispatch the animal, when the outcome is it will be killed

See this is one of those misconceptions - that people who hunt dont give a toss about suffering. Most people who hunt do so exactly because they do care about hunting. The mark of a good huntsman is his quarry is dispatched quickly without unnecessary suffering.

If you think it is absurd to feel that if an animal has to die for whatever reason (food, pest control, or it is suffering) its suffering should be minimized and does not matter I feel sorry for you.

And how have many good huntsman dispatched an animal with a knife Sphinx?
You do know this can be done very easily with a knife, many indigenous people around the world do this with a knife do they not Sphinx?

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:54 pm

Let the professional have guns (No not Boddie and Doyle) - the military and SO19. Normal, non-psychotic people have no need for anything that goes bang.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:54 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Uh where have I ever said I go hunting with guns?

I follow one fox hunt a year - follow as in watch not take part - activity involving people on horses and dogs.

My children go/have been to army cadets where they are using the SA80 in combat type simulations - their father goes rough shooting with shotguns and the children have accompanied him. My partners mother and deceased father were sports shooting enthusiasts and his dad collected handguns. His mother is still a small bore rifle hobbiest. My partner has gone shooting in the past. My fathers family are farming stock and have hunted with guns both rough shooting and on organized shoots.
The children accompany him, really. So they have hunted before for sport

My only experience with guns is limited to air rifles - at which my accuracy was so appalling I decided it was probably better if I did not try anything bigger. However I did show high proficiency with a long bow when younger.

I do fish and am happy to humanely kill my catch where it will be eaten or release it unharmed otherwise.

Humanely, a fish struggling for its life is humane now being reel in with a hook dragging it from the mouth, really!
You see what you may constitute as human can be construed not to be sphinx. Again I really have no issue with sport hunting, my counters here was created by grumpy getting his knickers in a twist and you thinking you are always right, so I like to bring people down a beg or two at times, because as seen it is easy to render many arguments or points moot if the need arises, but as seen grumpy gets too worked up, at least you didn't so fair play to that.

As fish struggle for breath when they are caught in nets, and are then dumped in the holds of boats, still struggling for breath for quite a long time, I presume you don't eat fish Didge?

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:54 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

even more what the hell....birds of prey....in a bird sanctuary.... WTF???
Yes why not erm...because they will eat the birds you want to protect???? DOHHH!!!!
Yo cannot "let nature do its own culling"...nature is out of balance....man has to intervene to protect whats left. GET IT MORON....the damage has been done...its NOT going to get undone...no one is going to let the mad dictator didge destroy cities and towns, industry and infrastructure to allow nature to re-take its place. the fact exists...get used to it...man has to act as the rebalancing mechanism NOW.there IS no plan B
I said it would be trained animals, thus the culling is being done by the landlords for their own selfish needs
Bring back wolves??? and do what cause starvation and ruin whats left of our farming??? the sheep farmers would love it....
clue...you dont "train" birds of prey......
you dont "train" wolves
You can train many animals and you can use wolves in ones to be trained, I see no problem with that either

you may "imprint" them but you CANNOT remove their wild instincts....and DONT argue didge...or find wild or fanciful references OR go find pseudo technical literature that claims you can...because any wild animal expert with experience will tell you different OH and dont bother going finding good evidence and then deliberately misinterpret it and then argue the toss about the meaning of this word or that...It no longer washes
Any expert? Interesting, being as even wild cats have been tamed, even bears

NO they havnt didge...ignoramus as usual...they are all "imprinted...which is different"

I handle birds of prey (a friend goes hawking) he has had these birds 5 years...you recon they are tameable....pfffft...they are "nice" to their human and co-operate because they get a feed from doing so...THAT doesnt stop them snatching a robin if they come across one, or anything else edible...especially if they are feeling a bit peckish(pardon the pun)
Not interested in your bird pulling :D

It is so hysterically funny when didge goes off on one of his flights of fancy and lets his nasty stalinist mouth flap about...I recon he/she is about 12.......a very poorly educated 12 at that...with NO idea of reality
Stalinist, hilarious more abuse and no evidence PMSL and love how you waste ages with these redundant replies when we just remove humans from these areas and give the land back to the animals

reminds me of the 5 year old who reconed he could save the world from global warming.....why not get everyone to leave their fridge open he asked....
Really never made that absurd claim, hilarious making things up now are we you are so desperate

those cretinous suggestions above...which have NO validity and would certainly gain NO support from anyone are of about that level

summed up as...ridiculous

No just your opinion which is really get you all wound up again and I am loving it!

