Vancvillan

I think the calls for a start are a bit premature - there's a big difference between coming on for the last 30 and starting vs Burnley. Especially since those clearings in the woods will revel in trying to injure him.

I agree with this - unless one of Arsenal, Spurs or West Ham start sliding down (and we maintain current form) then 8th is our ceiling this season. I think Spurs have about 14 games in hand, West Ham look solid, and Arsenal - well yeah they could **** up anything. Moving into that 7th / 6th / 5th spot the following season would be another leap forward - it'll likely take us more than one attempt. Even in the best of scenarios cracking the top four from there could again take a few seasons. Slow and steady progress should be hailed for the achievement that it is given that we were drawing with Stoke City in the Championship this time three years ago.

To be fair Norwich had 11 unfit players. Baffled as to why Deano started them all though. Boom. Boom.

I think you're being reductive with that statement and you know it.

I live in BC, Canada and it's almost 4 times the size of Minnesota and with slightly less people. So four times the size of the UK, with the population of way less than London living in it. When I go hunting / camping I take a satellite messenger, a chainsaw to clear fallen trees on a trail, a kit so we can spend at least two extra nights sleeping rough and the tires on my truck cost more than my first two cars combined. When we lived in the UK I took my Canadian wife camping in Newquay in a Mini Metro and we pitched a tent with about 600 other people. No wonder she was confused. To paraphrase your post, your environment defines culture to a notable degree. You'd probably be hard pushed to find a country that doesn't have some weird sounding laws.

If you mean they own them "just because" I'd like to hope there's a bit more to their mental process. If you're asking why I'd like to hear from them it's because we haven't in over a thousand pages and again I'd like to hope there's some kind of thought behind it. While to me it's like Brexit or choosing to live Sunderland in that it's beyond my comprehension, I generally find people have reasons I haven't thought of once you talk to them. Whether you think those reasons are valid or not is another discussion.

Semi autos in 223 (what the AR15 is) are considered decent ranch guns for varmint control (Cayotes mostly). First Nations people in Canada sometimes hunt with the SKS (similar calibre semi auto) though bolt guns are far more popular since they don't jam and are typically more accurate. In fact hunting deer with 223 is illegal in a lot of US states. There are some "three gun" tournaments when people compete for speed and accuracy with pistols, shotguns and rifles, and the AR15 is popular because of the modular design. Basically hyper-niche use cases where an alternative could be easily argued for and none of which this family falls in to. I'm all for trying to see someone else's side but I have a hard time with justifying ownership of centrefire semi-automatic firearms - if someone claims a farm subsidy (usually requires a bunch of conditions) there could be a case where those people are excempt from a ban. I'd love to hear someone on here argue for them though?

Can't see him coming to us for a multitude of reasons on both sides, but will be interesting to see where he ends up. If not Italy, I could see the likes of Arsenal and West Ham being possible? Which sounds nuts.

He's the kind of player that if someone else had him and bought him on in a game against us, we'd be moaning that "we don't have any of that kind of sub that always seems to pop up with an important goal". I think he suffers from being decent enough but looking like he doesn't know what his feet are doing half the time. Kind of like how Micheal Johnson ran like he had a rod up him. Doesn't look right but gets the job done. Unless he actively wants to leave for more first team football or his injury has ruined him, I'd say keep.

This would be a great way to end the this thread.

I live in BC too! On the island now but spent a good deal on time in Vancouver. Firearms owners in Canada are legally not allowed to own them for self defence. They can only be for hunting or target shooting. As for politics - the federal Liberals have managed to pass the buck on a hand gun ban and also make the “assault weapons” ban largely toothless. And for military - if you own more than one your probably better equipped than our army. I think we have about three helicopters and a blow up dingy. In BC I’d say it’s mostly hunters that you see at the gun range, and then some very expensive target rifles. Oh, and guys in their 70’s who dress up as cowboys and have six shooter competitions in fake western high streets - which is probably the best and only argument for personal possession of handguns because it’s absolutely amazing that this exists.

If they get beat by the barcodes we can send it to Leicester - they might need it.

Just been on the Leceister board and they can't believe how bad they are to get beaten by dross like us. Not only are we shite, we cheat and dive all the time too. Pretty funny to see these entitled pricks thinking they're still good enough to compete at the top end, despite selling one of their best players every season. Delusional.

Crazy thought, but I'd bet Danny Ings wants to go and play football in Newcastle about as much I want to go on holiday there.

You are Keinan Davis and I claim my five pounds.

For your own sake, stay out of the Leon Bailey thread.

You can charm your young nieces and nephews by blowing a Malteaser up in the air and making it hover a few inches above your mouth. Try that with a **** Bounty.

