A good kicking

[ban-all-sheds]

So which instances of football violence do you include? The Heysel incident, aside from being a complex issue and not conclusively the fault of British fans, was not in this country, so would not have been controllable by UK legislation.

So - let's have a world-wide ban then!!

Hillsborough, which is in this country, saw the death of 95. The Bradford City fire, which wouldn't have happened if there hadn't been a football match, killed at least 40.

True. There's also the Munich air crash.

So - maybe it would be stupid to ban football?

However, the Marchioness and the Herald of Free Enterprise put 238 souls in watery graves - should sailing be banned?

That would be stupid too.

The Manchester Airport runway fire slaughtered 55, and 270 fell from the sky over Lockerbie - should flying be banned?

That would be stupid too.

This is why I think that raw numbers of corpses are not a good way of looking at any banning decision.

So just how stupid was it to introduce knee-jerk fireams legislation after Dunblane?

 

[hermes]

Hillsborough, which is in this country, saw the death of 95. The Bradford City fire, which wouldn't have happened if there hadn't been a football match, killed at least 40.

However, the Marchioness and the Herald of Free Enterprise put 238 souls in watery graves - should sailing be banned?

The Manchester Airport runway fire slaughtered 55, and 270 fell from the sky over Lockerbie - should flying be banned?

And let's not get started on RTA deaths...

This is why I think that raw numbers of corpses are not a good way of looking at any banning decision.

PS I've just discovered a claim that 398 people choke to death on their food, each year!

Interesting points. Is it not also true that many thousands of deaths occur within hours of drinking water?

 

[Softus]

Methinks you're being deliberately and mischievously provocative.

Your repeated use of the word stupid doesn't make me want to agree with you that banning those things would be stupid.

Regarding the international ban, would we not have to look at the figures for international handgun mis-use? If so, then I suspect that the USA figures alone would eclipse all deaths related to football.

And I don't think that the post-Dunblane decision was very knee-jerk. People called for the same decision after Hungerford (which, BTW, involved a handgun as well as an AK-47), but it didn't happen. Dunblane later put the nail in the handgun coffin.

BTW, I still don't claim that the decision was right, or fair, or well-reasoned, but death from abuse of legalised handguns is far harder to prevent than death from football violence, and I still believe that general education of the people who tend towards violence is a better way forward than banning something that brings a lot of pleasure to a lot of people a lot of the time. For this reason the relative numbers are important.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Methinks you're being deliberately and mischievously provocative.

Your repeated use of the word stupid doesn't make me want to agree with you that banning those things would be stupid.

So you don't think it would be stupid to ban sailing or flying?

Regarding the international ban, would we not have to look at the figures for international handgun mis-use? If so, then I suspect that the USA figures alone would eclipse all deaths related to football.

The USA has a serious gun-control problem. Just because I am in favour of the legal ownership of guns doesn't mean I don't favour strong controls.

And I don't think that the post-Dunblane decision was very knee-jerk. People called for the same decision after Hungerford (which, BTW, involved a handgun as well as an AK-47), but it didn't happen. Dunblane later put the nail in the handgun coffin.

People call for all sorts of things after traumatic events - they are generally ill-thought through, ill-informed and very emotive. Knee-jerk is a perfectly valid description.

If the existing laws and existing controls had been properly implemented by the relevant authorities at the time, then Thomas Hamilton would not have been allowed to own guns, and the tragedy at Dunblane would not have occurred. I don't remember the details of Hungerford very well, but I do know that Michael Ryan had some very suspect characteristics, and should perhaps not have been allowed them either.

But as usual, and as we see in all sorts of areas, the decision of governments is not to examine where they, and their appointees screwed up in the administration of existing powers, it is to pass new laws.

BTW, I still don't claim that the decision was right, or fair, or well-reasoned, but death from abuse of legalised handguns is far harder to prevent than death from football violence,

Actually, it's not.

and I still believe that general education of the people who tend towards violence is a better way forward than banning something that brings a lot of pleasure to a lot of people a lot of the time. For this reason the relative numbers are important.

For this reason it is important not to ban minority interests purely because it is easier than controlling them properly, capitalising on the fact that the number of people affected is so small that they can be ignored and on the fact that the ignorance of the majority population leads them to think that the decision is the only possible one.

If this is not done then what we have is mediated mob rule, not proper government.

 

[Softus]

So you don't think it would be stupid to ban sailing or flying?

I believe that it would create more problems that it solved. Wrong? Yes. But stupid? I dunno. My point about the use of the word was one of semantics - in making the word familiar, during your post, in a series of not-particularly-contentious ways, it was in 'danger' of appearing to be the correct word to use in your postulate about Dunblane.

