On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:21:16 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:07:19 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
One day America will grow up....

How about you google the phrase 'homeowner shoots intruder'?

Do you have a point? At least our intruders aren't armed.

My point is that if and intruder comes into my home, it doesn't
matter if he is carrying a knife or a gun or a big stick. I have
the right to be armed against that intruder. The very act of him
coming into my home tells me he has some sort of malicious
intent. I want him in the hospital, or dead.

So maybe you have no family, maybe you live in a safe
little gated community... howz about you google 'store owner
shoots robber'. Ten million results. Same point as above.
HTH.

You completely ignored what I just said. Our intruders are not armed.

--
You can't please everyone. But it IS possible to **** 'em ALL off at the same time.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:03:10 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

Our intruders are not armed.

Never? With no weapons at all?

I suppose if I google UK armed robbery, I will come up with no hits.

On 3/16/2016 2:03 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:21:16 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:07:19 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
One day America will grow up....

How about you google the phrase 'homeowner shoots intruder'?

Do you have a point? At least our intruders aren't armed.

My point is that if and intruder comes into my home, it doesn't
matter if he is carrying a knife or a gun or a big stick. I have
the right to be armed against that intruder. The very act of him
coming into my home tells me he has some sort of malicious
intent. I want him in the hospital, or dead.

So maybe you have no family, maybe you live in a safe
little gated community... howz about you google 'store owner
shoots robber'. Ten million results. Same point as above.
HTH.

You completely ignored what I just said. Our intruders are not armed.

And yet another stupid statement. Get your head out of the sand why
don't you?

SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 2:03 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:21:16 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:07:19 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
One day America will grow up....

How about you google the phrase 'homeowner shoots intruder'?

Do you have a point? At least our intruders aren't armed.

My point is that if and intruder comes into my home, it doesn't
matter if he is carrying a knife or a gun or a big stick. I have
the right to be armed against that intruder. The very act of him
coming into my home tells me he has some sort of malicious
intent. I want him in the hospital, or dead.

So maybe you have no family, maybe you live in a safe
little gated community... howz about you google 'store owner
shoots robber'. Ten million results. Same point as above.
HTH.

You completely ignored what I just said. Our intruders are not armed.

And yet another stupid statement. Get your head out of the sand why
don't you?



For the most part, SN, he's right.

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:54:14 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:03:10 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

Our intruders are not armed.

Never? With no weapons at all?

I suppose if I google UK armed robbery, I will come up with no hits.

How many forcible felonies do you think they have?

On 3/16/2016 7:02 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 2:03 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:21:16 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:07:19 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
One day America will grow up....

How about you google the phrase 'homeowner shoots intruder'?

Do you have a point? At least our intruders aren't armed.

My point is that if and intruder comes into my home, it doesn't
matter if he is carrying a knife or a gun or a big stick. I have
the right to be armed against that intruder. The very act of him
coming into my home tells me he has some sort of malicious
intent. I want him in the hospital, or dead.

So maybe you have no family, maybe you live in a safe
little gated community... howz about you google 'store owner
shoots robber'. Ten million results. Same point as above.
HTH.

You completely ignored what I just said. Our intruders are not armed.

And yet another stupid statement. Get your head out of the sand why
don't you?



For the most part, SN, he's right.

Is that similar to being a little bit pregnant or sort of dead?

He made a statement, and that statement is false. There were no
qualifiers to the statement, just something posted as if it was fact.
The statement cannot be proven or verified as it's written. The onus for
clarity lies with the poster.

Oren Wrote in message:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:54:14 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:03:10 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

Our intruders are not armed.

Never? With no weapons at all?

I suppose if I google UK armed robbery, I will come up with no hits.

How many forcible felonies do you think they have?


There's no legal definition of 'felony' here, forced or requested.

Please define the expression.

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:14:05 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:54:14 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:03:10 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

Our intruders are not armed.

Never? With no weapons at all?

I suppose if I google UK armed robbery, I will come up with no hits.

How many forcible felonies do you think they have?


There's no legal definition of 'felony' here, forced or requested.

Interesting since it comes from English law
Early English Law. any crime punishable by death or mutilation and
forfeiture of lands and goods.

Please define the expression.

In the US, the short answer is a crime serious enough to merit more
than a year in jail.

