John Ings wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:12:30 -0400, Jeff Wisnia
wrote:

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

I see the meaning of those two sentences as saying that if the
government continued to act in a democratic fashion and did not become
repressive, there would be no need for the citizenry to rise up and use
those arms "on the wall" to overthrow it.

But that's not how Orwell meant it! The intended purpose of that
GOVERNMENT ISSUE gun was for a Home Guard member to use on German
invaders, not his own government.

As I see his meaning too.
It's clearly not referring to the govermnment issuing guns to be used
if the citezenry need to overthrow it.

John Ings wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:12:30 -0400, Jeff Wisnia
wrote:


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

I see the meaning of those two sentences as saying that if the
government continued to act in a democratic fashion and did not become
repressive, there would be no need for the citizenry to rise up and use
those arms "on the wall" to overthrow it.


But that's not how Orwell meant it! The intended purpose of that
GOVERNMENT ISSUE gun was for a Home Guard member to use on German
invaders, not his own government.

You and Gunner are projecting your own paranoia into Orwell's
declaration. If you're going to quote pro-gun advocates, quote ones
that really support your position. Don't use out-of-context quotes
from people who don't!



So, you disagree with the conclusions in the reference below that
getting those already gun owners into the Home Guard was intended to
preclude their joining the British Communist Party and using those
weapons to revolt against the established government?

http://www.orwelltoday.com/readerriflequote.shtml

But, while searching the topic, I came what I found to be a much more
technically interesting web site, one devoted to the German V2 rocket,
replete with lots of engineering details.

A V2 rocket web site! - who woulda thunk it?

http://www.v2rocket.com/

Which brought back to mind one of my favorite Tom Lehrer songs. It was
released during the cold war days in 1965. It's titled "Wernher Von
Braun". Here for the next few days:

http://home.comcast.net/~jwisnia18/jeff/WVB.mp3

Jeff

--

Jeff Wisnia (W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

"If you can smile when things are going wrong, you've thought of someone
to blame it on."

"John Ings" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 May 2004 07:36:29 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

GB (AU and to a limited extent Canada) law abiding citizens are at the
will
of thugs with guns.

We haven't noticed many thugs with guns,

YOU might not have noticed more thugs with guns, John.

and our police feel a lot safer.

Please show us some articles which back up your statements, John.

Check with your own police forces on the subject. Do you think they
enjoy approaching a residence that has a sign that says "Never mind
the dog, beware of owner!"

In England police don't even have to carry guns themselves.

Perhaps not, but I'd be willing to bet money that they all WANT to.

You'd be wrong.

England's Civilian Disarmament Law
Leads To 100 Year High Murder Rate

Non-sequitur conclusion. The armed civilians weren't holding the
murder rate down. The murder rate is up because of drugs and the
influx of immigrants that include Jamaican posses and the like.

Every state that has passed concealed carry laws has had a decreases in
mugging, rape, murder and car jacking.

If we could get ALL the guns out of circulation I agree it would cut down on
gun crime by criminals but it would leave the government free to do as it
pleased with our rights. In the end the elected official having to come home
to an armed electorate has balancing effect on the way he views his job. You
seldom see coupe in well armed countries except when they are tossing out
corrupt governments.

If you trust your government to always act in you best interest into the
future I have some tropical beach front property in Oklahoma I would like to
sell you. Most governments in the world are set up as democracies and are
the tyranny of the many over the few. Only a few movements were wise enough
to put in enough safe guards to prevent the ruling party from forming a gang
and ramming thier agenda through. Passing more and more laws every year with
out culling out those no longer needed is quickly putting a load on society
it can't afford to carry. For the last 80 years the US has been debasing the
value of the dollar to make things work and they have been doing it a slower
rate than most the rest of the world except the Swiss and I understand the
Swiss are getting on the boat as well.

We think that 2% inflation is fine until my 95 year old father is almost
living in poverty on savings from a live that left him well to do when he
retired.


--
Gordon

Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger

On Sun, 16 May 2004 11:45:15 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

If we could get ALL the guns out of circulation I agree it would cut down on
gun crime by criminals but it would leave the government free to do as it
pleased with our rights. In the end the elected official having to come home
to an armed electorate has balancing effect on the way he views his job.

Oh foo! Your congesscritter is honest only because he's afraid his
electorate will shoot him?

You
seldom see coupe in well armed countries except when they are tossing out
corrupt governments.

There are no countries as "well armed" as the US, where any gang
banger can get all the automatic weapons he wants.

If you trust your government to always act in you best interest into the
future I have some tropical beach front property in Oklahoma I would like to
sell you. Most governments in the world are set up as democracies and are
the tyranny of the many over the few.

And you advocate those few taking up arms in order to do as they damn
well please?

I would be afraid to use an assault rifle for brown bear. An assault
rifle is a rifle with small caliber bullets to save weight on
ammunition. Even in the county where I live an assault rifle is not a
good choice for the local varmits.