As a case in point, it's difficult to answer a question like this:

"how stupid was it to introduce knee-jerk fireams legislation after Dunblane."

If the answer is, say, "very", then does that answer relate to Dunblane, i.e. the timing of the decision, or to the decision per se, or to the moot assertion that it was knee-jerk?

Just because I am in favour of the legal ownership of guns doesn't mean I don't favour strong controls.

Then I'm in favour of what I suspect you might call very strong controls, namely not permitting them to be owned. And that's not a decision borne out of ignorance, which I can claim because I've previously been a member of a gun club.

People call for all sorts of things after traumatic events - they are generally ill-thought through, ill-informed and very emotive. Knee-jerk is a perfectly valid description.

For Hungerford, perhaps, but for Dunblane, for most observers, it was as if the previous decision not to ban had been exposed as the stupid decision. That's why I said that the reaction to Dunblane, specifically, was not knee-jerk. But we could argue about for a long time and gain no particular benefit even by agreeing.

If the existing laws and existing controls had been properly implemented by the relevant authorities at the time, then Thomas Hamilton would not have been allowed to own guns, and the tragedy at Dunblane would not have occurred. I don't remember the details of Hungerford very well, but I do know that Michael Ryan had some very suspect characteristics, and should perhaps not have been allowed them either.

But as usual, and as we see in all sorts of areas, the decision of governments is not to examine where they, and their appointees screwed up in the administration of existing powers, it is to pass new laws.

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

BTW, I still don't claim that the decision was right, or fair, or well-reasoned, but death from abuse of legalised handguns is far harder to prevent than death from football violence,

Actually, it's not.

Er, I don't know why you think it's not, but I still think it is.

If this is not done then what we have is mediated mob rule, not proper government.

I think we don't have proper government. I'd like to have it, but have no idea how to get there from where we are.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

My point about the use of the word was one of semantics - in making the word familiar, during your post, in a series of not-particularly-contentious ways, it was in 'danger' of appearing to be the correct word to use in your postulate about Dunblane.

Why is that a danger, if it is the correct word?

As a case in point, it's difficult to answer a question like this:

"how stupid was it to introduce knee-jerk fireams legislation after Dunblane."

If the answer is, say, "very", then does that answer relate to Dunblane, i.e. the timing of the decision, or to the decision per se, or to the moot assertion that it was knee-jerk?

The timing, and the nature of the decision, and the ignorant baying of the mob that preceded it confirm that it was knee-jerk. Rather than properly examine what went wrong, and see what needed to be done to fix that, the decision was taken to simply ban possession.

A decision analogous in nature, if not magnitude, to saying "because some people can't drive properly we're going to ban the ownership of cars".

Just because I am in favour of the legal ownership of guns doesn't mean I don't favour strong controls.

Then I'm in favour of what I suspect you might call very strong controls, namely not permitting them to be owned. And that's not a decision borne out of ignorance, which I can claim because I've previously been a member of a gun club.

So on what is it based, then?

Dunblane, for most observers, it was as if the previous decision not to ban had been exposed as the stupid decision.

Dunblane, for anybody who cared to examine the reality rather than the ignorant rantings of the press and the unseemly scramble of politicians to jump on the bandwagon exposed the failings of the people charged with operating the system, not that the system was at fault.

That's why I said that the reaction to Dunblane, specifically, was not knee-jerk. But we could argue about for a long time and gain no particular benefit even by agreeing.

Well - there are politicians and even government ministers who now disagree with you too.

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

What do you mean "only reason"? It has never been possible (at least in modern times) to legally acquire a gun just because you fancy it.

Are you saying that someone who enjoys shooting, is good at shooting, and wants to carry it on as a leisure activity should automatically be denied a gun because they want one?

BTW, I still don't claim that the decision was right, or fair, or well-reasoned, but death from abuse of legalised handguns is far harder to prevent than death from football violence,

Actually, it's not.

Er, I don't know why you think it's not, but I still think it is.

Because shooters are well disciplined people and it is perfectly possible to regulate gun ownership in such a way that only suitable people are allowed to posess them - a complete ban is not necessary.

If this is not done then what we have is mediated mob rule, not proper government.

I think we don't have proper government. I'd like to have it, but have no idea how to get there from where we are.

Nor I, but perhaps a start would be for politicians to act intelligently, and on the basis of reasoned analysis of the facts rather than pandering to ignorance and superstition.