You are just an ignorant troll didge....you havn't the intellect to "wind me up"

ALL your replies above show you ignorance and mental immaturity...you are no longer debating but allowing your idiot lips to flap nonsense you are no longer worth talking to, since you have just admitted what you are doing.."in your private world in your head" man you need help....

In future I shall ignore and or abuse as i feel may amuse me. I shall certainly never take ANYTHING you say with any seriousness, since you have proved in this thread that you are an insincere, two faced, devious and spiteful little troll..

:D

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:55 pm

Warren Moon wrote:Let the professional have guns (No not Boddie and Doyle) - the military and SO19. Normal, non-psychotic people have no need for anything that goes bang.

ermm...not one to make a point of it keith....but you would know this how???

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:57 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
You poor childish abuse and no debate, wound up are just an ignorant troll didge....you havn't the intellect to "wind me up"

ALL your replies above show you poor childish abuse and no debate, wound up ignorance and mental immaturity...you are no longer debating but allowing your poor childish abuse and no debate, wound up idiot lips to flap nonsense you poor childish abuse and no debate, wound up are no longer worth talking to, since you poor childish abuse and no debate, wound up have just admitted what you are doing.."in your private world in yourpoor childish abuse and no debate, wound up head" man you need help....

In future I shall ignore and or abuse as i feel may amuse me. I shall certainly never take ANYTHING you say with any seriousness, since you have proved in this thread that you are an insincere, two faced, devious and spiteful little troll..

:D

I never take you serious because as seen you get so worked up, the above proves this easily so

:D

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:57 pm

Actually they did not hunt until after they had started cadets for the simple reason he did not.

You have not managed to bring anyone down a peg - you have managed to make yourself look ridiculous though.

You have not even managed to show that guns are unnecessary you have only amused everyone with your "get the army to do it" idea.

I am not sure why you think you have proven anything because nobody else thinks so - and you have even managed to get sassy who is anti gun yelling at you for your uh shall we say novel and original ideas as to why we dont need guns

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:57 pm

Sassy wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Humanely, a fish struggling for its life is humane now being reel in with a hook dragging it from the mouth, really!
You see what you may constitute as human can be construed not to be sphinx. Again I really have no issue with sport hunting, my counters here was created by grumpy getting his knickers in a twist and you thinking you are always right, so I like to bring people down a beg or two at times, because as seen it is easy to render many arguments or points moot if the need arises, but as seen grumpy gets too worked up, at least you didn't so fair play to that.

As fish struggle for breath when they are caught in nets, and are then dumped in the holds of boats, still struggling for breath for quite a long time, I presume you don't eat fish Didge?

read back a bit sassy, where didge was trying to argue the ethical stance (from which he retreated at speed) he is a two faced little hypocrite who then tries to justify it with a lie "I was only playing devils advocate"

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:58 pm

Sassy wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Humanely, a fish struggling for its life is humane now being reel in with a hook dragging it from the mouth, really!
You see what you may constitute as human can be construed not to be sphinx. Again I really have no issue with sport hunting, my counters here was created by grumpy getting his knickers in a twist and you thinking you are always right, so I like to bring people down a beg or two at times, because as seen it is easy to render many arguments or points moot if the need arises, but as seen grumpy gets too worked up, at least you didn't so fair play to that.

As fish struggle for breath when they are caught in nets, and are then dumped in the holds of boats, still struggling for breath for quite a long time, I presume you don't eat fish Didge?

Yes I love fish and am laughing how you presume I do not understand about fish

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:59 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

See this is one of those misconceptions - that people who hunt dont give a toss about suffering. Most people who hunt do so exactly because they do care about hunting. The mark of a good huntsman is his quarry is dispatched quickly without unnecessary suffering.

If you think it is absurd to feel that if an animal has to die for whatever reason (food, pest control, or it is suffering) its suffering should be minimized and does not matter I feel sorry for you.

And how have many good huntsman dispatched an animal with a knife Sphinx?
You do know this can be done very easily with a knife, many indigenous people around the world do this with a knife do they not Sphinx?

I have done it myself.

