Jarpie

9 minutes ago, VillaChris said:

Get Woy back....took qualification to the last game didn't he?

Yeah but our attack was so inefficient under him, imo we were closer in 1998 qualification when we'd gone to playoffs against Yugoslavia if we'd won Hungary in the last game.

"Going into the last match, Finland would have needed a win at home to Hungary to earn a place in the play-offs. They led the game 1–0 going into injury time, but scored an own goal, and once again the dreams of qualification were over."

In late 90s and early 2000s we probably had our best football generation with Litmanen, Tainio, Kolkka, Johansson etc.

Finland lost again, and even as armchair watcher I can see exactly where the problem is with tacticts, they try to play too fancy when they should be playing more direct and simple because the skill-level just doesn't cut it.

And we hired him to be our manager couple years ago because...?

Want to know why people hates the media? It's one thing to attack Trump or his supporters but this is a new low:

3 hours ago, Keyblade said:

Racism, misogyny etc are not buzzwords and relegating them to such speaks volumes about this movement and people who sympathize with it. For people who are supposedly tired of political correctness and being silenced, they certainly love to do so whenever they are called out on their rhetoric or somebody says or does something they don't agree with. God forbid for example a football player decides to kneel during the national anthem in protest...sack him! Get out of the country! Gee, I wonder what happened to MUH FREEZE PEACH.

What does one have to do to be called out on bigotry short of dressing up in a white hood and cross and lynching people? Whatever it is, Donald Trump has ticked almost every box and a very good chunk of his supporters do as well. The whole 'we're struggling' line doesn't wash and is quite frankly a weak excuse from people who routinely demonize African Americans who are doing just as bad if not worse. Are they yelling from ivory towers too? When they complain and protest about racism in the form of BLM and others it's met with vehement opposition from the right. Maybe if they were compassionate and were active in the fight against oppression of all kinds instead of the chief opponents of it, people could be sympathetic to them. As it is, it sounds like a bunch of weak excuses to justify a horrible choice.

I agree that it's his right to protest that way if he wants to, and so have said many conservatives, such as James Woods. I saw a lot of white highly educated people in the media and social media warriors (who many were young white students or well-to-do people, such as people in the film- and other media industries) demonizing Trump and his supporters, and not to forget Clinton calling Trump's supporters "Basket of Deplorables". For example The West Wing actors, such as Bradley Whitford calling Trump an utter moron. Who do you think who had the winning strategy? It also worked so well for the Remain-campaign too, don't you think? It'll surely work perfectly when there's next elections in Germany, France and Netherlands!

Those people were the ones I meant. Are there problems in the USA? Sure, but when ordinary common people, many of who are blue-collar people, sees white highly educated people, many from the different medias calling them racist, misogynists etc. they'll see people in ivory towers throwing temper tantrums who are divorced from the reality.

Time to drop some truthbombs.

For Hillary supporters (or anti-Trump), are you really surprised that demonizing half of the voters and their candidate as racist, misogynistic and all other buzzwords which are now "in" didn't work? Especially when many of you come across as smug and self-important. People who are struggling to make ends meet, and who's cities/communities have been going worse might not really care about your buzzwords, which you sling from your ivory towers. That's how people sees you, and for a good reason.

Gee, I wonder if attacking people without college-degrees as being dumb and with the above-mentioned buzzwords might cause backlash...especially if your elitist candidate comes across as smug, entitled, self-centered, arrogant and has been mired in scandals for three decades now...also don't be surprised if they decide to vote for the other guy instead just for the spite of it.

Also for those who might be whining about "MUH POPULISM!", ALL politics is populism, Hillary tried to pander to the blacks, latinos and women with the populism they thought would work for them, but exit polls shows that it didn't work. 54% of the white women voters didn't vote for Hillary and that should tell you something. IIRC more latinos voted for Trump than for Romney four years ago, same with asians and blacks.

Get ready to get triggered, haters!

Finally got my rifle from the repairs, and took it to the range to adjust the scope. Will get to hunt within couple of weeks or so when my parents have settled down on their new place.

Tikka T3 Forest, .222rem, for hunting small game and birds.

On 23.10.2016 at 20:03, Chindie said:

The car comparison is a complete red herring.

How many of those motor vehicle deaths result from someone intentionally running someone down? Compare that to the number resulting from someone intentionally firing a gun at someone.

