Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...

[rednose1]

I'd keep my guns, and laugh as this went down in flames.
People forget there are some VERY pro gun military /police officers. It won't be just civilians opposing this.


As to the topic at hand, people realize that the reverse of this actually happened, right? Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law REQUIRING gun ownership, look it up sometime.

 

[Lunar Templar]

how does one hand over what they do not own?

as a US citizen whom looks upon guns as 'a weapon for incompetent cowards', i wouldn't be effected by this, would probably still piss me off though, and there WOULD be hell to pay for it

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

"To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens"
~Adolf Hitler

With that, and the second amendment of the constitution of the United States of America...I'm keeping my guns.

If the nation itself is being invaded I'm assuming the military itself has failed to protect the borders.

So do you really think an armed untrained populace with a few people who may have combat or maybe hunting experience would stand a chance against a fully trained modern military that's obviously already defeated your professional armed forces in battles.

When they have Apache's, Jets, Tanks, APC's, Infantry with access to body Armour, rocket launchers, mortars, grenades, light machine guns and artillery strikes. Gas and other forms of chemical weapons. Napalm, cruise missiles, laser designated bunker strikes. And if it comes to it tactical nuclear missiles.

Yer good luck with that, a 100 years ago maybe.

 

[PZF]

So do you really think an armed untrained populace with a few people who may have combat or maybe hunting experience would stand a chance against a fully trained modern military that's obviously already defeated your professional armed forces in battles.

When they have Apache's, Jets, Tanks, APC's, Infantry with access to body Armour, rocket launchers, mortars, grenades, light machine guns and artillery strikes. Gas and other forms of chemical weapons. Napalm, cruise missiles, laser designated bunker strikes. And if it comes to it tactical nuclear missiles.

Yer good luck with that, a 100 years ago maybe.

I say to that: Afghanistan.

OT: I used to have guns, lost them all in a tragic boating accident.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Not having a go or trying to be condescending but does genuinely make me sad that other countries do have the means to do so, but the same level of protection is not afforded to people that I enjoy here in the UK.

Yeeeeahhh, I'm good, thanks. I live in a really safe area, and I'd say something north of 45% of my neighbors own guns. Mostly for hunting, but quite a few for home protection

Oh, and since the 70s, my local police department has only lost 3 individuals to gunfire (I can't say the numbers before then because I don't have them). Considering we're a rather well populated area near a major city, that's quite good.

OT: I used to have guns, lost them all in a tragic boating accident.

Me too!
I lost my M4 and my father lost all of his handguns. Shame, idn't it?

 

[Asmundr]

Pfft, please who needs guns? Real men use The Force.

Already illegal here.

I think using The Force is a automatic 10 year prison sentence if my memory serves me right.

 

[tangoprime]

"To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens"
~Adolf Hitler

With that, and the second amendment of the constitution of the United States of America...I'm keeping my guns.

If the nation itself is being invaded I'm assuming the military itself has failed to protect the borders.

So do you really think an armed untrained populace with a few people who may have combat or maybe hunting experience would stand a chance against a fully trained modern military that's obviously already defeated your professional armed forces in battles.

When they have Apache's, Jets, Tanks, APC's, Infantry with access to body Armour, rocket launchers, mortars, grenades, light machine guns and artillery strikes. Gas and other forms of chemical weapons. Napalm, cruise missiles, laser designated bunker strikes. And if it comes to it tactical nuclear missiles.

Yer good luck with that, a 100 years ago maybe.

He was referring to the first country Hitler conquered, which was of course his own.
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA ? ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." -Heinrich Himmler
It's lenghty, but everyone should hear what this woman, who grew up in Austria during THAT part of the 20th century, has to say about how things came to be.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

So do you really think an armed untrained populace with a few people who may have combat or maybe hunting experience would stand a chance against a fully trained modern military that's obviously already defeated your professional armed forces in battles.

When they have Apache's, Jets, Tanks, APC's, Infantry with access to body Armour, rocket launchers, mortars, grenades, light machine guns and artillery strikes. Gas and other forms of chemical weapons. Napalm, cruise missiles, laser designated bunker strikes. And if it comes to it tactical nuclear missiles.

Yer good luck with that, a 100 years ago maybe.