However that was on a wild animal who had been badly hurt and crippled before I came on the scene. If you have a wild animal remotely healthy it will suffer more from a knife hunter than it will being shot.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:59 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
Sassy wrote:

As fish struggle for breath when they are caught in nets, and are then dumped in the holds of boats, still struggling for breath for quite a long time, I presume you don't eat fish Didge?

read back a bit sassy, where didge was trying to argue the ethical stance (from which he retreated at speed) he is a two faced little hypocrite who then tries to justify it with a lie "I was only playing devils advocate"

More proof you are wound up, you need to tell a poster to read something as if they cannot read themselves thus not having faith in yourself you needs others to back you, so funny!

:D

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:00 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
Warren Moon wrote:Let the professional have guns (No not Boddie and Doyle) - the military and SO19. Normal, non-psychotic people have no need for anything that goes bang.

ermm...not one to make a point of it keith....but you would know this how???

Common sense, I'm also borderline psychotic.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:01 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

read back a bit sassy, where didge was trying to argue the ethical stance (from which he retreated at speed) he is a two faced little hypocrite who then tries to justify it with a lie "I was only playing devils advocate"

More proof you are wound up, you need to tell a poster to read something as if they cannot read themselves thus not having faith in yourself you needs others to back you, so funny!

:D

Its called referencing you hypocritical troll

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:01 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

And how have many good huntsman dispatched an animal with a knife Sphinx?
You do know this can be done very easily with a knife, many indigenous people around the world do this with a knife do they not Sphinx?

I have done it myself.

However that was on a wild animal who had been badly hurt and crippled before I came on the scene. If you have a wild animal remotely healthy it will suffer more from a knife hunter than it will being shot.

So another moot point for the gun if the knife can do it just as well for a Vet then and humanely?

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:02 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Sassy wrote:

As fish struggle for breath when they are caught in nets, and are then dumped in the holds of boats, still struggling for breath for quite a long time, I presume you don't eat fish Didge?

Yes I love fish and am laughing how you presume I do not understand about fish

Well, you talked about a hook being inhumane, in comparison to the way fish it caught to eat it's a walk in the park. And of course you are laughing Didge, being mad as a box of frogs you probably spend most of the day laughing and rocking.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:02 pm

You know what is disturbing here - it is seeing someone being mocked who is oblivious to it and actually thinks he is winning the argument.

And yes I do recognize my own participation.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:02 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

More proof you are wound up, you need to tell a poster to read something as if they cannot read themselves thus not having faith in yourself you needs others to back you, so funny!

:D

Its called referencing you hypocritical troll

Still wound up with his potty mouth, ha ha ha ha bless you need back up

:D

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:03 pm

sphinx wrote:You know what is disturbing here - it is seeing someone being mocked who is oblivious to it and actually thinks he is winning the argument.

And yes I do recognize my own participation.

He's oblivious to anything. A fool with a God complex who is laughed at by every side on every board.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:03 pm

What I want to know is when lots of Badgers were culled recently, did the price of shaving brushes plummet?

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:04 pm

sphinx wrote:You know what is disturbing here - it is seeing someone being mocked who is oblivious to it and actually thinks he is winning the argument.

And yes I do recognize my own participation.

Mocked countless times by people who think they are right, where as seen they cannot show they are right , which is even more amusing

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:04 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

I have done it myself.

However that was on a wild animal who had been badly hurt and crippled before I came on the scene. If you have a wild animal remotely healthy it will suffer more from a knife hunter than it will being shot.

So another moot point for the gun if the knife can do it just as well for a Vet then and humanely?

I did not say a knife does just as well I said the gun does it much better with less suffering. Take the deer with the broken leg - the only way the vet will get it with a knife is to chase it for hours till the point of exhaustion. With a gun the vet (or to be accurate a specialist shooter is called in these situations) can aim and fire killing the animal without the animal being aware it is even being hunted.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:05 pm

Sassy wrote:
sphinx wrote:You know what is disturbing here - it is seeing someone being mocked who is oblivious to it and actually thinks he is winning the argument.

And yes I do recognize my own participation.

He's oblivious to anything. A fool with a God complex who is laughed at by every side on every board.

Oh you have made up my mind about being a moderator sassy, thanks

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:06 pm

Knife or Gun....not the kind of words you want to hear the Rabbi say before a circumcision.

by Guest Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:08 pm

Warren Moon wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

Common sense, I'm also borderline psychotic.

Keith, take comfort....what is normal....well I guess its best defined as "the state of the majority" therefor, considering the state of the world today, you being borderline psychotic probably makes you more normal than you think :D

by Sponsored content