It's also fairly difficult to make an argument that a gun is as useful as a car. cars are absolutely dangerous, it's why you require training and a licence to use one and the roads are heavily legislated. But you do a lot with a car and most deaths result from accidents or negligence. The world can't exist as it does now without fast reliable modes of transportation. Guns? It's sole purpose is to injure and kill. That can have its uses as a civilian. You might hunt. But today hunting for the developed world is a pastime, very few people need to hunt. You might live somewhere with firearms and feel the need to defend yourself. Chances are you'll never need to do that and if you do is unlikely you'll ever do so effectively. So yes, cars are dangerous. But they have a multitude of uses. Guns? Nah. A small number of civilian professions may have then as a tool occasionally needed, but the general populous doesn't need one. Cars? Most people might need one.

It's a red herring.

The same can be said of knives and the like. Whilst a knife can stab someone, you use them every day at home, and some physical jobs will use them day to day. It's also a common argument, but with merit, that stabbing someone is a much more difficult action than pulling a trigger. You have to be close, if the victim is aware potentially you're in a physical tussle, and the actual act of stabbing someone is mentally more challenging for most people than pulling a trigger where you are removed from the action (of course you can't account for the disturbed but that is true for anything).

The issue also arises that gun deaths aren't done solely by 'idiots and lunatics'. They're done by normal people who are angry, people who make an honest mistake, and people who are tired, depressed, upset... If you have the mother of all fights with your wife and you know there's a gun in the drawer for 'when a burglar turns up' its very easy to reach over and do something you'll never take back. If you come home and find your partner in bed with your best mate that pistol in the garage for target practice with the lads is suddenly a great tool for taking out your rage. If you wake up on the middle of the night to noises downstairs and the fear kicks in the revolver under the bed is the first thing you grab and your sleep addled brain you fire at the burglar in the kitchen only to find with the lights on its your son having a snack. If life starts to turn on you and everything is going wrong and you feel like you can't keep on, that shotgun is the solution to all your pain. Or maybe it's the device to show the world just how pissed off you are. We live in a stressful world, people snap. It's easier to attack en masse with a gun. Finland might be different, Canada famously has more guns per capita than the US but less gun violence, so environment matters, but that danger is always there and any gun violence that could be prevented by them being gone is a good thing.

The general population doesn't need guns. There is a dishonesty to the arguments that they do imo. People might enjoy having them, their hobby might involve it, but someone's hobby being off the table is a small price to pay to remove that danger from homes. I live in the UK, we have some gun violence from illegal firearms and occasional incidents from legally owned ones (given how strict our laws are on owning any its exceptionally low), but I've never felt the need to own one, and I've never felt in danger of needing one. I find it absolutely astonishing that the likes of the US allow civilians to own a version of a gun most associated with jungle combat.

To be jackass for a bit, does it really matter how people causes harm or kills other people, if you want to prevent deaths? If you want to protect people from stupidity or crazy people, why aren't you ready to sacrifice a bit of your convinience by banning most people from driving cars or motorbikes, and instead force them to use public transport? Most bigger cities have great public transport system, so it would be only minor inconvinience for most people to save potentially hundreds if not thousands of people from harm.

One could easily argue, do people really need fast sport cars? Why not ban them? People can drive with them really really fast and cause crashes. Everyone should be happy with the car which goes just 80km per hour, who needs to drive 140 kmh? but someone's hobby being off the table is small price to pay to remove that danger from the roads. Also do you think people who gets hit by a car care if the driver did it intentionally, due drunk driving or just being reckless or careless?

I just don't think gun control works. Last spring there was a case where customer with concealed carry permit saved at least couple lives in the USA by shooting axe-wielding lunatic, and I bet those couple people are happy that there was someone to save them, and this is not solitary case. If someone comes at me with somekind of weapon, be it knife, axe or firearm, you can bet your ass I'd like to be armed so I can defend myself but they've made it impossible in Finland. Even if it's just a very very remote possibility, but you never know what might happen, also I'll side with the individual (rights) in vast majority cases as long as I think they're reasonable - and yes, me (and anyone) being able to be self-reliant and able to protect themselves is reasonable for me.

When it comes to hunting, there are 300,000 people in Finland who has hunting license, and vast majority of them are probably at least semi-active, as I probably mentioned, for example, they do a lot of important work to keep number of wolves, lynxes, bears etc in check in northern Finland so the herds of the reindeer herders are kept safe from the predators. If the predators would be free to spread and grow into too large numbers, it could easily ruin the livelihood of the people who relies on reindeers, which is a very traditional livelyhood in there and with the sami people. I imagine it's similar with the sheep herders in UK.

