I'm not the one that said it was "pointless", you used that word. She [Arden] said it would not prevent similar attacks.

Never said it would, could or did. I said "kinda is", IOW to some extent it should.

Why do you always accuse me of something instead of asking? Weird that. I'm only repeating what she [Arden] said. I cannot move the goalposts on a narrative she created.

Once AGAIN. I did not make the claim it would not prevent this attack, SHE [ARDEN] DID.

You seemed to, as though you confused otmmyboy2's response with mine. Not important I suppose.

Woman, Mother of someone that was a victim of gun crime, said that gun licensing is very strict and very stringent but more needs done like a re-statement of the legislation. Not sure how a restatement of the legislation would stop criminals.

Dan Curly from NARGC on now.

Here it comes.

The retired Garda saying once you get your license anything can happen between then and renewal and how Gardaí are not psychologist.

The idea of mental checks before licensing was raised by a couple of Doctors some years back (2012 I believe) and it was dismissed even by his own piers as unworkable and still not helping to prevent the unpredictable.

Its over now.

It was a short segment. Good to hear someone from the shooting side actual talk (although none of it was live) but I still don't understand why the shooting groups here are not more protective. By that I mean we get lumped in with criminals and that lie of a number about illegal guns so why not hit back saying we are not criminals, have no connection to criminality and attacks on gun owners is a result of the impotence of the Government and its bodies to adequately deal with gun violence.

Eh, nope. Over a week since me last reply and you are once again trying to argue a point I never made.

Nope again. You inferred such, and you used the word pointless, not I.

Its very relevant because, wait for it, I DIDN'T USE THE WORD.

Again, nope. Its clear that was your implication. You're desparately trying to apportion the use of this word to me when you used it, she said it, and this is all down to your inferrence. I mean seriously, I never said it, you and Arden did so why am I having to "defend" the use of something I never said on the basis thatt you want to push the narrative its "mine"?

You realise they're all under the one road traffic act?

Mellor - Then you change this to it wouldn’t have prevented this attack. Which is not the same thing, and not what she said. So no, you where just repeating, you were twisting the narrative yet again. And hilariously trying to deny it.

You keep accusing me of twisting the narrative, seemingly forcing me to defend a position I have not taken, in the hopes of deflecting from your complete bastardisation of the article, my replies, and your injection of your own narrative into what was said to the point you're making up stuff I said, claiming I said it, then when its shown I did not, you desparately try to claim I "meant it"! That is hilarious.

The problem here is you are so focused on the export of islamic terroroists you're missing the point. If she bans all islamic terrorists how will that prevent knife attacks such as this? Are islamic terrorists the only ones to carry out such attacks? You're so laser focused on the person that committed the attack that youre pigeon holing all future attacks into that category and assumign future attacks will would only be carried out by such people.

So when she says future legislation will not prevent similar attacks (simialr meaning the same as this one) she means the ability to deport someone "immediately" will not stop some nutter (already a citizen, not know to police, etc) form carrying out an attack of this nature. The hilarious part is you don't see this and are only focused on single person in the context of a single event.

Not sure if you're having trouble ith English, not reading my replies, or simply ignoring the multiple times I've said it but I DIDN'T SAY IT, SHE DID.

Stop the bus, he finally gets it. So like SHE SAID, you're saying that if such deportation laws were in effect at the time of this attack and it was some other nutter the new legislation would not prevent it? Weird.

So what SHE SAID, and what I'm repeated (of what SHE SAID) is correct? Then what has this last three weeks of crap been about. Why it takes you a week or more at a time to try and twist, and bastardise what was said and invent stuff that was not said in a bid to "win" an argument that is not exist is beyond me.

Nobody argued it was. You made that assumption, accused me of it, I told you, you were inferring something that was not implied, and you still ran with it. HEre we are three weeks later still arguing the same redundant point.

Once AGAIN, nobody did. This "snuck" is not working so perhaps move onto another.

By all means, enlighten me.

Obviously I'll have to wait for your explanation above so my thoughts may change based on your reply. However I'll go this route.

I'm going to use the word Electricity. Instead of "confusing" things with words like energy, power, etc. Its [electricity] generated in plants and imported from abroad. EVs run on electricity. The current "demand" (by demand I mean the required amount of electricity) to keeps the lights on in all homes, businesses, street lights, basically anything that uses electricity as well as charge the current level of EVs is "X" percent. With the addition of over a million EVs (estimated) by 2030 and the abolition of petrol and Diesel sales this number may increase dramatically after 2030, are you saying that the demand (by demand I mean the required amount of electricity) to do all the above (to keeps the "lights on" in all homes, businesses, street lights, basically anything that uses electricity as well as charge the current level of EVs) will not rise above "X" percent?

The articles/studies I referenced above say the opposite. Its why I ask.

No need for apologies, I just thought it was odd you replied to others threads but not this one. Its not a schedule btw its the time frame bewteen posts. Makes it hard to keep track, but you're right its not a big deal and frankly I'm long past the point of caring or being interested in the topic.

I think I understand it now, so thanks for that.

I'm not doubting it, I'm simply not educated enough on the subject. To me I only think of it in terms of electricity. For example you said we're a net exporter, yet we continue to import. Why is that? I understand that a net exporter is someone who exports more than they import, but to me this seems redundant. If we can export more than we import then why do we import either at all or to the extent we do? Could we simply stop exporting, reduce or eliminate import and be more self reliant and would this not bring down prices?

Right. So I'm assuming this is a seasonal issue rather than daily weekly. IOW the Government don't "run down the shops on a Sunday morning" to get more electricity. They commit to importing/buying it from abroad during say Winter when wind/soalr may be down.

Is this the reason we import nuclear power from France. IOW its not a green source (in the traditional way we might think of green energy) and is more relaible so we use it "top up" during Winter and then during summer we have abundant green energy we can export and these exports outweigh what we bring in?

If so then, barring the obvious ban on nuclear plants, would it not make sense to invest what we pay for in imports into a plant of our own and eliminate the need to import at all?