I say to that: Afghanistan.

OT: I used to have guns, lost them all in a tragic boating accident.

Slightly different, which state exactly has a ready supply of explosives and your allowed to own RPG's? The insurgents in Afghanistan aren't exactly untrained either and even then is the insurgency in power? nope.

And again any power that would be willing to invade the continental United states is probably going to be a rogue state who's not going to care about previous treaty's etc. The insurgency in Afganistan would be over if the Coalition didn't play by the rules. If they slaughtered anybody they even suspected gave aid to them, burnt crops, gassed any area even thought to contain insurgent troops. Carried out public displays of torture and execution, I don't think there would still be resistance at least not on the same scale.

EDIT: also please do tell of this boating accident?

 

[someonehairy-ish]

My government already did that (I live it the UK) and I can't say I've ever done anything in the first three options soooo...

But in a hypothetical situation where I'd ever actually owned a gun in the first place, I'd just give it up. I don't like guns.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

I'd probably attempt to hide one or two guns. And then at night, I'd caress one and talk dirty to it and rub it all nice an... but yeah I'd probably just hide one.

Then again I live Britain so I don't have a gun, then again me friend and his Dad both have shotgun licenses and own shotguns, then again so does me little brothers friends Dad who's a farmer.

 

[Thyunda]

Now those are two words that shouldn't ever be said together. Democratic paranoia. The irrational fear that the government you voted into power might be in charge.

I am so going to note that one down, and, with your permission, use it in conversation now and then.

All yours buddy. Use it well.

If they government DID do that, then that proves to everyone that the country is a place that cares nothing about freedom or its citizens. I would honestly move out of the country. I dont want to live in a country where criminals have all of the rights and protection and law abiding citizens have none. I dont want to live in a country where im in a constant fear of people trying to kill me while not being allowed to defend myself in anyway whatsoever or have any help from the government in protecting me.

Don't move to the United Kingdom then. The only people with guns out here are farmers and gangsters. I'm genuinely too scared to leave my house in the daytime. I have to go out at night and stay out of the streetlights. I break into the local stores and steal tins of food to stock my basement so I never go hungry. The other day somebody knocked at my door. I made sure the boards over the windows were still on tight and locked myself in the wardrobe till they left.

Can't take chances in this mob-ruled country.

I know you are making a joke, but I live in one of the strictest gun control states in the US. We are constantly told to make sure all windows and doors are locked and to not go out at night because it is too dangerous. And i live in one of the "safest" neighborhoods. There are constant stories of people invading someone's home at night, killing the owners (mostly with knives), take whatever they can grab, and leave before the police show up. My parents have been robbed 3 times in a 15 year period, and they live in a "safe" neighborhood. They are just lucky they were never around when the house got robbed, otherwise they would be dead too.

Shall I tell you the story of a mother and her children who hid in the attic waiting for police to arrive? The intruder, armed with a crowbar, managed to break through multiple locked doors with his tool, barge his way into the attic, get shot 5 times in the chest, stumble back downstairs to his car, AND LEAVE before the police arrived.

Dont talk about what you dont understand.

Uh. What? How would guns even make any of that better?

You are right, that wife and her children being brutally murder by an intruder with a crowbar is so much better than her defending herself with a gun.

guns are an unfortunate neccessity. Yes, banning guns works in UK, im happy for you. Im not going to try to tell you that UK should stop. It wont work in the US. For one, it will cause extreme economic harm. Two, the police can not protect anyone, nor are they required to. Three, it will not stop criminals in the slightest. Four, people will die in droves from wildlife related incidents. More people die from deer in this country per year than mass shootings. Five, every single piece of evidence INSIDE the US shows that banning guns or restricting guns either makes crime WORSE or does nothing at all. It doesnt matter how gun control affects people in other countries, all that matters is how it affects ours. I live in a state with the stricest gun control laws in the country (about to get stricter, although i do agree with about half of the measures they are implementing), and it is one of the most dangerous states in the country.

If you remove the NEED for guns, then I would be much more persuaded. But so long as that need exists, banning guns is immoral, illogical, and irational

Once again...you've cited one anecdotal incident. A story. You've painted a picture of a nightmarish existence where everyone lives in fear because they don't have guns. I have a whole nation with no guns and where we don't live in fear. My example vastly trumps yours. Yeah, so, more people get stabbed. But we can work on that. Knives are tools for other purposes that just get blatantly misused.

