atinymonkey

My point was not overpopulation causes homosexuality, it is just an effective population control. Most of that research is based around the Oedipus complex, and isn't seen to have an affect on gender preference.

Yes, so we are told. And some towns have never had a firearm cross the boundary since it was founded, and the crime rate is still virtually nil. Someday, someone will stop quoting one example as the absolute rule. Do you consider the other countries in the west as far more developed than America? After all, they all operate without armed population, and almost all have a lower murder rate than the US. Take Japan as a case study, if you like. Near zero murder rate, every year.

Ok, on topic then. We can't agree between us (as the poll shows) if guns should be allowed in the civilian population. So how about a change of tack:- Do you think that gun will have a role in the continuing evolution of society? If you can't see a utopian society carrying a weapon, at what point would you agree to outlaw guns? Bear in mind that America is almost civilized at the moment, how much more developed would it need to be to afford the peace of mind to outlaw guns?

I know what I meant dammit. I meant pubic. No wait, I mean publik. Yes...excellent.

My mothers family are all teachers, my uncle was (until he retired) in the adminstration of schools and universitys (I'm not sure what really, he lectured and was the head examiner for A-Levels). He'd probably lend a plethora of material for science and education, if you want a starting point or ideas.

The oath was something I took. Not you John. Me. I'm trying very hard to assuage your paranoia/bile/hate/whatever, but you still thing there is some kind of plot to create a situation of some form here. It's a forum John, pubic and non-profit, nobody can force you to do anything you don't want to. I'm intrigued. Why are you taking the time out of your day to reply to a paragraph that you think is a waste of time? You don’t feel your being antagonistic, yet you happily lash out without a modicum of retrospect, respect or rationality? I’m interested to know what you perceive me/us/the thread to have done to earn what I assume you think is a contemptuous, biting counterpoint. It obvious your not discussing or even reading the posts, I tried to explain in a way you can understand what the issues we have consist of. So what is at issue here for you, why the insults? To put it simply, ignoring your ramblings about not telling the forum about your toys, and explain what your problem is.

Suprisingly it means just that, I swore an oath. It's not a complex statement. You will meet and have met many people who take the same oath, dredge your memory. Even the scouts take the oath. If you were connected to the military, as you have stated before, you will have taken a version of the same oath. Be wary of that logic John, if you think everyone is wrong and out to get you, there may be a simpler solution. I won't insult you with references to defense, repression and aggressive propensities; but there is an issue here with a conflict of what you perceive and what the other members see. Indeed. The tone of your replys of late vears strongly towards that. I'm worried you don't seem to notice it. You'll notice my posts are deliberately open, offering my opinions, the letter of the law and routes for resolution, I am not giving closed statements that offer you no options. There is no duplicity in my posts, this type of reply is simply the community in which you are a member responding to an increase in hostilitys from yourself. If you wish to continue with insulting me, and the others, you have that option. We consist of the community in which you decided to reside, it is not a healthy frame of mind that chooses to alienate itself from it’s own community. Be careful of venting frustrations at the ghosts in the machine. None of this is real life, do you understand?

I'm sorry. I'll try and be clear here. 1) Your argument about baseball bats and knives has been previously commented on in the thread. Recycling the argument is fine, but you make no adjustment for the previously stated counterpoint. The argument becomes pointless as a result 2) You still haven't answered the question of why you are 'allowed' illegal firearms, as MrL pointed out. Your relying on us trusting that your some form of MI5 agent, who spends all his day on the internet. Your avoiding answering direct questions on why you are given dispensation or the nature of the work that requires you to hold the handguns. That's not really a convincing way of putting people at ease. We all know the firearms the UK police and army issue are not those that you possess, the sig and the PP7, and legal possession at home is a fairly remote possibility due to that fact. 3) That in itself is suspicious without needing to refer to the laws previously stated. However we have touched on the fact that it appears illegal. I swore an oath to uphold the law, would you expect me to ignore such an oath because you have a pretty face? I expect you do have a boring reason for possession, however it would be far less effort for yourself to simply state it. 4) You stated quite clearly in post #130 you wanted people to guess why you were allowed firearms. That seems a bit antagonistic, and unsurprisingly resulted in antagonism. Is that clearer? It's such a simple question, it should not take much time to answer.

This is old ground YT.

Yes indeed, keep you awake all night. It's most unfair when you have work in the mourning. BOOM BOOM!!!!

So, in summery. People are divided on gun use. Legal in the US illegal in the UK, apart from for YT who is exempt. I do love the cut and thrust of logical discussion. One of the firm cornerstones of a community. Superb.