Dan



John Ings wrote in message . ..
On 15 May 2004 16:09:07 -0700, (Dan Caster) wrote:

The Brits don't think about the varmits either.

I don't know of any varmits in North America that really need an
assault rifle to keep them under control, even in Alaska.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 12:06:04 -0400, Jeff Wisnia
wrote:

You and Gunner are projecting your own paranoia into Orwell's
declaration. If you're going to quote pro-gun advocates, quote ones
that really support your position. Don't use out-of-context quotes
from people who don't!


So, you disagree with the conclusions in the reference below that
getting those already gun owners into the Home Guard was intended to
preclude their joining the British Communist Party and using those
weapons to revolt against the established government?

To prevent dupes of Communist agitators from causing an armed
insurrection. The British government was not a tyranny. The Stalinist
form of Communism he was fighting were the potential tyrants, and
Orwell knew it.

So a US analog would be a writer encouraging people to join the
National Guard rather than a state militia with rebellious
intnclinations.

John Ings wrote in message
. ..
On 15 May 2004 16:09:07 -0700, (Dan Caster) wrote:

The Brits don't think about the varmits either.

I don't know of any varmits in North America that really need an
assault rifle to keep them under control, even in Alaska.

It's not a matter of "need". If I want an "assault rifle" (please define
that) it is my own business, not anyone elses. As long as I break no laws,
kill no people, or destroy no property, then there is no reason to prevent
me from owning one.

Those Minds

John Ings wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2004 12:06:04 -0400, Jeff Wisnia
wrote:


You and Gunner are projecting your own paranoia into Orwell's
declaration. If you're going to quote pro-gun advocates, quote ones
that really support your position. Don't use out-of-context quotes
from people who don't!


So, you disagree with the conclusions in the reference below that
getting those already gun owners into the Home Guard was intended to
preclude their joining the British Communist Party and using those
weapons to revolt against the established government?


To prevent dupes of Communist agitators from causing an armed
insurrection.

Which would have made them part of the group Stalin called "usefull
idiots". Close enough for me re the subject quote.


The British government was not a tyranny. The Stalinist
form of Communism he was fighting were the potential tyrants, and
Orwell knew it.

So a US analog would be a writer encouraging people to join the
National Guard rather than a state militia with rebellious
intnclinations.


I think I got it now, thanks...The exercise was enjoyable, and when
doing a web search I'm often enjoyably amazed by the other interesting
things I end up finding.

Jeff
--

Jeff Wisnia (W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

"If you can smile when things are going wrong, you've thought of someone
to blame it on."

On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:47:07 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

I don't know of any varmits in North America that really need an
assault rifle to keep them under control, even in Alaska.

It's not a matter of "need". If I want an "assault rifle" (please define
that) it is my own business, not anyone elses. As long as I break no laws,
kill no people, or destroy no property, then there is no reason to prevent
me from owning one.

The discussion (or perhaps acrimoneous debate) is about whether there
should BE such a law, and how it should define "assault rifle" .

So if you kill no people and destroy no property there's no reason to
prevent your having which of the following?

Automatic weapons?
Hand grenades?
Anti-tank rocket launchers?
20 mm cannon?
A flamethrower?
Claymore mines?
Anti-personnel mines?
Anti-tank mines?
Tactical nuclear weapons?

In article , John Ings says...

So if you kill no people and destroy no property there's no reason to
prevent your having which of the following?

Automatic weapons?
Hand grenades?
Anti-tank rocket launchers?
20 mm cannon?
A flamethrower?
Claymore mines?
Anti-personnel mines?
Anti-tank mines?
Tactical nuclear weapons?

You forgot:

baseball bat
tire iron
large rock
gasoline

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

I feel there should be no laws that prevent a person from posessing the
items you list below with the exception of the nuke as it is hard to explode
one without harming others.
As I said, if I do not harm someone nor do I destroy another persons
property, then there is no reason to deny me the right to posess something.
Hold me accountable for my actions, not accountable for what I might do.
If you start denying people posessions because they MIGHT do something,
where do you stop. I heard that Australia has started banning swords and
machetes.
According to the National Safety Council, A person in the US has a 1 in 1126
chance of dying due to drowning, a 1 in 247 chance of dying fron
automobiles, and a 1 in 4605 chance of dying as the result of a firearm.
Based on what might happen, then we should ban watercraft, swimming pools,
restrict access to lakes rivers and bathtubs before firearm ownership is
restricted.

Those Minds
enjoying the debate


"John Ings" wrote in message
...

The discussion (or perhaps acrimoneous debate) is about whether there
should BE such a law, and how it should define "assault rifle" .

So if you kill no people and destroy no property there's no reason to
prevent your having which of the following?

Automatic weapons?
Hand grenades?
Anti-tank rocket launchers?
20 mm cannon?
A flamethrower?
Claymore mines?
Anti-personnel mines?
Anti-tank mines?
Tactical nuclear weapons?

On Sun, 16 May 2004 14:56:23 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

I feel there should be no laws that prevent a person from posessing the
items you list below

You will therefor never understand why people who think the way you do
make the general public very, very nervous. Many reading this thread
will understand though.