Guns have no other purpose than to kill. You want guns to kill people. Keep citing self defence, my friend, but all I'm hearing is "People are bad and I deserve the ability to kill them."

you cited an example for your country, i cited one from mine.

which one carries more weight on how gun control affects my nation.

ill give you a hint, not yours.

does your nations suffer the same gang problems, has the same diverse population, organized crime, borders that make it impossible to stop illegal goods from getting in the country, population density across the nation, police response times, and a culture of mistrust towards law enforcement among certain communities due to the police being harsher on that community than normal?

if the answer to this question is no, then you have proven that you dont know anything about the gun issue IN AMERICA.

...let me tell you about a little group called the 'IRA'...

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

Not having a go or trying to be condescending but does genuinely make me sad that other countries do have the means to do so, but the same level of protection is not afforded to people that I enjoy here in the UK.

Yeeeeahhh, I'm good, thanks. I live in a really safe area, and I'd say something north of 45% of my neighbors own guns. Mostly for hunting, but quite a few for home protection

So basically screw the guy on here who's saying he lives in a hell hole, and anyone else in the country who does not live in a safe area and the police are not required to directly protect them?

Uk stats but I would assume its somewhere similar http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/help-information/mental-health-statistics/

1 in 4 people will suffer from mental health problems in their life time, so if 45% of your neighbors own guns its safe to say some of them will suffer from mental health issues at some point. One of the very obvious reasons why wide spread and very unregulated private gun ownership should not happen.

Lets hope your not one of the unfortunate ones. Mental health issues can happen to anyone, answer me that then? Some issues can only be identified by trained professionals. I know in some states there is no yearly mental health checks of any kind on gun owners, or even follow up checks after purchase, how in the world is that safe. I know not every mental issue ends in a killing spree, but in a country as big as the US it will happen to someone somewhere and it does keep happening, justify that to me. Please explain to me how peoples "right" to bear arms justify s the widespread ownership of weapons with such little restriction that its almost a certainly you are putting weapons at the hands of the mentally unstable.

 

[Frission]

So do you really think an armed untrained populace with a few people who may have combat or maybe hunting experience would stand a chance against a fully trained modern military that's obviously already defeated your professional armed forces in battles.

When they have Apache's, Jets, Tanks, APC's, Infantry with access to body Armour, rocket launchers, mortars, grenades, light machine guns and artillery strikes. Gas and other forms of chemical weapons. Napalm, cruise missiles, laser designated bunker strikes. And if it comes to it tactical nuclear missiles.

Yer good luck with that, a 100 years ago maybe.

I say to that: Afghanistan.

OT: I used to have guns, lost them all in a tragic boating accident.

The people of Afghanistan, Vietnam and Algeria (all countries who used the same respective tactic) took a horrendous number of casualties. One of the characteristics is how they would not give up and were thus willing to die in droves over rolling over and surrendering. Think of the Easter Offensive.

The Algerian and Vietnamese "won" in the end because the French and the Americans gave up due to a combination of fatigue, instability at home and international pressure and the lack of anything worth fighting for. At the cost of a massive amount of casualties and the almost total destruction of the infrastructure, the Vietnamese and the Algerian's won.

This would thus mean that the Average American would have to be pretty fanatical to fight that type of war. They would have to have reserves of strength and of human resources. It's a double bind really. They're either not capable, or are perfectly capable in which case, I wonder what the hell is wrong with the Americans who are willing to do all this.

EDIT: You're either making idle threats or you're batshit in other words.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

So basically screw the guy on here who's saying he lives in a hell hole, and anyone else in the country who does not live in a safe area and the police are not required to directly protect them?

Ya do know it's law enforcement officers themselves who've argued in favor of this ruling, because otherwise their jobs become nightmarish in avoiding litigation, right?

And again, I have a solution. It comes in many calibers, but it has a similar effect regardless. That's how I chose to protect my home.

Lets hope your not one of the unfortunate ones.

Well, I am. I suffer from mild depression.