When it comes to fully automatic weapons like machine guns, assault rifles, submachine guns etc, I think firearm enthusiast should be able to own them, but due nature of those weapons, only after having passed somekind of training and test that they know how to operate them, and storing them properly, such as very secure safes etc.

I don't think we'll ever agree on this, and I don't think any of us will change our opinions so it's probably moot trying to even argue this.

On 23.10.2016 at 19:57, Michelsen said:

Gun control isn't, and has never been, about banning all guns for everyone. Just make sure machine guns are kept away from people who have, y'know, no practical need or reason to kill tens of people in a matter of seconds, and perhaps generally make guns less accessible to the general public than cans of Dr Pepper. 

Yeah, that's why some people in the EU are trying to ban law-abiding citizens owning semi-automatic weapons, not machine guns or fully automatic weapons, but semi-auto weapons, such as rifles or shotguns.

34 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Can't see the fascination with guns. If it's part of your job then fair enough, but for people to be able to buy any gun is crazy.

Mind if I ask where you guys live in? It's easy to speak when you don't know the realities of, for example remote places where people need firearms for self-defense from wilderness, for example.

What about hunting? They mostly do it for pass-time. Hunters keeps the population of some species in check, such as wolves or bears who otherwise could pose danger to the people, or would cause a lot of damage and lost earnings for a lot of people in northern Finland where people gets their living by reindeer herding. Another great example are invasious species such as minks or wild boards in southern Finland where they are not native in. They are not paid, and the state would have to spend fortune to pay people to hunt those species.

AFAIK same goes for many places in the US, where some species would pose a threat for people unless their numbers are kept in check. Also Skeet shooting is popular olympic sport, and many people starts it as a hobby and not a profession, same goes for biathlon which is huge sport in Germany, France, Norway etc.

In Finland reservist volunteering and training is considered as a very valuable pass-time by our defense force, and the volunteers trains on their own time with their own guns, partly by target shooting with semi-auto firearms. I know it probably sounds silly to your ears, but Finland has border with Russia, one of the major powers with whom we had war(s) during WW2 and more or less contentious time during Cold War. They are stable for now, but you never know what future brings.

22 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Sunderland get everything they deserve, the way they handled the Johnson affair was disgusting and if go down they will be in a position even worse than us with some of clowns on their books

How did they handle it? Didn't fire him when the allegations was brought up (or he was arrested)?

I would almost always side with caution, innocent until proven guilty and all that.

On 19.10.2016 at 04:30, Dom_Wren said:

Was supposed to go yesterday.....didnt make it  gutted, so busy havent really had a chance. cant wait for thanksgiving to get some range time in.

 

@Jarpie post pics of those guns bruv!

 

 

This is my shotgun, old Baikal IJ-18, 16 gauge from '61. Has quite a kick and recoil though, might put padding in the stock.

My (brand-new, mind you) rifle had broken hammer or hammer spring, so it went back for repairs. Grumble grumble.

On 19.10.2016 at 19:12, villakram said:

All well and good that you are a well adjusted human, but we have an awful lot of data that clearly shows how guns are a bad idea due to humans being less than well adjusted quite often.

You should move here or contact the NRA and set up a local branch. They'll do it if there's money in it... oh, and help you take back your freedoms.

Based on the statistics I found from quick search in google, there were more deaths from motor vehicle accidents in the USA than from the firearms, do you still trust those same people with the license to drive a car who you don't think are not well-adjusted enough to own firearms? People who are crazy or stupid will find a way to **** things up, if it's not gun, then it's car, knife or axe etc. You can do actually more harm with the knife than with the gun on many circumstances. Sneak behind people in the crowded place and stab them in the back, it's gonna take a while to people notice anything but with the weapon they'll all hear the gunshot so people can take cover or run away, but it's not as "sexy" news as "OMG SCARY GUNSHOTS!"

In Finland we have a lot of guns, but very few deaths by firearms, afaik it's something like 10-20 deaths on average per year. We have more deaths due motor vehicle accidents, and I've never heard anyone demanding much stricter laws concerning who can drive, also more people are killed with knives than guns, if the same people would carry guns, they'd just shoot each other instead of stabbing with the knife. The latest statistics I remember seeing/hearing was that something like 30% of shootings were done by legally owned firearms in Finland, which is very few when you look at the numbers.