You forgot the rest of the quote

"I feel there should be no laws that prevent a person from posessing the
items you list below with the exception of the nuke as it is hard to explode
one without harming others."

Why should someone be nervous....as I said, make me responsible for what I
do, not for what I might do.
I do not need those competely assembled items to do dangerous acts and blow
things up, I can get things from the grocery store and hardware stores to
make things go boom. Would you be nervous if I were to do some household
shopping?

Those Minds

"John Ings" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 May 2004 14:56:23 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

I feel there should be no laws that prevent a person from posessing the
items you list below

You will therefor never understand why people who think the way you do
make the general public very, very nervous. Many reading this thread
will understand though.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 15:48:58 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

Why should someone be nervous....

Because you want to have those things.
Does it not occur to you that people will wonder why, and not be
placated by your bland assurance of harmlessness?

"John Ings" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 May 2004 15:48:58 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

Why should someone be nervous....

Because you want to have those things.
Does it not occur to you that people will wonder why, and not be
placated by your bland assurance of harmlessness?



Tell me honestly..do you ever want to have or try something might have some
danger involved?

On Sun, 16 May 2004 16:20:52 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

Why should someone be nervous....

Because you want to have those things.
Does it not occur to you that people will wonder why, and not be
placated by your bland assurance of harmlessness?

Tell me honestly..do you ever want to have or try something might have some
danger involved?

Like living in proximity to a person of unknown mental stability who
owns machine guns, mortars and flamethrowers? No.

John Ings wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 16:20:52 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

Why should someone be nervous....

Because you want to have those things.
Does it not occur to you that people will wonder why, and not be
placated by your bland assurance of harmlessness?

Tell me honestly..do you ever want to have or try something might have some
danger involved?

Like living in proximity to a person of unknown mental stability who
owns machine guns, mortars and flamethrowers? No.

Depending on the phase of the moon, that could be a lot of people to worry
about.

Now there is a sad state of affairs...to be paranoid of everyone you see
walking down the street because you don't personally know their mental
state. And they MIGHT own a percieved dangerous implement.
I guess you would not enjoy living in a country that is free and the
government doesn't take care of our every want and need from the cradle to
the grave. (yet)
As for me, I enjoy freedom.
Those Minds

"John Ings" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 May 2004 16:20:52 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

Why should someone be nervous....

Because you want to have those things.
Does it not occur to you that people will wonder why, and not be
placated by your bland assurance of harmlessness?

Tell me honestly..do you ever want to have or try something might have
some
danger involved?

Like living in proximity to a person of unknown mental stability who
owns machine guns, mortars and flamethrowers? No.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 17:22:02 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

Now there is a sad state of affairs...to be paranoid of everyone you see
walking down the street because you don't personally know their mental
state.

Not everyone. Only those who by their behaviour cause me to wonder
about their mental state. Like somebody carrying an AK-47 for
instance. Or somebody I know keeps grenades and flamethrowers in his
garage.

And they MIGHT own a percieved dangerous implement.

And ARE KNOWN TO own an implement which has no other purpose but to
kill people on a wholesale basis. Like a machine gun or a claymore
mine.

I guess you would not enjoy living in a country that is free and the
government doesn't take care of our every want and need from the cradle to
the grave. (yet)

Like say, Afghanistan?
Lots of folks own AK-47s and grenade launchers there.

As for me, I enjoy freedom.

So move to Afghanistan.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:18:14 -0400, Patrick
wrote:

Tell me honestly..do you ever want to have or try something might have some
danger involved?

Like living in proximity to a person of unknown mental stability who
owns machine guns, mortars and flamethrowers? No.

Depending on the phase of the moon, that could be a lot of people to worry
about.

Not in my country.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 06:37:35 -0700, John Ings
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:01:03 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Ah the independent frontiersman! Nobody's gonna tell him what to do!
Not even his own elected government!


Correct. We tell THEM what to do. Every 4 years we refresh their
memory. Sometimes they listen, sometimes not. However when the
government becomes oppressive odd things happen as demonstrated by a
certain document released in 4 July, 1776

My country was ruled by the same monarchy, and still is. But we didn't
have to get into a shooting war to gain our freedom. You seem to feel
that a magnum load is the solution to every problem.

John, a man who cannot -legally- defend his own (or a family member's)
life is not at all "free" in my opinion.

I, too, used to be down on handguns but I read more about it, found
the truth (totally different than the media hype/lies) and am now
strongly pro-gun/anti-gun-control. I urge you to read more about it
(from a wider variety of sources than you currently do) to get a more
clear picture of reality. It ain't nuttin' like the telly says, sir.

But it's your life, your choice. I wish you well.


---
- Sarcasm is just one more service we offer. -
http://diversify.com Web Applications

On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:08:27 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

John, a man who cannot -legally- defend his own (or a family member's)
life is not at all "free" in my opinion.

Never mind the legally, what about the competently?