This is from the Florida statutes
(1) The term €œfelony€� shall mean any criminal offense that is
punishable under the laws of this state, or that would be punishable
if committed in this state, by death or imprisonment in a state
penitentiary. €œState penitentiary€� shall include state correctional
facilities. A person shall be imprisoned in the state penitentiary for
each sentence which, except an extended term, exceeds 1 year.
(2) The term €œmisdemeanor€� shall mean any criminal offense that is
punishable under the laws of this state, or that would be punishable
if committed in this state, by a term of imprisonment in a county
correctional facility, except an extended term, not in excess of 1
year. The term €œmisdemeanor€� shall not mean a conviction for any
noncriminal traffic violation of any provision of chapter 316 or any
municipal or county ordinance.
(3) The term €œnoncriminal violation€� shall mean any offense that is
punishable under the laws of this state, or that would be punishable
if committed in this state, by no other penalty than a fine,
forfeiture, or other civil penalty. A noncriminal violation does not
constitute a crime, and conviction for a noncriminal violation shall
not give rise to any legal disability based on a criminal offense. The
term €œnoncriminal violation€� shall not mean any conviction for any
violation of any municipal or county ordinance. Nothing contained in
this code shall repeal or change the penalty for a violation of any
municipal or county ordinance.
(4) The term €œcrime€� shall mean a felony or misdemeanor.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 15:32:12 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:14:05 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:54:14 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:03:10 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

Our intruders are not armed.

Never? With no weapons at all?

I suppose if I google UK armed robbery, I will come up with no hits.

How many forcible felonies do you think they have?


There's no legal definition of 'felony' here, forced or requested.

Interesting since it comes from English law
Early English Law. any crime punishable by death or mutilation and
forfeiture of lands and goods.

Please define the expression.

In the US, the short answer is a crime serious enough to merit more
than a year in jail.

This is from the Florida statutes
(1) The term “felony” shall mean any criminal offense that is
punishable under the laws of this state, or that would be punishable
if committed in this state, by death or imprisonment in a state
penitentiary. “State penitentiary” shall include state correctional
facilities. A person shall be imprisoned in the state penitentiary for
each sentence which, except an extended term, exceeds 1 year.
(2) The term “misdemeanor” shall mean any criminal offense that is
punishable under the laws of this state, or that would be punishable
if committed in this state, by a term of imprisonment in a county
correctional facility, except an extended term, not in excess of 1
year. The term “misdemeanor” shall not mean a conviction for any
noncriminal traffic violation of any provision of chapter 316 or any
municipal or county ordinance.
(3) The term “noncriminal violation” shall mean any offense that is
punishable under the laws of this state, or that would be punishable
if committed in this state, by no other penalty than a fine,
forfeiture, or other civil penalty. A noncriminal violation does not
constitute a crime, and conviction for a noncriminal violation shall
not give rise to any legal disability based on a criminal offense. The
term “noncriminal violation” shall not mean any conviction for any
violation of any municipal or county ordinance. Nothing contained in
this code shall repeal or change the penalty for a violation of any
municipal or county ordinance.
(4) The term “crime” shall mean a felony or misdemeanor.


....and further (Florida)

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder;
manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery;
robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated
battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing,
placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other
felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence
against any individual.

You can use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony. Justified.

Bang Bang sum beach

SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 7:02 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 2:03 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:21:16 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:07:19 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
One day America will grow up....

How about you google the phrase 'homeowner shoots intruder'?

Do you have a point? At least our intruders aren't armed.

My point is that if and intruder comes into my home, it doesn't
matter if he is carrying a knife or a gun or a big stick. I have
the right to be armed against that intruder. The very act of him
coming into my home tells me he has some sort of malicious
intent. I want him in the hospital, or dead.

So maybe you have no family, maybe you live in a safe
little gated community... howz about you google 'store owner
shoots robber'. Ten million results. Same point as above.
HTH.

You completely ignored what I just said. Our intruders are not armed.

And yet another stupid statement. Get your head out of the sand why
don't you?



For the most part, SN, he's right.

Is that similar to being a little bit pregnant or sort of dead?


Nope.

He made a statement, and that statement is false. There were no
qualifiers to the statement, just something posted as if it was fact.
The statement cannot be proven or verified as it's written. The onus for
clarity lies with the poster.


