Sayonara

I click on the link and get the translation page. If you got redirected to the dictionary.reference homepage, I have no idea why.

It's dictionary.com. You probably got an "open over" pop-up. YUK.

I don't oppose such ownership. That stance is not anything to do with what I'm talking about. The URL is relevant to the part of the thread where I was discussing with someone (I think it was Demosthenes, might have been Cap'n or someone, or even you actually) that the ban on firearms makes it easier to track down miscreants like the ones in the article.

I didn't mean to suggest any connection (hence "Just to go off on a slight tangent all of a sudden..."). I think the judge's comments summed their actions up quite nicely, although I bet he secretly wanted to swear a lot more.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/3543887.stm Apparently weapons sold by those two blokes have been found at the scene of several serious crimes, including 8 murders. This could be a good example of how a ban makes it easier to trace otherwise-unrelated incidents back to the source. It's not 100% on-topic, but I found this case interesting. Actually having said that, it was on topic about 100 replies ago.

Instead of clearing my entire cache, I think I'll just delete the files from MM...

"What it looks like to you" does not determine or influence what it is actually demonstrating.

That's not the "standard diagram showing how gravity works". It's a representation of 3D space as a 2D plane, being used to illustrate how gravimetric fields affect local space and mass.

He missed off the word "-mongering". See reply #146.

Did you intend to quote yourself then?

Have we done 100 posts yet? My fingers are sore.

Agreed, but with a few points: That falls under practice, both as a function and as an objective (I think you're arguing it as an objective, which I agree with completely). Also, if you're the winner of such an event it could be argued that it falls under posturing Also, since such weapons are not illegal for that particular use they don't really fall into the "guns category" we're supposed to be discussing, so there's very little point arguing over it. Keep in mind that the original 'parent object' I am discussing comprises the firearms owned illegally by the average gun owner.

Oooh if only I had my handbag with me. Then I could look super-indignant. Well you should know seeing as you've chucked that phrase about yourself http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2778 Sorry, I am getting frustrated because I have taken the time to build up a consistent, structured argument through this immense debate, and it's being attacked because people don't understand it and it's obviously within their power to just read the thread again. ANYHOOOOO - it does not neccessarily indicate bias or ignorance. It could also indicate that I was drunk, very tired, rushing to get off home, etc. If you like. True, but that wasn't the actual "calling out", was it?

I mean, ffs, how does "because Olympic shooters need to use them" answer the poll in the thread? Stop doing that modly dad thing atm, it's unnerving.

lol I see your armies are growing YT

I acknowledged the list is not necessarily complete in that post, and I did not at any point claim that that was a list of "complete truisms". Stop strawmanning, you aren't impressing anyone. Competition shooting can fit under any or all of the following: posturing, practice (which is both a function and an objective - it occurs to me this could be a source of confusion), and clay pigeon. Inevitably you will disagree with this, but the fact that you clearly don't understand the hierarchy orientation I am trying to establish makes you less than credible as a source of criticism. Your above post doesn't even make sense. What are you trying to prove? Let's assume that I agree with you that competition shooting should be a separate function. Does that make the list "wrong"? No, because everything on the list is still applicable. It makes it - as I said - incomplete. Solution? WE ADD IT TO THE F***ING LIST. And what would that accomplish? Follow the argument through from Demosthenes' original query and we can use your logic to show that guns should be available to whoever wants them for the whole scope of their functions, because of Olympic shooting events. I don't see how you skipping the posts prior to the "list" -- which partly explain the fundamental ideas behind it -- and therefore completely failing to understand the significance of the thing you are investing so much of your argument in is the same as me "mine laying". Less of the abortive ad hominem please. Yes, of course you may. Since I was clearly responding to a direct attack on myself, and not passing off my response as me exercising moderator duties, the same does not apply.

But you haven't mentioned any function of shooting that was not covered in that list (+ the 'clay shooting' category), so I am still none-the-wiser as to what your point is. Incidentally, if I did miss anything off that list it would not be "indefensible", it would be incomplete. Stating truisms isn't something that usually requires defence.

It doesn't matter what other science is "right" or "wrong". Seeing one of the effects your theory predicts does not automatically mean your theory caused the effects. That's what I am trying to say here. Incidentally, there's no evidence linking "unknown force acting on these probes" to your anti-gravity idea, except for the fact that the force seems to occur in the same "direction". That's not compelling on its own.

I don't think you have a clue what I'm talking about, but I can tell you that constantly repeating the same thing and calling me ignorant is not going to help you understand.

I've already posted the answers to all of those questions in prior posts. READ THE THREAD. Indeed read the posts you were just talking about (302 & 312) with a view to understanding the model I am presenting. I mean, come on - I say "shooting static targets comes under 'practice'", and your response is "but what about Olympic shooting, which requires practice?". The question does not follow because you are confusing functions with objectives. I am not typing out the same arguments over and over again for the benefit of people who can't be bothered to read them the first time around, or forgot what was in them. The argument in your second paragraph has been thrown out of this thread a couple of times, because it's not valid, relevant, related, or logically sustainable.

It doesn't mean you're right. All they have presented there are observations and a couple of random possibilities (probably just the most interesting ones, considering it's from the media), and not any sort of explanation - so you can hardly shout "That's what I said!". Even if they are correct in that there is a "fundamental flaw in our understanding of gravity", it's in no way supportive of your theory (and not really terribly surprising, given the nature of science.)

That post, clearly (although thinking about it "any" would probably have been a better choice of word than "all").

Goggles! [edit] That is not a typo.

If you're shooting beast or fowl for sport, that certainly falls under the banner of "killing". If you are shooting mobile targets that might as well go under "clay pigeon shooting" which I added to the list in a subsequent post. I'm not confident this kind of sport shouldn't come under "practice" but some staunch tweed-clad ex-Majors would probably disagree with me. If you are shooting static targets that comes under "practice", which as I discussed earlier (among myselves, seeing as it was strategically ignored by anyone taking the pro-gun stance) practice is a function of shooting (as opposed to being a separate undertaking) and does not provide an alternative reason for owning a gun in itself that is exclusive from shooting.