In the military I had to qualify with rifle, sub-machine gun and
pistol every year although I was not a ground-pounder. I have fired a
browning automatic pistol many times but I do not consider myself
competent to handle a handgun in a face-to-face shoot out. That's
police work, and a good number of cops aren't all that skilled at it
either.

To me the idea that every individual can be his own armed guard is
scary. People can become homicidally violent for all sorts of reasons,
and reach for the nearest weapon-- a knife, a baseball bat, a broken
bottle. That's bad enough. But when you seed your environment
liberally with cheap handguns just because arms manufacturers want to
make a buck, and then sell even more guns for people to use to defend
themselves against the millions of weapons already out there, what
have you really done? You've added to the efficiency of the
homicidally bent, that's all you've done. Every individual you sell a
gun to is guaranteed to remain sane, sober and capable of making life
or death decisions under conditions of extreme stress you think?

I don't!

To say nothing of the kind of person who can't see why he shouldn't be
able to own things like fully automatic weapons, hand grenades,
anti-tank rocket launchers, flamethrowers and suchlike toys.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 05:53:57 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 07:39:10 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

for mutual defense, and perhaps most significantly, to protect against
the tyranny of our own government. [2]

My country doesn't have a tyrannous government. Neither does yours,

Perhaps not, but y'all do have some government employees who would
like to be tyrannical. We do too. I've been embarrassed more than
once by how customs & immigration in Boston treats visitors to the
US. Jerks!

On recent visit to the Royal Mews (tour) I'd forgotten that I had my
A.G. Russell featherlight (1.5 oz) in my pocket. This is an innocuous
blade a bit over 3" long that locks open to preserve fingers. It's a
tool, makes no pretense of being a weapon. It's not a tanto, not a
serrated edge, no fantasy crap at all. It's just a nice sharp
pocketknife useful for opening mail, stripping wire or getting thru
the damned plastic wrap on the excellent sandwiches at Pret A Manger.

At the metal detector I put coins, keys and knife in the tray. Ooops!
I was told I'd have to deposit the knife in the amnesty bin. I said
I'd rather skip the tour and forfeit the paid-for ticket than give up
my pretty good pocketknife. Nope,she asserted that the knife was
illegal. Poppycock. It is not illegal in the UK; I'd checked.

The security b***ch said if I didn't give it up immediately she'd have
to call her supervisor and/or the police. I politely invited her to
do that, I was in no hurry.

Oopsie!. She didn't call the cops (fancy that!), did call her
super. Said super gave me a lecture about how I might feel if an
assailant took the knife away from me and stabbed my wife with it.
Good grief!

I agreed with him that we grayhaired folk certainly wouldn't like to
be thus attacked by British thugs. Then I shut up and smiled at
him. Your move, Nigel.....

The twit magnanimously offered to bag my pocketknife and give me a
claimcheck so I could reclaim it after the tour. That worked.

On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:47:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:



http://members.misty.com/don/lede.html
Why LEDs can be 10 times as efficient as incandescents in some
applications but not in general home lighting!

They do work well in flashlights, though. Flashlight bulbs fail,
usually on turn-on and often after only a few hours or use. LED's
typically last for 20,000 hours or more and they don't fail abruptly.

Present offerings still may not meet your "everyman's price" target,
but you can machine aluminum and a 1-watt Luxeon Star can be had for
about $12 in onesies.

My current favorite LED flashlight was a gift from son-in-law. It's
made by Zweibruder in Germany. It's a pocket light about 4.5" long
and a bit less than 1" dia, runs on 3 AAA cells and uses a 1-watt
Luxeon Star. Blows the sox off a Minimag 2AA. If aimed at a
white ceiling it illuminates an entire room sufficient for easy
reading or preparing a meal,

Jerry Martes and I have made "showoff" LED lights with 3-watt Luxeon
LED's. We used 3" dia reflectors from a $4.68 Eveready lantern
from Home Depot, machined aluminum stud-mounts and heatsinks for
Luxeon 3-watt emitters. These LED lights perform at least as well
well as 6-volt lanterns,

I don't know that anyone really needs a light this bright, but it's
fun to show off. It illuminates things 100 meters distant, makes
them jump out of the dark. Do not look directly into this light
with your remaining good eye.....

On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:53:32 -0700, John Ings
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:08:27 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

John, a man who cannot -legally- defend his own (or a family member's)
life is not at all "free" in my opinion.

Never mind the legally, what about the competently?

You're far too emotional on this issue, John. Take a deep breath,
relax, and think. Feel better yet? Good.

So if you're competent and defense is illegal, you still can't
protect yourself. What kind of fool wants that for themself or
their family?

So, because some guy in another town isn't as skilled as you are
handling a gun, he's not entitled to self-protection?


In the military I had to qualify with rifle, sub-machine gun and
pistol every year although I was not a ground-pounder. I have fired a
browning automatic pistol many times but I do not consider myself
competent to handle a handgun in a face-to-face shoot out. That's
police work, and a good number of cops aren't all that skilled at it
either.