Please allow me to explain anecdotally. Personally, I've heard of
burglaries in the UK in which the offenders were in possession of
a firearm. Vaguely- I couldn't tel you of a specific case
offhand.

I know of many Instances of homes having been burgled -I was
burgled once myself (that's an amusing story),- but none of those
instances included use of a firearm, or any weapon at
all.

The guy most probably has the same anecdotal experience which
tells both of us that if we came across a burglar in our home,
the likelihood of that person being armed is very
low.

The likelihood of that person having a firearm is so remote that
it isn't worth considering.

Do you understand now?



--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 3/17/2016 2:26 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 7:02 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 2:03 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:21:16 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:07:19 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
One day America will grow up....

How about you google the phrase 'homeowner shoots intruder'?

Do you have a point? At least our intruders aren't armed.

My point is that if and intruder comes into my home, it doesn't
matter if he is carrying a knife or a gun or a big stick. I have
the right to be armed against that intruder. The very act of him
coming into my home tells me he has some sort of malicious
intent. I want him in the hospital, or dead.

So maybe you have no family, maybe you live in a safe
little gated community... howz about you google 'store owner
shoots robber'. Ten million results. Same point as above.
HTH.

You completely ignored what I just said. Our intruders are not armed.

And yet another stupid statement. Get your head out of the sand why
don't you?



For the most part, SN, he's right.

Is that similar to being a little bit pregnant or sort of dead?


Nope.

He made a statement, and that statement is false. There were no
qualifiers to the statement, just something posted as if it was fact.
The statement cannot be proven or verified as it's written. The onus for
clarity lies with the poster.


Please allow me to explain anecdotally. Personally, I've heard of
burglaries in the UK in which the offenders were in possession of
a firearm. Vaguely- I couldn't tel you of a specific case
offhand.

I know of many Instances of homes having been burgled -I was
burgled once myself (that's an amusing story),- but none of those
instances included use of a firearm, or any weapon at
all.

The guy most probably has the same anecdotal experience which
tells both of us that if we came across a burglar in our home,
the likelihood of that person being armed is very
low.

The likelihood of that person having a firearm is so remote that
it isn't worth considering.

Do you understand now?



And that's fine, but it doesn't change what I said, which I believe to
be perfectly logically and correct. And I'm not suggesting that a
firearm is the only way for a criminal to arm themselves.

On 17/03/2016 20:17, SeaNymph wrote:
On 3/17/2016 2:26 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 7:02 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 2:03 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:21:16 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:07:19 -0000, 83LowRider
wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
One day America will grow up....

How about you google the phrase 'homeowner shoots intruder'?

Do you have a point? At least our intruders aren't armed.

My point is that if and intruder comes into my home, it doesn't
matter if he is carrying a knife or a gun or a big stick. I have
the right to be armed against that intruder. The very act of him
coming into my home tells me he has some sort of malicious
intent. I want him in the hospital, or dead.

So maybe you have no family, maybe you live in a safe
little gated community... howz about you google 'store owner
shoots robber'. Ten million results. Same point as above.
HTH.

You completely ignored what I just said. Our intruders are not
armed.

And yet another stupid statement. Get your head out of the sand why
don't you?



For the most part, SN, he's right.

Is that similar to being a little bit pregnant or sort of dead?


Nope.

He made a statement, and that statement is false. There were no
qualifiers to the statement, just something posted as if it was fact.
The statement cannot be proven or verified as it's written. The onus for
clarity lies with the poster.


Please allow me to explain anecdotally. Personally, I've heard of
burglaries in the UK in which the offenders were in possession of
a firearm. Vaguely- I couldn't tel you of a specific case
offhand.

I know of many Instances of homes having been burgled -I was
burgled once myself (that's an amusing story),- but none of those
instances included use of a firearm, or any weapon at
all.

The guy most probably has the same anecdotal experience which
tells both of us that if we came across a burglar in our home,
the likelihood of that person being armed is very
low.

The likelihood of that person having a firearm is so remote that
it isn't worth considering.

Do you understand now?



And that's fine, but it doesn't change what I said, which I believe to
be perfectly logically and correct. And I'm not suggesting that a
firearm is the only way for a criminal to arm themselves.

Indeed, you'd be surprised at the damage that can be done from a well
aimed scone ;-)

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:29:04 -0500
"83LowRider" wrote:

Aardvark wrote:

You completely ignored what I just said. Our intruders are not
armed.