I know in some states there is no yearly mental health checks of any kind on gun owners

That would be prohibitively expensive for over 80 million gun owners. Also, I don't think ANY states have that policy.

Please explain to me how peoples "right" to bear arms justify s the widespread ownership of weapons with such little restriction that its almost a certainly you are putting weapons at the hands of the mentally unstable.

"Please explain to me how peoples "right" against unreasonable search and seizure justifies the criminals who get free because they can get off on a technicality?"

If you don't mind me asking, what policy suggestions do you have that are within constitutional boundaries?

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

Now those are two words that shouldn't ever be said together. Democratic paranoia. The irrational fear that the government you voted into power might be in charge.

I am so going to note that one down, and, with your permission, use it in conversation now and then.

All yours buddy. Use it well.

If they government DID do that, then that proves to everyone that the country is a place that cares nothing about freedom or its citizens. I would honestly move out of the country. I dont want to live in a country where criminals have all of the rights and protection and law abiding citizens have none. I dont want to live in a country where im in a constant fear of people trying to kill me while not being allowed to defend myself in anyway whatsoever or have any help from the government in protecting me.

Don't move to the United Kingdom then. The only people with guns out here are farmers and gangsters. I'm genuinely too scared to leave my house in the daytime. I have to go out at night and stay out of the streetlights. I break into the local stores and steal tins of food to stock my basement so I never go hungry. The other day somebody knocked at my door. I made sure the boards over the windows were still on tight and locked myself in the wardrobe till they left.

Can't take chances in this mob-ruled country.

I know you are making a joke, but I live in one of the strictest gun control states in the US. We are constantly told to make sure all windows and doors are locked and to not go out at night because it is too dangerous. And i live in one of the "safest" neighborhoods. There are constant stories of people invading someone's home at night, killing the owners (mostly with knives), take whatever they can grab, and leave before the police show up. My parents have been robbed 3 times in a 15 year period, and they live in a "safe" neighborhood. They are just lucky they were never around when the house got robbed, otherwise they would be dead too.

Shall I tell you the story of a mother and her children who hid in the attic waiting for police to arrive? The intruder, armed with a crowbar, managed to break through multiple locked doors with his tool, barge his way into the attic, get shot 5 times in the chest, stumble back downstairs to his car, AND LEAVE before the police arrived.

Dont talk about what you dont understand.

Uh. What? How would guns even make any of that better?

You are right, that wife and her children being brutally murder by an intruder with a crowbar is so much better than her defending herself with a gun.

guns are an unfortunate neccessity. Yes, banning guns works in UK, im happy for you. Im not going to try to tell you that UK should stop. It wont work in the US. For one, it will cause extreme economic harm. Two, the police can not protect anyone, nor are they required to. Three, it will not stop criminals in the slightest. Four, people will die in droves from wildlife related incidents. More people die from deer in this country per year than mass shootings. Five, every single piece of evidence INSIDE the US shows that banning guns or restricting guns either makes crime WORSE or does nothing at all. It doesnt matter how gun control affects people in other countries, all that matters is how it affects ours. I live in a state with the stricest gun control laws in the country (about to get stricter, although i do agree with about half of the measures they are implementing), and it is one of the most dangerous states in the country.

If you remove the NEED for guns, then I would be much more persuaded. But so long as that need exists, banning guns is immoral, illogical, and irational

Once again...you've cited one anecdotal incident. A story. You've painted a picture of a nightmarish existence where everyone lives in fear because they don't have guns. I have a whole nation with no guns and where we don't live in fear. My example vastly trumps yours. Yeah, so, more people get stabbed. But we can work on that. Knives are tools for other purposes that just get blatantly misused.

Guns have no other purpose than to kill. You want guns to kill people. Keep citing self defence, my friend, but all I'm hearing is "People are bad and I deserve the ability to kill them."

you cited an example for your country, i cited one from mine.

which one carries more weight on how gun control affects my nation.

ill give you a hint, not yours.

does your nations suffer the same gang problems, has the same diverse population, organized crime, borders that make it impossible to stop illegal goods from getting in the country, population density across the nation, police response times, and a culture of mistrust towards law enforcement among certain communities due to the police being harsher on that community than normal?

if the answer to this question is no, then you have proven that you dont know anything about the gun issue IN AMERICA.