You would rather die than defend yourself in that situation?
You would rather have no defense when your wife was being raped?
You would rather have no defense if your child was being kidnapped?
You call that "FREE"? You're an odd bird, John.


To me the idea that every individual can be his own armed guard is
scary. People can become homicidally violent for all sorts of reasons,
and reach for the nearest weapon-- a knife, a baseball bat, a broken
bottle. That's bad enough.

Criminals will do what criminals do and will use whatever means
to accomplish it. They'll have illegal guns/knives/weapons no matter
what, so why remove everyone else's chance to defend themselves in
their own homes? Who are YOU to say that I shouldn't be able to?


But when you seed your environment
liberally with cheap handguns just because arms manufacturers want to

Guns aren't cheap. The cheap Saturday Night Specials are imported and
can often be more dangerous to the shooter.


make a buck, and then sell even more guns for people to use to defend
themselves against the millions of weapons already out there, what
have you really done? You've added to the efficiency of the
homicidally bent, that's all you've done. Every individual you sell a

Homicidally bent people will get guns whether or not they're legal.


gun to is guaranteed to remain sane, sober and capable of making life
or death decisions under conditions of extreme stress you think?

Hell no, but I'd rather have a crazy drunk stand up for me with a
gun during an attack on me by thugs. Look at the stats. When large
quantities of guns were sold just before gun control laws went into
effect in several states, no huge increase in crime accompanied it.
Yes, gun safety courses are a really good idea for every gun owner,
and refresher courses should be the mindset. But a lot of crime is
stopped merely by showing the criminal a weapon. They know it may
well cost them a -lot- if they try to commit that crime against an
armed citizen.


To say nothing of the kind of person who can't see why he shouldn't be
able to own things like fully automatic weapons, hand grenades,
anti-tank rocket launchers, flamethrowers and suchlike toys.

You sure took us off the course of my statement about freedom and the
right to defend ourselves, didn't you?

Read any or all of the cites Gunner posted today. (I -dare- you.)
Your scenario just doesn't happen in the real world.

The reason I dare you to actually read the stats is that the truth
will knock you off that gun control pedestal you're on. If you don't
like those, go find more sources and confirm them with others. But
try to keep an open mind. I did and was shocked to find out that
nearly everything I knew about guns/crime was misled.


---
- Sarcasm is just one more service we offer. -
http://diversify.com Web Applications

On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:33:47 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 11:45:15 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

If we could get ALL the guns out of circulation I agree it would cut down on
gun crime by criminals but it would leave the government free to do as it
pleased with our rights. In the end the elected official having to come home
to an armed electorate has balancing effect on the way he views his job.

Oh foo! Your congesscritter is honest only because he's afraid his
electorate will shoot him?

They understand that there is a certain line they cannot cross, after
which they will be hoist from a lamp post. That line has been toed on
several occasions..but never crossed.

You
seldom see coupe in well armed countries except when they are tossing out
corrupt governments.

There are no countries as "well armed" as the US, where any gang
banger can get all the automatic weapons he wants.

Really? How many automatic weapons have been used in crimes in the UK
lately? Snicker..quite a number. As to the US..few automatic weapons
are used in crimes, as the user goes away for the rest of his life.

As to as well armed citizens as the US..there are other countries with
similar gun ownership rates. Norway for example. Now there is a hotbed
of crime..no?

You have cites to the contrary? Or are you simply blowing emotional
smoke out your ass?

Lets take a look at some comparisons shall we?
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Perhaps you will note the country of Mexico. It has a total ban on
firearms. Note the homicide rate for both firearm and non firearm
homicides.

Northern Ireland. Wide open ownership of legal firearms..no?
Chuckle..check out the rates.

New Zealand. Now how come with only 7% less firearms than the US,
they have a far far smaller homicide rate than the UK? For any weapon?

Do guns cause crime?

http://hnn.us/articles/871.html

It appears not.

If you trust your government to always act in you best interest into the
future I have some tropical beach front property in Oklahoma I would like to
sell you. Most governments in the world are set up as democracies and are
the tyranny of the many over the few.

And you advocate those few taking up arms in order to do as they damn
well please?

Of course not. We are a lawabiding citizenry. Evidently far more so
than your subjects, given that the UK has since passed the US in
crimes against persons and burglary of occupied dwellings.

Since its no longer lawful to smoke a burglar entering your home..they
seem to be taking advantage of this fact..snicker...

On the other hand..it was the beliefs of our founders that we are
indeed required to take up arms against a tyrannical government, or
another King George. (pun intended)

As are the English. Too bad you lads are unable to do so, even when
its the Bosch knocking at your front door.

Gunner




That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:40:51 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gordon Couger
wrote --

Every state that has passed concealed carry laws has had a
decreases in mugging, rape, murder and car jacking.

Not Minnesota.

Cites? When did Minnesota get a shall issue CCW law? 1 year ago. Now
where is your data? Cites Cattle, Cites.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:39:50 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Larry Jaques
wrote --

I finished Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" a couple
weeks ago and found it interesting. He compiled and
crossreferenced a helluva lot more data than any previous
study.