Please allow me to explain anecdotally. Personally, I've heard of
burglaries in the UK in which the offenders were in possession of
a firearm. Vaguely- I couldn't tel you of a specific case
offhand.

I know of many Instances of homes having been burgled -I was
burgled once myself (that's an amusing story),- but none of those
instances included use of a firearm, or any weapon at
all.

The guy most probably has the same anecdotal experience which
tells both of us that if we came across a burglar in our home,
the likelihood of that person being armed is very
low.

The likelihood of that person having a firearm is so remote that
it isn't worth considering.

Do you understand now?

Macaw said intrudes there weren't armed. That would imply
that criminals there NEVER have/use a gun or other weapon.
That would be a false statement.
----------------------------------

The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as
"truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in
England and Wales soared by 35% last year.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office
statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months
to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were
more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in
1993.

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had
more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on
the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...anned-n1464528

----------------------------------
10/2009
Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to
power as a culture of extreme gang violence has
taken hold.

The latest Government figures show that the total
number of firearm offences in England and Wales has
increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year
- a rise of 89 per cent.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...89-decade.html

----------------------------------

1/2016
The number of homicides in England and Wales rose by 71 to 574
in the 12 months to September 2015 - an increase of 14% fuelled
by rises in knife and gun crime, official statistics show.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...nife-gun-crime

There's more similar stories/reports. Many more.



Those must be false reports, we have seen posted
how "safe" the UK is......LOL

On 3/17/2016 3:22 PM, Bod wrote:
On 17/03/2016 20:17, SeaNymph wrote:
On 3/17/2016 2:26 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 7:02 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 2:03 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:21:16 -0000, 83LowRider
wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:07:19 -0000, 83LowRider
wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
One day America will grow up....

How about you google the phrase 'homeowner shoots intruder'?

Do you have a point? At least our intruders aren't armed.

My point is that if and intruder comes into my home, it doesn't
matter if he is carrying a knife or a gun or a big stick. I have
the right to be armed against that intruder. The very act of him
coming into my home tells me he has some sort of malicious
intent. I want him in the hospital, or dead.

So maybe you have no family, maybe you live in a safe
little gated community... howz about you google 'store owner
shoots robber'. Ten million results. Same point as above.
HTH.

You completely ignored what I just said. Our intruders are not
armed.

And yet another stupid statement. Get your head out of the sand why
don't you?



For the most part, SN, he's right.

Is that similar to being a little bit pregnant or sort of dead?


Nope.

He made a statement, and that statement is false. There were no
qualifiers to the statement, just something posted as if it was fact.
The statement cannot be proven or verified as it's written. The onus
for
clarity lies with the poster.


Please allow me to explain anecdotally. Personally, I've heard of
burglaries in the UK in which the offenders were in possession of
a firearm. Vaguely- I couldn't tel you of a specific case
offhand.

I know of many Instances of homes having been burgled -I was
burgled once myself (that's an amusing story),- but none of those
instances included use of a firearm, or any weapon at
all.

The guy most probably has the same anecdotal experience which
tells both of us that if we came across a burglar in our home,
the likelihood of that person being armed is very
low.

The likelihood of that person having a firearm is so remote that
it isn't worth considering.

Do you understand now?



And that's fine, but it doesn't change what I said, which I believe to
be perfectly logically and correct. And I'm not suggesting that a
firearm is the only way for a criminal to arm themselves.

Indeed, you'd be surprised at the damage that can be done from a well
aimed scone ;-)

Especially if it's stale.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:29:04 -0500, "83LowRider"
wrote:

Aardvark wrote:

You completely ignored what I just said. Our intruders are not
armed.

Please allow me to explain anecdotally. Personally, I've heard of
burglaries in the UK in which the offenders were in possession of
a firearm. Vaguely- I couldn't tel you of a specific case
offhand.

I know of many Instances of homes having been burgled -I was
burgled once myself (that's an amusing story),- but none of those
instances included use of a firearm, or any weapon at
all.

The guy most probably has the same anecdotal experience which
tells both of us that if we came across a burglar in our home,
the likelihood of that person being armed is very
low.

The likelihood of that person having a firearm is so remote that
it isn't worth considering.

Do you understand now?