...let me tell you about a little group called the 'IRA'...

Thats a good point the 60 odd year period where guns were slowly banned, was an incredibly turbulent time, to this day if you go to the wrong area you can still get possibly even killed for voicing your opinion if your protestant/catholic unionist/separatist on the wrong side of the divide.


Ryotknife If you don't think there's accusations of institutional racism in the police, or racial tensions in the UK, or crime in general you have a story book idea of the UK. We just don't allow all this to carry on with everyone pimped out like their ready for a mission on saints row.

Also population density? are you aware how small the Uk is compared to how many people live here. How much immigration there is. We also have gangs, but again because of gun control they are not armed to the teeth.

"does your nations suffer the same gang problems, has the same diverse population, organized crime, borders that make it impossible to stop illegal goods from getting in the country, population density across the nation, police response times, and a culture of mistrust towards law enforcement among certain communities due to the police being harsher on that community than normal?" In short yes (excluding the borders thing) which again reinforces the point, why on earth are you justifying such easy avaliablity of arms in your country with all these problems?

 

[Thyunda]

TL;DR: Our history is different from others, yes, and our outlook on many things needs to change, but guns isn't really one of them. The Constitution and all parts of it are still relevant today because they're simple enough to be taken as ideals that can be interpreted and aren't solid laws. I've never heard anyone use "Socialist" as an actual insult outside of political maneuvering, and we've already established the United States politicians are goddamned idiots, and there were only 606 accidental deaths from firearms in the United States in 2010, compared to about 20,000 suicides and 10,000 homicides. While you have a point on a lot of things, guns are a part of the culture of the United States and have been since the founding of our country. They represent more than just our ability to shoot things, and are important to us, much like the Royal Family and Tea are to you. Culture may change in time, but it's going to take either time or a country-wide tragic event for it to do so. I, for one, am not in favor of restricting the freedoms of millions based on the actions of a few people.

I read the whole thing and the TLR. I'm nice that way.

Not being American, most American discourse I witness is between journalists and politicians, so yeah, I meant socialist being used pretty exclusively in those circles. I rather imagine American teenagers are just as likely to call each other much worse names than Socialists.
There are too many tragic events in the US. It's unnecessary. If we were talking about cars, a comparison often drawn, then I would be on the other side of the fence. Right now people in this country are somewhat divided. I live in a dying industrial town. The people here despise the royal family. These people are miners' families and former potters in a city where both industries no longer exist, and the sight of wealthy inbreds doing nothing all day really just angers them. I quite like the royal family. The escapades of Prince Harry amuse me. I also drink tea a lot, but if tea mutated and started causing the population to spread a virulent strain of the T-Virus, I would (hah I just noticed 'tea virus') be among the first to call for its banning.

I understand America's unique history. I understand the gun's place in culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darra_Adam_Khel

I saw this town on an episode of Michael Palin's Himalaya, and it was mentioned how startlingly rare gun crime actually is in this town. The culture is apparently retribution-based, and people are raised with a deep-seated respect for their weaponry - which is why the guns are ALL handcrafted and all treated as masterwork.

Now I think that's how it should be. If guns were more...personal...and you couldn't just sign some papers, wait a few days, and have a factory-manufactured handgun. Guns demand respect, and I just don't think the American society quite understands that.

 

[Asmundr]

"To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens"
~Adolf Hitler

With that, and the second amendment of the constitution of the United States of America...I'm keeping my guns.

If the nation itself is being invaded I'm assuming the military itself has failed to protect the borders.

So do you really think an armed untrained populace with a few people who may have combat or maybe hunting experience would stand a chance against a fully trained modern military that's obviously already defeated your professional armed forces in battles.

When they have Apache's, Jets, Tanks, APC's, Infantry with access to body Armour, rocket launchers, mortars, grenades, light machine guns and artillery strikes. Gas and other forms of chemical weapons. Napalm, cruise missiles, laser designated bunker strikes. And if it comes to it tactical nuclear missiles.

Yer good luck with that, a 100 years ago maybe.