You're way behind the times. Other researchers have analyzed
more data than Lott's and they found that Lott's research
fails to hold up.

Cites Cattle, Cites.

Be advised I will respond with other cites, that blow yours (again)
out of the water. Shall we discuss the Kleck/Mustard findings?

Hummmm???? Chortle...

There is better evidence that More guns does not equal Less
Crime. [Cook, 1991; Cook & Leitzel, 1996; Cook & Ludwig,
1996; Hemenway, 1997; Kellermann, Westohal, Fischer, &
Harvard, 1995; Ludwig, 1998; McDowall, Loftin, & Wiersema,
1995; Ayes & Donohue 1999; Ayers & Donohue 2003; Donohue
2003;Rubin & Dezhbakhsh 1998; Rubin & Dezhbakhsh 2003]

Kellermann? You still attempting to push Kellermann? Even HE said his
findings were bogus and withdrew them.

The rest, including Rubin and Dezhbaksh were blown out of the water by
Polsby & Kates, Mustard and Kleck and the US Department of Justice
studies.
Lott destroyed his own reputation by creating the Mary Rosh
sockpuppet, drawing conclusions from data that did not exist,
and modifying and back-dating models in an attempt to cover
up coding errors in his data.

Sure Cattle..sure....run it up the flag pole one more time..maybe
someone will somday believe you.
Lott *is* the gunner's Bellesiles.

Bellesiles..now there is a winner in the anti-gun extremist camp. A
cult figurehead of yours as I recall. Until he got caught not only
making up his research, but lying about it. Lost his Peabody Award,
lost his tenure at Emory...and all credibility now and forever. Whats
he doing now days? Asking "would you like fries with that?"

Snicker..come on Cattle..you can do better than that!! Your slowing
down..get with it...its time for you to be humiliated again. I know
you love it.

Gunner



That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:45:53 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --

Good Lord man..do you actually live in a cave????

We know that you do, Gunner. We also know that you're lying.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0203.html

This is the second edition of ’Crime in England and Wales'
bringing together statistics from the British Crime Survey
(BCS) and the numbers of crimes recorded by the police. It
provides a comprehensive account of the latest patterns and
trends in the main high volume crimes.

The main points in this 2002/03 edition a

• Crimes against adults in England and Wales decreased by two
per cent in 2002/03, according to the British Crime Survey.

• There has been a 25 per cent fall in crime measured by the
BCS in the five years between 1997 and 2002/03.

• Crimes recorded by the police decreased by three per cent
in 2002/03, after taking into account the impact of the
National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) on recording
practices.

• Police recording of those crimes reported to them is now at
an historic high of 70 per cent, according to the BCS.

• The risk of becoming a victim of crime remains at an
historic low (around 27%) according to the BCS, one-third
lower than the risk in 1995 (40%).

Chuckle...this is the same governmental organization that was caught
under reporting crimes, and encouraged the police to hide crime
figures. You are aware that those figures only show those that were
brought to trial, are you not? Snicker...

Lets look at other sources Cattle..sources that have nothing to
hide....

http://www.business-finance-online.c...15_10_2003.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3419401.stm (read past the ass covering
by the police)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...equestid=50048
Britain the most violent country in western Europe
By John Steele, Crime Correspondent
(Filed: 25/10/2003)


Britain has the worst record in western Europe for killings, violence
and burglary and its citizens face one of the highest risks in the
industrialised world of becoming victims of crime, a study has shown.



Offences of violence in the UK have been running at three times the
level of the next worst country in western Europe, and burglaries at
nearly twice the rate.

Britain has the highest level of homicides in western Europe and the
totals for robberies and thefts of motor vehicles have also been close
to the highest in the European Union, outstripped only by France, the
Home Office figures show.

Only Germany, which has 20 million more people, recorded more crimes
overall in 2001, the most up-to-date figure in the research -
International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics 2001, with
data collected by the Home Office and the Council of Europe.

But the "victimisation risk" - showing the risk of suffering a crime -
in England and Wales is higher for overall crime than anywhere else in
Europe, and higher than in America. The same is true of falling victim
to "contact" - violent - crime.

England and Wales also had markedly fewer police officers per head of
population than France, Germany and Italy, according to the study.

The Home Office points out that police have achieved some reductions
in violence and robbery in 2003.

The study is also accompanied by warnings about the difficulties in
making comparisons because of differing definitions and methods of
recording crime. But the sheer scale of offending in the UK in recent
years is apparent from the figures.

Britain had 1,050 homicides in 2001, three ahead of France, the next
worst in western Europe.

In 2001, UK police recorded nearly 870,000 violent crimes, a figure
hugely above the next highest total - 279,000 in France. Germany
recorded 188,000 violent offences.

There were around 470,000 domestic burglary offences in England,
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Spain recorded 247,000 offences,
France 210,000 and Germany 133,000.