Macaw said intrudes there weren't armed. That would imply
that criminals there NEVER have/use a gun or other weapon.
That would be a false statement.
----------------------------------

The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as
"truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in
England and Wales soared by 35% last year.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office
statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months
to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were
more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had
more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on
the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...anned-n1464528

----------------------------------
10/2009
Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to
power as a culture of extreme gang violence has
taken hold.

The latest Government figures show that the total
number of firearm offences in England and Wales has
increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year
- a rise of 89 per cent.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...89-decade.html

----------------------------------

1/2016
The number of homicides in England and Wales rose by 71 to 574
in the 12 months to September 2015 - an increase of 14% fuelled
by rises in knife and gun crime, official statistics show.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...nife-gun-crime

There's more similar stories/reports. Many more.


It sounds like you are having the same experience they are having in
New Zealand (as I reported a few days ago) your age of innocence in a
global economy is waning fast.
It is interesting that your criminals seem to have a source of guns,
in spite of some of the most draconian laws on the planet and a fairly
universal lack of a gun culture.
Both you and New Zealand are island residents who should be able to
control what comes over your borders fairly easily. It is not like the
US with 6000 miles of land bridge and few fences,

Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:14:05 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:54:14 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:03:10 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

Our intruders are not armed.

Never? With no weapons at all?

I suppose if I google UK armed robbery, I will come up with no hits.

How many forcible felonies do you think they have?


There's no legal definition of 'felony' here, forced or requested.

Interesting since it comes from English law
Early English Law. any crime punishable by death or mutilation and
forfeiture of lands and goods.


A crime's a crime here. No degrees of crime (felony or
misdemeanour), no statutes of limitation.

If, as a laddie seventy years ago, you stole a penny, in theory
you may still be tried for that 'crime'.

Please define the expression.

In the US, the short answer is a crime serious enough to merit more
than a year in jail.

This is from the Florida statutes
(1) The term ?felony? shall mean any criminal offense that is
punishable under the laws of this state, or that would be punishable
if committed in this state, by death or imprisonment in a state
penitentiary. ?State penitentiary? shall include state correctional
facilities. A person shall be imprisoned in the state penitentiary for
each sentence which, except an extended term, exceeds 1 year.
(2) The term ?misdemeanor? shall mean any criminal offense that is
punishable under the laws of this state, or that would be punishable
if committed in this state, by a term of imprisonment in a county
correctional facility, except an extended term, not in excess of 1
year. The term ?misdemeanor? shall not mean a conviction for any
noncriminal traffic violation of any provision of chapter 316 or any
municipal or county ordinance.
(3) The term ?noncriminal violation? shall mean any offense that is
punishable under the laws of this state, or that would be punishable
if committed in this state, by no other penalty than a fine,
forfeiture, or other civil penalty. A noncriminal violation does not
constitute a crime, and conviction for a noncriminal violation shall
not give rise to any legal disability based on a criminal offense. The
term ?noncriminal violation? shall not mean any conviction for any
violation of any municipal or county ordinance. Nothing contained in
this code shall repeal or change the penalty for a violation of any
municipal or county ordinance.
(4) The term ?crime? shall mean a felony or misdemeanor.


A crime's a crime here. :-p

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/17/2016 2:26 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 7:02 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 2:03 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:21:16 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:07:19 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
One day America will grow up....

How about you google the phrase 'homeowner shoots intruder'?

Do you have a point? At least our intruders aren't armed.

My point is that if and intruder comes into my home, it doesn't
matter if he is carrying a knife or a gun or a big stick. I have
the right to be armed against that intruder. The very act of him
coming into my home tells me he has some sort of malicious
intent. I want him in the hospital, or dead.

So maybe you have no family, maybe you live in a safe
little gated community... howz about you google 'store owner
shoots robber'. Ten million results. Same point as above.
HTH.

You completely ignored what I just said. Our intruders are not armed.

And yet another stupid statement. Get your head out of the sand why
don't you?



For the most part, SN, he's right.

Is that similar to being a little bit pregnant or sort of dead?


Nope.

He made a statement, and that statement is false. There were no
qualifiers to the statement, just something posted as if it was fact.
The statement cannot be proven or verified as it's written. The onus for
clarity lies with the poster.


Please allow me to explain anecdotally. Personally, I've heard of
burglaries in the UK in which the offenders were in possession of
a firearm. Vaguely- I couldn't tel you of a specific case
offhand.