 

[Softus]

My point about the use of the word was one of semantics - in making the word familiar, during your post, in a series of not-particularly-contentious ways, it was in 'danger' of appearing to be the correct word to use in your postulate about Dunblane.

Why is that a danger, if it is the correct word?

Hm yes; I missed a vital word from my sentence - it was meant to read as follows:

...it was in 'danger' of falsely appearing to be the correct word to use in your postulate about Dunblane.

The timing, and the nature of the decision, and the ignorant baying of the mob that preceded it confirm that it was knee-jerk. Rather than properly examine what went wrong, and see what needed to be done to fix that, the decision was taken to simply ban possession.

I don't accept that every man jack of those who indicated a desire for a ban reacted in the way that you, albeit quite rightfully, denigrate. If one accepts that there was a spectrum of reasons for wishing a ban, then I don't know how one can tell the relative weight of influence from each discrete reason.

A decision analogous in nature, if not magnitude, to saying "because some people can't drive properly we're going to ban the ownership of cars".

Not a bad analogy - I see your point.

...not a decision borne out of ignorance...

So on what is it based, then?

I don't see any need for an individual to own a gun for leisure purposes. They are capable of getting into the wrong hands, at which point things get serious. However, since the same is true of cars, I am hereby changing my mind. My preference is still that guns are not owned, but it is from this moment henceforth not a preference that I would try to persuade anyone else to hold.

Dunblane, for most observers, it was as if the previous decision not to ban had been exposed as the stupid decision.

Dunblane, for anybody who cared to examine the reality rather than the ignorant rantings of the press and the unseemly scramble of politicians to jump on the bandwagon exposed the failings of the people charged with operating the system, not that the system was at fault.

Hm. One school of thought is that a system that is difficult to operate correctly is not a good system. Rather than blame the operators I would blame the architects of the original system, and also those who stand to lose from the removal of the priviledge of owing a gun. For example, it's important for me to have a garden and to preserve the existence of the surrounding countryside; for this reason I generally support those local councillors who share my interests, in the hope that the sweaty and greedy hands of those with different motives are kept away from the key decisions.

That's why I said that the reaction to Dunblane, specifically, was not knee-jerk. But we could argue about for a long time and gain no particular benefit even by agreeing.

Well - there are politicians and even government ministers who now disagree with you too.

It's not the first time that my opinion diverges from politicians and ministers, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in experiencing that phenomenon.

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

What do you mean "only reason"? It has never been possible (at least in modern times) to legally acquire a gun just because you fancy it.

I stand corrected. I've never owned a gun and am ignorant of the applications process. Was I mistaken in assuming that there can be other reasons for owning a gun used only for leisure purposes?

Are you saying that someone who enjoys shooting, is good at shooting, and wants to carry it on as a leisure activity should automatically be denied a gun because they want one?

Yes.

BTW, I still don't claim that the decision was right, or fair, or well-reasoned, but death from abuse of legalised handguns is far harder to prevent than death from football violence,

Actually, it's not.

Er, I don't know why you think it's not, but I still think it is.

Because shooters are well disciplined people and it is perfectly possible to regulate gun ownership in such a way that only suitable people are allowed to posess them - a complete ban is not necessary.

Hm. Food for thought certainly. This is a most instructive debate.

perhaps a start would be for politicians to act intelligently, and on the basis of reasoned analysis of the facts rather than pandering to ignorance and superstition.

Indeed; and to that end I must write to my MP again and request a reply to all the Emails that he gives the impression of ignoring.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I was going to carry on, and respond to various points, but this:

Are you saying that someone who enjoys shooting, is good at shooting, and wants to carry it on as a leisure activity should automatically be denied a gun because they want one?

Yes.

is utterly bizarre.

You have said that anybody who is good enough to represent their country at international sporting events such as the Commonwealth Games or the Olympic Games and wants to do so, and wants to win medals doing so, should be denied the chance to do so on the basis that they want to.

There seems no point in carrying on any further.

 

[Softus]

You have said that anybody who is good enough to represent their country at international sporting events such as the Commonwealth Games or the Olympic Games and wants to do so, and wants to win medals doing so, should be denied the chance to do so on the basis that they want to.

For the record, you saying that I've said it is not the same as me saying it, which I haven't.

There seems no point in carrying on any further.

As you wish.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You have said that anybody who is good enough to represent their country at international sporting events such as the Commonwealth Games or the Olympic Games and wants to do so, and wants to win medals doing so, should be denied the chance to do so on the basis that they want to.

For the record, you saying that I've said it is not the same as me saying it, which I haven't..