For me it comes down to is it worth to restrict someone else's freedom to nanny the very few potential idiots or lunatics, and at least in Finland the gun owners have IMO proved that it's not.

13 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I don't know how but Sunderland have managed to worse our start last year. Officially the worst start for a premier league team this century.

seems we might have got a lucky escape with moyes!

I think Manure job and the failure in Spain broke him completely.

Just don't let them score ffs!

Vast majority of the hunting clubs lodges and the ranges are not in the inner city, and many times they're not close to the population, so they'd be easy pickings for criminals to go burglarize, even with the alarms etc as it'd take tens of minutes or even hour or two for law enforcement to arrive.

When it comes to self-defense, It's fine and dandy for people living in the city or suburb that it'd take minutes for cops to arrive, but people living outside of the cities or in the areas where they don't have law enforcement nearby, such as many places in northern finland, carrying weapon for self-defense would be a pretty darn good thing even if it's very remote chance that they'd need it. That being said, I'd probably have people having to go through training courses on how to handle weapons etc and have interviews with psychologists if they'd want carry permit, but with enough safe guards so there'd be proper "due process".

I am very much of an individualist who thinks that people should be at least able to be as self-reliant as possible, and rather have more freedoms than fewer. Smaller state/government would great too, I know, that's crazy idea in europe but as you said, people are dumbasses, so why would I trust them to govern and handle bureocracy?

16 minutes ago, villakram said:

Sure, but wouldn't it be safer if the guns stayed at the range given how irresponsible so many gun owners are? Or, make it mandatory for gun owners to insure their dangerous tools that they feel the need to have on their person in the vicinity of others. Hence the fabled market would facilitate change in the behavior of gun owners. 

The laws/restrictions are not needed against the guns... it's people that are the problem, and when people have problems they invariably do dumb assed shit. 

They toyed with the idea putting guns to the ranges or hunting club lodges etc, and they came to one simple conclusion...can you guess what it is?

Edit: toyed with it in Finland.

Being new and proud owner of .222rem hunting firle and 16/70 old Bajkal, I can't wait to get to the range to take these out on a spin. Should be getting to hunt goose, ducks, hares etc in next month or so.

I read this topic through and there's couple things I gotta say. I've never understood the thinking "I can't understand why someone would enjoy/like/etc of something". I might not enjoy or want try to bungee jumping, race driving, parachute jumping, base climbing etc, but I can at least understand that someone else might like them.

@Dom_Wren likes to own and shoot "assault rifle", so how does it take something away from you if he buys one and shoots it on a range? Long range shooting is as respectable thing to do as someone playing rugby IMO.

Also if you can't step into someone else's shoes, it becomes very easy to justify to take away their thing, whatever that might be.

I'm jealous of americans second amendment, as we have IMO way too strict firearm laws here in Finland.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's lot more of this kind of stuff what Big Sam has done happening in the football world. Where there's money, there's always temptation to get slice of it.

I can't feel sorry for managers or players for getting shitcanned or having pressure, stress or expectations because A] they know what's involved with public job like that and B] they get great pay/compensation for it.

Lambert did mostly horrible job being our manager and he got paid fortunes for it. 

How the hell is Reilly still at the club? I thought he'd been kicked out when the takeover was completed. Based on what I've read, unbelievable he's still around.

29 minutes ago, Zatman said:

you underestimate the stupidity of football clubs

looks like Nzogbia just got a club and yesterday Balotelli got a move

Who are the idiots who gave N'Zogbia contract?

Here's the full quote from Skysports:

Quote

"Shortly before 7pm Everton thought they'd agreed a fee with Newcastle and terms with the player himself. But I'm hearing they then couldn't get hold of the player for a couple of hours - and that he didn't pick up Ronald Koeman's call. The medical room was set up, the contracts were drawn up. Then, they heard from Sissoko's representatives that he didn't want to join them."

Just now, villa4europe said:

Without going through every post anyone used the "he got cold feet when he thought it involved books" line yet?

Of course :P.

LOL, according to Sky, Everton had everything agreed with the player and Newcastle, even had plane ready to get him, but didn't answer the calls from Everton nor Koeman for couple of hours...then Spurs comes with the offer equaling Everton's and Sissoko informs Everton that he's not signing. Looks like he just used Everton to force Spurs' hand.

I wonder who were the two more they tried to get...shame that we couldn't get rid of Gabby and Richards, but very good transfer window nonetheless.

Everton looks to have hijacked Moussa Sissoko deal from Newcastle. 30 million pounds, crazy.