I know of many Instances of homes having been burgled -I was
burgled once myself (that's an amusing story),- but none of those
instances included use of a firearm, or any weapon at
all.

The guy most probably has the same anecdotal experience which
tells both of us that if we came across a burglar in our home,
the likelihood of that person being armed is very
low.

The likelihood of that person having a firearm is so remote that
it isn't worth considering.

Do you understand now?



And that's fine, but it doesn't change what I said, which I believe to
be perfectly logically and correct. And I'm not suggesting that a
firearm is the only way for a criminal to arm themselves.



The thing is that, in this country, criminals tend to have
demarcation in their endeavours. A burglar simply burgles (or, in
Americanese, burglarizes).

A mugger mugs, a killer kills.

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

Our culture has then well trained to be much more civilised.

Well, for criminals.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Bod Wrote in message:
On 17/03/2016 20:17, SeaNymph wrote:
On 3/17/2016 2:26 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 7:02 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 2:03 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:21:16 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:07:19 -0000, 83LowRider
wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
One day America will grow up....

How about you google the phrase 'homeowner shoots intruder'?

Do you have a point? At least our intruders aren't armed.

My point is that if and intruder comes into my home, it doesn't
matter if he is carrying a knife or a gun or a big stick. I have
the right to be armed against that intruder. The very act of him
coming into my home tells me he has some sort of malicious
intent. I want him in the hospital, or dead.

So maybe you have no family, maybe you live in a safe
little gated community... howz about you google 'store owner
shoots robber'. Ten million results. Same point as above.
HTH.

You completely ignored what I just said. Our intruders are not
armed.

And yet another stupid statement. Get your head out of the sand why
don't you?



For the most part, SN, he's right.

Is that similar to being a little bit pregnant or sort of dead?


Nope.

He made a statement, and that statement is false. There were no
qualifiers to the statement, just something posted as if it was fact.
The statement cannot be proven or verified as it's written. The onus for
clarity lies with the poster.


Please allow me to explain anecdotally. Personally, I've heard of
burglaries in the UK in which the offenders were in possession of
a firearm. Vaguely- I couldn't tel you of a specific case
offhand.

I know of many Instances of homes having been burgled -I was
burgled once myself (that's an amusing story),- but none of those
instances included use of a firearm, or any weapon at
all.

The guy most probably has the same anecdotal experience which
tells both of us that if we came across a burglar in our home,
the likelihood of that person being armed is very
low.

The likelihood of that person having a firearm is so remote that
it isn't worth considering.

Do you understand now?



And that's fine, but it doesn't change what I said, which I believe to
be perfectly logically and correct. And I'm not suggesting that a
firearm is the only way for a criminal to arm themselves.

Indeed, you'd be surprised at the damage that can be done from a well
aimed scone ;-)


One killed Ernie. Who took over his milk round?
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Aardvark wrote:

You completely ignored what I just said. Our intruders are not
armed.

Please allow me to explain anecdotally. Personally, I've heard of
burglaries in the UK in which the offenders were in possession of
a firearm. Vaguely- I couldn't tel you of a specific case
offhand.

I know of many Instances of homes having been burgled -I was
burgled once myself (that's an amusing story),- but none of those
instances included use of a firearm, or any weapon at
all.

The guy most probably has the same anecdotal experience which
tells both of us that if we came across a burglar in our home,
the likelihood of that person being armed is very
low.

The likelihood of that person having a firearm is so remote that
it isn't worth considering.

Do you understand now?

Macaw said intrudes there weren't armed. That would imply
that criminals there NEVER have/use a gun or other weapon.
That would be a false statement.
----------------------------------

The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as
"truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in
England and Wales soared by 35% last year.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office
statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months
to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were
more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had
more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on
the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...anned-n1464528

----------------------------------
10/2009
Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to
power as a culture of extreme gang violence has
taken hold.

The latest Government figures show that the total
number of firearm offences in England and Wales has
increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year
- a rise of 89 per cent.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...89-decade.html

----------------------------------

1/2016
The number of homicides in England and Wales rose by 71 to 574
in the 12 months to September 2015 - an increase of 14% fuelled
by rises in knife and gun crime, official statistics show.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...nife-gun-crime

There's more similar stories/reports. Many more.