That pathetic attempt to weasel out of an earlier statement might work with some people, but not with me.

I asked you if you were saying that someone who enjoys shooting, is good at shooting, and wants to carry it on as a leisure activity should automatically be denied a gun because they want one?

And you said yes.

For the record, you may not have written the words about sportsmen representing their country, but denying them the ability to do so because they want to do so is exactly what you said should happen.

 

[Softus]

That pathetic attempt to weasel out of an earlier statement might work with some people, but not with me.

Is this statement the kind that you consider is being weaselled out of by somebody:

There seems no point in carrying on any further.



If you want to ask me to explain an earlier comment, or an answer, then I'll be glad to, just as I've been explaining my reasoning all along.

If you want to assert something that I don't agree with, then I'll disagree with it, just as I've been disagreeing all along.

Either you wish to continue the debate or you don't, but you're getting mighty abusive and agressive when all I've done is disagree with you in a perfectly civilised way. Could it be that you actually can't handle a civilised debate for very long?

You're an odd dichotomy Mike - at one moment prepared for intelligent written conversation, but the next full of venom. It makes me wonder how hard you're having to try to keep a lid on the maelstrom.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That pathetic attempt to weasel out of an earlier statement might work with some people, but not with me.

Is this statement the kind that you consider is being weaselled out of by somebody:

There seems no point in carrying on any further.

No - it's your attempt above to deny what you had said that I consider weaselling.

Either you wish to continue the debate or you don't, but you're getting mighty abusive and agressive when all I've done is disagree with you in a perfectly civilised way. Could it be that you actually can't handle a civilised debate for very long?

I can handle a civilised debate.

What I have a problem with handling is this:

Are you saying that someone who enjoys shooting, is good at shooting, and wants to carry it on as a leisure activity should automatically be denied a gun because they want one?

Yes.

followed by you claiming that you were not therefore saying that people who wish to represent their country at international sporting events should be denied the means to do so because they want to do so.

Are you saying that someone who enjoys shooting, is good at shooting, and wants to carry it on as a leisure activity should automatically be denied a gun because they want one?

Yes.

You're an odd dichotomy Mike - at one moment prepared for intelligent written conversation, but the next full of venom. It makes me wonder how hard you're having to try to keep a lid on the maelstrom.

No maelstrom at all - just don't try to pretend you've not said something you have if you don't want the venom...

 

[markie]

This is what you call a statement from a bully, ( well a one-a-be bully )

" No maelstrom at all, just don't try to pretend you've not said something you have, IF YOU DON'T WANT THE VENOM,

 

[Softus]

No - it's your attempt above to deny what you had said that I consider weaselling.

I believe that I haven't knowingly denied anything, or pretended anything, about what I've written here.

If you think that something I've written conflicts with someone else I've written, then, clearly, one of us is mistaken, and I'm quite prepared for it to be me. You could seek clarification; however, you've gone off the deep end without even double-checking our respective understanding(s).

I can handle a civilised debate.

Well the following sentence isn't very civilised:

That pathetic attempt to weasel out of an earlier statement might work with some people, but not with me.

You might be able to fool yourself, but I don't believe that you had any expectation that I would agree with you on that point, since you've made no attempt to reconcile our different interpretation of what's happening. That might be a civilised way for a child to behave, but not an adult.

What I have a problem with handling is this:

Are you saying that someone who enjoys shooting, is good at shooting, and wants to carry it on as a leisure activity should automatically be denied a gun because they want one?

Yes.

I already know that you don't understand it; there really is no call for the oversize text and colour coding - it's the forum equivalent of a tantrum. Is that what you call "handling" it?

No maelstrom at all - just don't try to pretend you've not said something you have if you don't want the venom...

Even if I were pretending something, which I'm not, it's curious that you believe that it justifies your emotional reaction to it.

If you find something to be bizarre, do you not investigate further, rather than stamp around shouting? If so, why not behave in the same way on this topic?

I haven't said that I don't want the venom, or that you shouldn't issue it, since it's my view that you're directing it at a misinterpretation, not at me. I merely observed that the venom exists and comes to the surface exceedingly quickly. I've seen this described as a "chip on the shoulder" - whatever you might call it it's not a great frame of mind in which to debate. I have no qualms with watching you get annoyed, but it's my decision not to reciprocate in kind.

We could still get back on track if you would simply, patiently, and civilly ask me what I meant, rather than assert that you knew what I meant and get all het up by your own assumption.

If you prefer just to bandy insults, then I shall bow out; I thought you were a bigger man than that.

 

[Softus]

No offence markie, but that's not helping.