Wheel

That might explain my bizzare lack of face drawing ability. I take the point, I'll look into methods of communication other than the written word to narrow down the test subjects for the site. A revolving spiral of words anyone? Just kidding. Or am I? Yes, actually I am. Ha. I may play with an increase of symbols in text. The visual recognition of, say, :omega:, @ and :pi: speeds up scanning a document. I wonder at what point symbols woud saturate a document, making it illegable? Seems to be working fine with texting on mobiles at the moment.

Chewy

Right. I'm reading:- Catch 22 - Joseph Heller The Hobbit - J R R Tolken I gone done did read:- Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold The Book of Five Rings - Miyamoto Musashi Stardust - Neil Gaiman (Like MrL's but with prueety pictures) That's it really. oh, and People in Vogue / A Century in Portraits - Vogue. Which was surprisingly good.

That's quite true (well, not that we are all morons). But the law in the UK on that class of handgun carrys a 15 year jail term, minimum. That's not so smart a law to ignore.

Whut, warning points? But he's right; anyone who owns illegal would be a moron by definition. He didn’t call you a moron. Why is everything confrontational with you at the moment? You seem to take offence very quickly with little provocation. I went and explained why I posted the laws concerning handguns, even explained my job role, but your just doling out warning points again. Do you hate us? Can you not just clarify the situation concering the handguns? Perhaps you are still connected to the military? Would that not be simpler?

Ah, the old hidden statistics. Quote them but don't source them, best way to keep an discussion vauge. Why would you wish to make anything harder for anyone? I just quoted the relevant code and subsidiary documentation. If you exempt then that’s super, but that won’t change the law for the rest of the UK citizens (which is what LuTuze was asking). It’s not all about you, you know! The end of this month I’m interviewing with the head of Intelligence for West Yorkshire Police, for a position as an Intelligence Analyst, so you might understand why those figures are in close recall in my mind. I’m an analyst; it’s what I do. Just out of interest then, what is it that you do for a living?

Well, actually yes. Without dispensation from the secretary of state, the hand guns (apart from the target pistol) are all on the illegal list unless certified as de-commissioned. Both the Sig Saur and the PPK have specific rules that class them as illegal handguns and although they may fall into the 1919–1945 period would not normally be considered rare, unless a war trophy with relevant documentation. The exceptions to that rule would be guns of historic importance, such as the gun that shot Lennon etc. There are only 7 civilian sites in the UK where live historic pistols may be stored. That’s all covered in Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Firearms Act (1968). In 1997/98/99/2000 > around 250 handguns where stolen from registered users. This statistic has the effect of making dispensation to own illegal firearms (Form 11) drop to only 2 issuings in the last year to civilians.

Yes, sporophyte generation are meiosis and gametophyte are mitosis.

It's sunday, you not leaving the house. It's the day of rest and your not expecting visitors. Are you wearing any pants? Call it the spike test.

Violent crime, manslaughter, murder and grievous bodily harm all being separate crimes then yes. I’m aware that violent crimes diminish. Crime itself doesn’t disappear; think of it as silly putty in society that just comes out of a different hole when you block one up. With interesting unexpected results, mostly involving violence. Did you know that Captain James Cook was the last UK citizen granted the right to bear arms? He died in 1779 when Hawaiian islanders killed him and some of his crew after his first mate shot an island chief. Apparently it was all a bit of a misunderstanding that having a gun to hand just made all so much worse. - Plus get a S & W 1911, rather than the Sig Saur, it's just a nicer gun (it's patriotic as well).

I don't know. Interesting point though.

My two cents:- I quite like your PPK, it's cute. I don't like gun's in circulation, I knew a policeman who was shot point-blank in the chest by a solder who was having ‘difficulties’ with his sanity. Both were what you would class as ‘good guys’ both are dead. Both were trained in gun use. Neither worked for Al Capone. What was the point in allowing that to happen? I have no problem with gunclubs, but anyone who takes a gun out of a gunclub into civilian areas should be beaten with rubber truncheons. Short of farmers with low bore shotgun.

Perhaps but most probably not. It may be getting stagnant with its fixed approach, and with the advent of flexible media perhaps that is the only trigger needed to explore other methods of writing. If we don't explore the other options, we would never really know the benefits. Obviously, if any progressive development were highlighted as improvements to current writing methods, nobody's going to suggest they are implemented as a replacement! Shorthand was a development that came out of office environments that's quite widely used, that indicates that there is scope for improvement to at least a small degree (albeit in a specialized situation). That would be the fun, in finding out! I'm worried about the adjustment time, that could be the killer. Once fully adjusted to two methods, we would have to test reading speeds and words written per minute. Results would be a bit biased. Playing with possibilitys, so full mirror and reversing text direction. Plus any other ideas people suggest (short of new alphabets and language!).