The figures for robbery, which surged in Britain around the turn of
the Millennium, showed about 127,000 offences in 2001.

This was surpassed only by France, with a total of 134,000. Both
countries were ahead of Spain (104,000) and substantially ahead of
Germany (57,000) and Italy (66,000).

Overall, in 2001 nearly 6.1 million crimes were recorded in the UK.
Only Germany had a higher total (6.3 million).

Hazel Blears, the Home Office minister for crime reduction and
policing, said: "This report shows the picture in 2001.

"Since then we have cut crime further and dramatically increased the
number of police on our streets."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ncrime105.xml
Rising crime, falling accuracy
By Philip Johnston
(Filed: 05/04/2003)


What has happened to crime statistics? Once they were the gold
standard of the criminal justice system against which could be
measured the success of the police against the villains.



We relied upon recorded crimes - those reported to the police - as a
guide.

But, increasingly, the Government has come to rely upon the British
Crime Survey. This used to be conducted every two years (it is now
annual) among a pool of about 20,000 people who give their personal
experience of crime. It has a major flaw in that it excludes
under-16s.

Ministers began to notice that the BCS told a different story to the
recorded crime figures: it was registering a decline. So, the survey
became the new guide for the Government, talked up by ministers as the
only true measurement of crime.

Furthermore, the Home Office was unhappy with the way the police
recorded their statistics and so it introduced a new National Crime
Recording Standard - a sort of statistical quality control.

This, then, is where we stood yesterday when the latest quarterly
crime figures were produced. "Crime is down," said Bob Ainsworth, the
Home Office minister. "These figures show government measures to
reduce crime are working."

Well, do they? Let us take the claim that domestic burglary fell by 11
per cent from just over one million to 948,000 in 2002. This is not a
real figure but an estimate calculated using interim population
figures supplied by the Office for National Statistics. So, too, is
the 17 per cent "drop" in vehicle thefts. Why is the Government
relying on a survey to establish the theft of a car or a house
break-in? Who does not report a stolen car or a burgled house?

When we look at the crimes recorded by the police a different picture
emerges. Over the three months to December, domestic burglary fell by
less than two per cent and vehicle theft by just three per cent, both
of which are "statistically insignificant".

Total recorded crime rose by more than four per cent over the quarter
and by eight per cent over the year as a whole. The Government
finesses this by "adjusting" the figures to account for the new
recording standard. And, lo and behold, they then go down. Instead of
the four per cent increase in the three months to December, we
discover that it has, in fact, miraculously fallen by seven per cent.

However, this adjusted figure is also an estimate. Needless to say,
the Home Office highlights the two estimated measures of crime - the
BCS and the new recording standard, which show a decline - and ignore
the recorded crime figures that show an increase.

Or take violent crime, which the Home Office said "appears to have
levelled off". The recorded crime figures show a 28 per cent rise in
the final quarter of 2002. Yet after "adjustment", this declines
almost to zero on the grounds that "most offences are relatively minor
assaults". Adjustments are always made to make the figures look more
positive.

This statistical jiggery-pokery is making it almost impossible for
observers to know what is going on. The Home Office stopped publishing
monthly asylum figures because they produced bad publicity on a
regular basis. Recently the Home Office issued figures claiming that
the reconviction rate among young offenders was falling. Closer
scrutiny showed this just was not true. An official complaint has been
lodged with the Statistical Commission about the way race figures have
been used.

In the short term, the Home Office's inventive use of statistics may
get favourable headlines. In the long run, it risks damaging its
reputation for straight-dealing, perhaps irreparably.



Lets take a look at a joint study between Scotland Yard and the US
Department of Justice on crime in the US, England and Wales, shall we?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cjusew96h.pdf

Chuckle...once again..Cattle ****s in his messkit.

Waaaay to go Cattle..thats the way to show the world just what lying
sacks of ****e you anti gun extremists are all about.

Take your spanking like the Sub you are. I know you enjoy it.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 12:08:37 GMT, "James B. Millard"
wrote:

John Ings wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 02:29:25 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of an "assault rifle"?
Type out your impressions, dont bother going and looking it up.

Gee, after only 39 years in the military, qualifying with them every
year, how would I know?

Let's put it this way, you don't need a 30 round clip to hunt deer.

It's not a "CLIP", it's a MAGAZINE. I hate that -- you'd think that after
39 years in the military, you'd at least know the right words...

Chuckle..indeed. Hoist by his own petard methinks.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 05:53:57 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 07:39:10 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

for mutual defense, and perhaps most significantly, to protect against
the tyranny of our own government. [2]

My country doesn't have a tyrannous government. Neither does yours,
all your paranoia notwithstanding.

Really? Cites?

What your country does have is a
greedy arms industry.

Really? Cites?

Now every other drunk in your bars has a
Saturday Night Special
Cites?
and the drug dealers are better armed than the
police.

Most of the drug dealers carry Glocks..the same as the cops. Snicker.
Combat Tupperware. Cites btw?

