Born Hunter
-
Content Count
18,002 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Articles
Gun Dealer's and Fieldsports Shop's
Reloading Room
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Classifieds
Everything posted by Born Hunter
-
Some folks would argue that smacking your child is needless and outdated and should be banned. Some folks would argue that many non physical forms of punishment are needless and harmful. I mean do we just defer all of our parental liberty to what the establishment deem is right? I think this ain't black and white and personally so long as the harm is not that significant I think it's probably best my opinion remains a personal one. Religion seems to be the focus of condemnation these days in a rather fundamentalist way. "It's religious therefore it's nonsense" being the view, which I find
-
Assuming standards are professional do you really think men that have been circumcised suffer in anyway at all, never mind similarly to women who have had FGM? I'd agree that the justification is no stronger but I think it's a bit sensationalist to say the actual effect of both are in anyway similar.
-
f**k me! Is this really from the BBC? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43118865
-
Just 'assault knives' to begin with though. Because if you arbitrarily stick 'assault' in front of something then it clearly makes it worse. The loons obviously won't either obtain their assault knives via illegal means or simply use a 12" carving knife out the kitchen. Which we'll of course have to ban next, but don't tell anyone like or this agenda don't work.
-
Build a wall around the M25 to stop them raiding ours and buy shares in Evian!
-
I tend to errr that way too, after all I can't really justify it as necessary or as harmless so it broadly falls into the category of cruelty to a child. However..... I also recognise and respect folks rights to raise their kids how they see fit, even religiously. I also don;t think that the procedure is all that actually harmful if done by a medical professional. For those reasons I'm tentatively of the belief that the practice needs regulating to maintain standards but that my personal moral judgement on it should not become policy and remain personal.
-
Got to be honest, I don't really think it's that big of a deal so long as it's done by a medical professional. Is it still the case that something like 75% of yanks are done, simply because it's the done thing?
-
I'd have to say, is a 70lt tank of petrol much better? LOL.
-
Surely they would be certified fit for purpose by the provider at the service station. When a unit comes back in prior to recharging it would undergo a simple automated health check with industry standardised testing kit. I'd imagine that the business model for such a thing would be that the 'service station/fuel company' (ie BP, Shell etc) own the hardware and essentially lease it out with a small charge on swapping a discharged unit for a charged one at the station. There'd need to be industry standardisation and a sizeable cap ex to get the infrastructure in place in existing fuel stat
-
Vegetarian... pah!
-
I nearly posted earlier that I was surprised you hadn't mentioned traffic wardens! f***ing brilliant! Hahaha
-
Fixed that for ya fella. Because evaluating data (or reading the headings for each column from your table above) clearly isn't your strong point. Also, if you read the paper you linked from your first post you'd have noted the explicit statement by the author that the data showed no causation. Hence you CANNOT conclude shit other than a correlation.
-
That doesn't prove shit though and I'll admit that straight away. There's broadly a relationship but it doesn't prove it is causal. In fact it could even be an inverse causation. The states with high homicide rates may well have low gun ownership as a consequence of regulation which was DUE TO the high homicide rate. That for anyone that might not understand is critical and objective thinking!
-
Random internet find..... must be true...... nah second thoughts can't be, it's not 'common sense'.
-
That is not what you said before! LOL. But seeing as you have now actually straightened out your position I stand by my rebutal that it's a dangerous leap to assume that more gun deaths is equal to more deaths from all causes. Who's denying the obvious? I'm just forcing folks like you who are willing to engage in research when it suits to actually evaluate the data you present properly. Your first post was very sloppy.
-
So you could say good guys with guns tend to obey gun free zones, whereas bad guys with guns find them easy targets.... Might there be room for a preventative action in that?
-
It's a false conclusion based on a poor application of that 'common sense'. We need more critical thinking and much less common sense in this world. More guns = more killings is unsupported by the data, it's inconclusive at best. It's typically the sort of thing folks come out with who have already determined that a gun ban is what is needed because gun owners are the problem.
-
And how can you determine that they are unrelated and so different issues? You presented your argument for gun control with a simple and dangerously misleading dataset. I don't know why Germany is so brilliant, enlighten me...
-
We can't talk about that because the solution would be deemed to be pro-gun so of course is no considerable..... But it's us who are the bad guys for not accepting gun regulation.
-
You cannot determine that very simplistic conclusion from the graph you presented. That graph didn't measure total homicides or even total deaths. It just measured gun deaths. You have no idea how the death rate from other means has changed in relation to number of guns. Hence you cannot draw that conclusion. If gun regulation brought about a 100 deaths/yr reduction in gun homicides but at the same time caused a 200 deaths/yr increase in knife homocides you have taken a backward step, but according to you it has saved lives. It's a piss poor evaluation of the data.
-
Bang on fella! Bang on. Blair’s labour didn’t really care for the issue either way, they only cared for the votes in it. Corbyn’s labour are ideologically and radically opposed to our lives. They hate us and consider us barbaric psychopaths who need dragging into the modern liberal world! We shouldn’t overlook that. I can see how their look into the greyhound racing industry will be a prelude to greater animal welfare legislation with the end game of banning folks from culling their own stock. It’ll all be traceable by chipping and any dogs/stock not euthanised by a vet and having been de
-
Only considering gun homocides is an intentional skew of the data! You said more guns is equal to more killing. You can’t draw that conclusion from your graph. Consider all homocides. Watch the video I posted.
-
You should know as well as I do that banning "intensive rearing of game birds" is a not so ambiguous way of saying they're gonna ban game farming on any scale above the small DIY level. It's not hard to speculate when the minister in charge will be a rabid anti & vegan! How many keepers alone do you think will now be out of a career? I don't think many are of the delusion anymore that hunting will be legalised. What's a bit more concerning is that they want to 'close loopholes' which is another not so ambiguous way of saying they intend to end it properly. We should all be dead g
-
Go on, someone mention the Australia case study and how it proves gun bans work... Nobody mention actions and reform that would be deemed 'pro gun' designed to address these problems though. That's uncomfortable to talk about, no cherry picked data to oppose those lateral thinking remedial actions.
-
Notice how he understands the difference between causal and correlation relationships. Doubt many will watch it mind.