You do realize that as soon as the United States uses its own military against its population its no longer a legitimate government right? That would be a massive violation of their oaths of office and thus nullify any power they would truly have. Any move made afterwords by the officials could be ignored by the people seeing as they no longer lawfully hold their positions in government.

The United States Constitution clearly defines the rights regulated to the States and to the People. Anything else not specifically stated to belong to the State falls under the category of belonging to the populace. It is a sort of trap, one to ensure that if any right guaranteed to the People were breached by its Government that the government at the time would no longer hold power legitimately.

Furthermore, you underestimate the power of guerrilla fighters. To stop a insurgency in the United States, if such gun law were passed and a revolution happened, would require violation even the Constitution even more. Do the math.

As an added bonus, current body armor used by the military cannot stand up against the rounds used in most hunting rifles. The hardware you mentioned costs a lot of money to field, use, and replace which would but a burden on this countries economy. Finally, nukes render land, air, and water unusable so nuking a sections of the Untied States to quell the rebellion would do more harm then good as it would render population centers and agricultural areas uninhabitable and unusable.

The government that allowed such actions to take place would essentially rule over ashes.

Now, considering that a foreign invader where to be the ones attacking and occupying the United States most of the above would apply. Maintaining an occupation on foreign soil is costly and only a handful of nations could pull off landing forces, let alone maintaining an occupation. The 2nd Amendment allows for states to draw up militias to act as reserves or supplementary forces during such an invasion. The the militia also act as a mainline force if the normal military is either absent or undermanned, essentially turning the bulk of the United States population into soldiers. This would ramp up the difficulty of occupying the U.S. even more. It'd be like invading and trying to wage a ground war on Japan circa 1945 or China now.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

So basically screw the guy on here who's saying he lives in a hell hole, and anyone else in the country who does not live in a safe area and the police are not required to directly protect them?

Ya do know it's law enforcement officers themselves who've argued in favor of this ruling, because otherwise their jobs become nightmarish in avoiding litigation, right?

And again, I have a solution. It comes in many calibers, but it has a similar effect regardless. That's how I chose to protect my home.

Lets hope your not one of the unfortunate ones.

Well, I am. I suffer from mild depression.

I know in some states there is no yearly mental health checks of any kind on gun owners

That would be prohibitively expensive for over 80 million gun owners. Also, I don't think ANY states have that policy.

Please explain to me how peoples "right" to bear arms justify s the widespread ownership of weapons with such little restriction that its almost a certainly you are putting weapons at the hands of the mentally unstable.

"Please explain to me how peoples "right" against unreasonable search and seizure justifies the criminals who get free because they can get off on a technicality?"

Our police officers manage to function very effectively whilst dealing with the resposibilty to protect the public, as does Canada and many other major country's.

I did not mean unfortunate like that, I meant unfortunate to live in an area where someone has a breakdown and goes on a shooting spree, but to be honest I think you have purposefully skirted round the issue as you have no answer to it.

"That would be prohibitively expensive for over 80 million gun owners" so your justification is there are too many to properly enforce monitoring. WHICH IS EXACTLY MY POINT, this is not a toy. This is a tool designed to Kill or seriously injure. It should be vigorously monitored and there should be numerous checks and that's if you choose to allow them at all.

Also again you totally ignored my point, gun ownership is so easy the USA is putting weapons in the hands of dangerous individuals who have or will develop mental issues. How is it justified ease of access to the many when that same ease of access put weapons in the hands of the guy who shot up Virginia Tech?

""Please explain to me how peoples "right" against unreasonable search and seizure justifies the criminals who get free because they can get off on a technicality?"" I don't understand you here what are you trying to say?

 

[Mazza35]

I would continue living my gun-free life.

This actually already happened here in Australia. We had one of those massacres go down in a place called Port Arthur, not far from where I live. About 35 people dead if memory serves. Within a couple of week they passed a law banning private ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and tightened controls. There were large scale buy-back schemes and voluntary hand-ins.

Gun crime went way down and we haven't had another massacre since.

Funny, that.

Mind you, how many massacres have we ever had even before Port Arthur?
And I'm fairly sure crimes went up, not firearm related crimes, but home invasions and other violent crimes :/

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

snip

Please see post 190 of me talking to PZF you've misunderstood and I've made all my points there so if you disagree, we will just have to disagree.