On 3/17/2016 3:53 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/17/2016 2:26 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 7:02 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 2:03 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:21:16 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:07:19 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
One day America will grow up....

How about you google the phrase 'homeowner shoots intruder'?

Do you have a point? At least our intruders aren't armed.

My point is that if and intruder comes into my home, it doesn't
matter if he is carrying a knife or a gun or a big stick. I have
the right to be armed against that intruder. The very act of him
coming into my home tells me he has some sort of malicious
intent. I want him in the hospital, or dead.

So maybe you have no family, maybe you live in a safe
little gated community... howz about you google 'store owner
shoots robber'. Ten million results. Same point as above.
HTH.

You completely ignored what I just said. Our intruders are not armed.

And yet another stupid statement. Get your head out of the sand why
don't you?



For the most part, SN, he's right.

Is that similar to being a little bit pregnant or sort of dead?


Nope.

He made a statement, and that statement is false. There were no
qualifiers to the statement, just something posted as if it was fact.
The statement cannot be proven or verified as it's written. The onus for
clarity lies with the poster.


Please allow me to explain anecdotally. Personally, I've heard of
burglaries in the UK in which the offenders were in possession of
a firearm. Vaguely- I couldn't tel you of a specific case
offhand.

I know of many Instances of homes having been burgled -I was
burgled once myself (that's an amusing story),- but none of those
instances included use of a firearm, or any weapon at
all.

The guy most probably has the same anecdotal experience which
tells both of us that if we came across a burglar in our home,
the likelihood of that person being armed is very
low.

The likelihood of that person having a firearm is so remote that
it isn't worth considering.

Do you understand now?



And that's fine, but it doesn't change what I said, which I believe to
be perfectly logically and correct. And I'm not suggesting that a
firearm is the only way for a criminal to arm themselves.



The thing is that, in this country, criminals tend to have
demarcation in their endeavours. A burglar simply burgles (or, in
Americanese, burglarizes).

A mugger mugs, a killer kills.

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

Our culture has then well trained to be much more civilised.

Well, for criminals.


Criminals are criminals in my book and I have little empathy for them.

His statement is still false though

SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/17/2016 3:53 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/17/2016 2:26 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 7:02 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 2:03 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:21:16 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:07:19 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
One day America will grow up....

How about you google the phrase 'homeowner shoots intruder'?

Do you have a point? At least our intruders aren't armed.

My point is that if and intruder comes into my home, it doesn't
matter if he is carrying a knife or a gun or a big stick. I have
the right to be armed against that intruder. The very act of him
coming into my home tells me he has some sort of malicious
intent. I want him in the hospital, or dead.

So maybe you have no family, maybe you live in a safe
little gated community... howz about you google 'store owner
shoots robber'. Ten million results. Same point as above.
HTH.

You completely ignored what I just said. Our intruders are not armed.

And yet another stupid statement. Get your head out of the sand why
don't you?



For the most part, SN, he's right.

Is that similar to being a little bit pregnant or sort of dead?


Nope.

He made a statement, and that statement is false. There were no
qualifiers to the statement, just something posted as if it was fact.
The statement cannot be proven or verified as it's written. The onus for
clarity lies with the poster.


Please allow me to explain anecdotally. Personally, I've heard of
burglaries in the UK in which the offenders were in possession of
a firearm. Vaguely- I couldn't tel you of a specific case
offhand.

I know of many Instances of homes having been burgled -I was
burgled once myself (that's an amusing story),- but none of those
instances included use of a firearm, or any weapon at
all.

The guy most probably has the same anecdotal experience which
tells both of us that if we came across a burglar in our home,
the likelihood of that person being armed is very
low.

The likelihood of that person having a firearm is so remote that
it isn't worth considering.

Do you understand now?



And that's fine, but it doesn't change what I said, which I believe to
be perfectly logically and correct. And I'm not suggesting that a
firearm is the only way for a criminal to arm themselves.



The thing is that, in this country, criminals tend to have
demarcation in their endeavours. A burglar simply burgles (or, in
Americanese, burglarizes).

A mugger mugs, a killer kills.

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

Our culture has then well trained to be much more civilised.

Well, for criminals.


Criminals are criminals in my book and I have little empathy for them.

His statement is still false though



:-p
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.

--
My dog is armed and refuses to take his medication

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:12:55 -0500, SeaNymph
wrote:

[I know how to snip]

Criminals are criminals in my book and I have little empathy for them.