That bench tells us a lot about our progression over the last two years... But City could field two teams in the Premier League and both would finish in the top five. I'd bite your hand off for a draw.

We can be a possession-based team against the mid and low tier teams, but with elite opposition or mid-tiers who rely on possession (Brighton, to some extend Palace) he is incredibly effective when we need another option. Impossible to fault the performance today - and I think he's a great squad option who starts when you need him.

Thanks for your thoughts. Let me start by saying I agree with everything except the bit in bold. It's worth mentioning that I was born in the UK and lived there (mostly) until I was 26, so I grew up in that culture. I now live in Canada, where firearm possession is much more common, but I'd still say the majority of Canadians again agree with your thoughts above too (again, excluding the bit in bold). Why does anyone need a firearm? The most common answer here would be hunting. In the UK that means a bunch of dukes in red coats, sat on horses chasing a fox. In Canada, 90% of the country is wild public lands. I get why hunting doesn't happen in England - it's because there is nowhere to actually hunt. Two counterpoints usually come up at this point: 1. "Why hunt? Why not buy your meat from the supermarket / butcher, or go vegan if you care that much?" I can go into more detail if you like, but I've done a fair bit of research on farming a slaughter houses, and after spending a couple of years living on a low meat diet and considering veganism, I reached a point where I realised that even a plant-based diet inflicts a lot of suffering on the environment, animals, and their habitat. Hunting, combined with meat from a regenerative agriculture farm is the best I felt I could do in my circumstance. For others the best they can do is go vegan. Some people don't think about it at all - and that's their choice and I'm fine with that. 2. "Why use firearms? That's not fair." The short answer is efficacy. Its important to me to have the best chance for a clean and ethical kill, and a 30 calibre bullet is the best tool for that job on large game. I can go further into any of the above and please understand this is a place I came to that I felt was the best I could do in the environment I live in - everyone makes their own choices and that won't hurt my feelings if they're very different. It's not the easiest choice either - hunting is hard and the learning curve was steeper than anything else I've ever done. Hopefully that explains why I own firearms, and given that I have two small children why I'm so invested in laws around acquisition, possession and storage. As a final note - throwing around untrue info can lead to bad public policy. The Canadian government banned the AR-15 two years ago, and is implementing a $750m buy-back plan. Great news, right? Except the law was designed to pander to people who don't understand anything about firearms. It banned the AR-15 (and others) by name rather than action and calibre - meaning that you can still buy a semi-automatic rifle that shoots 223 Rem with a five shot magazine (by far the most common AR-15 set up), as long as it's not called "AR-15". People who don't own guns cheered - but it's just a waste of time and money. Why not ban all centrefire semi-automatic rifles? Answer - because it's a riskier political move. But I say do something with conviction, not rhetoric, and then let the people decide come election time. It'd be like introducing a low carbon bill that bans the Ram Pickup truck (and spends public money buying them back) but not the Grand Cherokee or Durango, which use the same 5.7 Hemi engine. Ban all non-commercial vehicles over a certain displacement and everyone knows where they stand - whether you agree with it or not is a matter for the polls. If someone wants to ban all guns that's fine with me - as long as they understand the ramifications and do it with conviction.

To be fair you may have a shade of pedigree when it comes to hyping up youth players. Though I do appreciate and enjoy your info and enthusiasm.

Yeah it's hard for me to get my head around. Personally I have a hard time with any justification for having loaded firearm within city limits, but unfortunately that's not the way the wind blows in a lot of US states. Thankfully I don't live in them, but I'd still welcome good faith unemotional conversation with someone who does and agrees with open or concealed carry. The bit in bold is pretty hard to find, and that's the scariest part for me.

The facts matter - both in terms of legality and how the case is viewed by the public. An automatic weapon would have been illegal for Rittenhouse to carry. While the difference between semi-automatic and automatic firearms may seem insignificant to you, they aren't in terms of the law. On public perception - I'm guessing you're UK-based, whereas the culture and understanding relating firearms is widely different in the US. Someone carrying an automatic firearm would be viewed as wildly different to someone carrying a semi-automatic by a decent number of Americans (not all, but a significant enough portion). Do you need to agree with either the law or difference in perception? Of course not. I personally think the US lax laws on the subjects of safe storage and transportation, and the lack of restrictions around acquisition (age, character references, etc) are incredibly problematic. The problem with brushing away "alternative facts" like they don't matter is that it polarizes the conversation even further, and meaningful discussion around public policy changes involves two sides using two different narratives and agreeing on nothing. And they hate each other even more. Look at Brexit, climate change - pick your poison. So there's a social cost (division), and then often a legislative response that is designed to pander to rhetoric - which wastes time and public money rather than addressing a problem.

"Hello is that the internet police? I'd like to report a murder."