I'll take hat as you also have little sympathy to. There is a
difference though.

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on those
they *hope* are weak.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 3/17/2016 5:59 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:12:55 -0500, SeaNymph
wrote:

[I know how to snip]

Criminals are criminals in my book and I have little empathy for them.

I'll take hat as you also have little sympathy to. There is a
difference though.

Yes there is. I don't have any sympathy for them either.

On 3/17/2016 5:46 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.

Then I am good to go!

On 3/17/2016 6:14 PM, Aardvark wrote:
Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on those
they *hope* are weak.

Guess that doesn't work out too well sometimes.

I noticed that Stormy's "Square D Electrical Panel Question" thread has turned into a gun/squirrel thread so I thought maybe we should switch
this "Guns in America" thread into a "Square D Electrical Panel" thread.

So whadda ya'll think?

wrote:

There's more similar stories/reports. Many more.


It sounds like you are having the same experience they are having in
New Zealand (as I reported a few days ago) your age of innocence in a
global economy is waning fast.
It is interesting that your criminals seem to have a source of guns,
in spite of some of the most draconian laws on the planet and a fairly
universal lack of a gun culture.
Both you and New Zealand are island residents who should be able to
control what comes over your borders fairly easily. It is not like the
US with 6000 miles of land bridge and few fences,

Not me... I'm sitting in East TN. We love guns in East TN.
I have a target range on my 4 1/2 acres fer plinkin' .22s.
Anything larger and the neighbors get a bit annoyed. But then
again, I'm only 2 miles from a Walmart and a commercial and
business area. The road in front of my house divides city/county.
Best of both worlds!

SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/17/2016 6:14 PM, Aardvark wrote:
Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on those
they *hope* are weak.

Guess that doesn't work out too well sometimes.



Not for the ones I've come across thus far.

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:19:53 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

A crime's a crime here. No degrees of crime (felony or
misdemeanour), no statutes of limitation.

If, as a laddie seventy years ago, you stole a penny, in theory
you may still be tried for that 'crime'.

Is that how you Brits hanged pickpockets in the town square?

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:14:20 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on those
they *hope* are weak.

That's why the criminals have chocolate delivered to their cells and
placed on the pillows.

On 03/17/2016 02:19 PM, Aardvark wrote:
A crime's a crime here. No degrees of crime (felony or
misdemeanour), no statutes of limitation.

They're like venial and mortal sins. For a misdemeanor you say ten Hail
Mary's and it's all better. For felonies you wind up with new roommates
and free room and board for a while.

The last time I was at a voir dire I did get into a discussion with the
prosecutor. It was a domestic thing and I questioned why beating on your
wife was a special felony versus beating on some random person.

On 03/17/2016 05:14 PM, Aardvark wrote:
In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on those
they*hope* are weak.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz1-NSdsqNE

Wally wrote:
I noticed that Stormy's "Square D Electrical Panel Question" thread
has turned into a gun/squirrel thread so I thought maybe we should
switch this "Guns in America" thread into a "Square D Electrical
Panel" thread.
So whadda ya'll think?

A 'D' is not squared. Pi r squared.
YW!

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:19:53 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

A crime's a crime here. No degrees of crime (felony or
misdemeanour), no statutes of limitation.

If, as a laddie seventy years ago, you stole a penny, in theory
you may still be tried for that 'crime'.

Is that how you Brits hanged pickpockets in the town square?


I'm not a Brit
..
Keep it up and I'll start calling you a Canuck.

:-p

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:14:20 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on those
they *hope* are weak.

That's why the criminals have chocolate delivered to their cells and
placed on the pillows.


People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised
countries.

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised
countries.

Excuse me. You are typing to a retired Penologist. I know what is
civilized or not.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:09:54 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 03/17/2016 05:14 PM, Aardvark wrote:
In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on those
they*hope* are weak.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz1-NSdsqNE


One store front was named "BIRDLAND". Captain Ostrich will enjoy that
clip.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:02:57 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

The last time I was at a voir dire I did get into a discussion with the
prosecutor. It was a domestic thing and I questioned why beating on your
wife was a special felony versus beating on some random person.

You can't buy a gun with a domestic violence conviction. You have to
read state and federal laws. "Why does she have two black eyes, I told
here twice, your Honor."