I realize that you've let things get so out of control down
there that it would take decades to eliminate all the unnecessary
weapons flooding your country, but don't ask me to let my country come
to the same desperate straits. Especially not with the rationalization
that I need to defend myself against duly elected authority.

Do you ever foresee the need? The Founders of America did. Need the
cites? Btw..hows Registration coming along? Im assuming you are a
Cannuck by your usage of the term "down there"

Hey....I forgot to ask..how many households in Canada have a firearm?
Percentage wise?
http://www.outdoors.net/site/feature...+Search Term+

Ooooh...nearly as many firearms as Americans...the horror..the
horror....

Maybe those guns do protect a few citizens from thugs, but they kill
more family members than thugs, and that's a fact. Not one handgun
owner in a thousand has the training necessary to use their weapon in
a shootout with something other than a paper target. And while there
are a few states in the US that have the necessary terrain for
successful guerilla warfare, most don't. So if trained regular
infantry come looking for your militia, they aren't going to last
long.

More family members than thugs? Been reading Kellerman again.
Snicker...I should mention he admitted lying..er..making an error in
his calculations..something about 43 times more likely, was it not?

Even in Canada..this is bogus..

"The best available Canadian research indicates that firearms used in
self-defence by law-abiding Canadians exceeds the total number of
gun-related deaths by a ratio of forty to one, saving more lives each
year than are lost through the misuse of guns. In Canada, a civilian
uses a firearm in defence of self, family or property (excluding
police, military and security guard duties) an average of once every
nine minutes, and half of these incidents involve defence against
human threats. Firearms are used over twice as often in self-defence
as they are in criminal violence, and save at least 3,300 lives every
year. The self-defence use of firearms saves the Canadian economy
hundreds of millions of dollars annually by protecting property
against theft and vandalism, and reduces medical costs by preventing
injury from criminal assault and wild animal attacks."

Lets look at some facts shall we?

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

How about a systematic rebuttal of Kellerman?
http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html



I suggest Bruce Catton's Civil War trilogy as a good reference to
consult with respect to what happens when state militias start taking
their guns off the wall to resist federal armies.

Since when are we discussing State Militias and the War of Northern
Agression? Is that really where you want to go? EG

John....peruse this link a bit..

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

Gunner





That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 14:25:05 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:47:07 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

I don't know of any varmits in North America that really need an
assault rifle to keep them under control, even in Alaska.

It's not a matter of "need". If I want an "assault rifle" (please define
that) it is my own business, not anyone elses. As long as I break no laws,
kill no people, or destroy no property, then there is no reason to prevent
me from owning one.

The discussion (or perhaps acrimoneous debate) is about whether there
should BE such a law, and how it should define "assault rifle" .

So if you kill no people and destroy no property there's no reason to
prevent your having which of the following?

Automatic weapons?
Hand grenades?
Anti-tank rocket launchers?
20 mm cannon?
A flamethrower?
Claymore mines?
Anti-personnel mines?
Anti-tank mines?

All individual arms suitible for militia use. Btw..they are indeed
legal in the US (most states) for private individuals to own. Many
thousands are. A $200 tax stamp plus the cost of the weapon.

Tactical nuclear weapons?

Not an individual arm suitable for individual usage. Not even in the
Miltiaries of the world are individuals issued Nukes.

TITLE 10 Subtitle A PART I CHAPTER 13 Sec. 311. Next
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes


(a)

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title
32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)

The classes of the militia are -

(1)

the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
Naval Militia; and

(2)

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia
who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia


Every poster here who is American and is not a felon, a politician or
a member of the National Guard, is a member of the unorganized militia
and is subject to call up at any time. Even those over the age of 45
since the age discrimination laws were passed G

Nor are they state militia unless formally inducted into such. Many
states do indeed have a forma State militia.
http://vikingphoenix.com/military/mi...w/lawusmil.htm


So John..why do you have a phobia against firearms? Your apparent
mental issues intrigue me.

Gunner


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 14:25:05 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

Btw...I forgot to address your comment on Gladstones usage of the term
Conservative

In talks with UCLAlumni magazine, Bruin professors and legislators
explain the uses and misuses, the past, present and future of the
terms liberal and conservative in the American political lexicon. That
"liberal" and "conservative" are fluid terms is nothing new. Classical
liberalism, dating to the 18th century, is associated with
laissez-faire economics and minimal government intrusion in the
marketplace - a position now associated with conservativism, notes
UCLA political science professor Matthew Baum '87, Ph.D. '00. UCLA
history professor Joan Waugh '80, M.A. '82, Ph.D. '92 says that in the
19th century, the Democratic Party was the party of limited government
- which today would be a conservative stance but then made it the
liberal party. In contrast, Waugh says, the Republican Party was the
"can-do" party of the time - the party of emancipation and government
support for business.

"Republicans thought of themselves as progressive," not conservative,
Waugh says. In the 19th-century version of social welfare, Republicans
argued for government action to stimulate the economy, which would, in
turn, create jobs. Democrats, on the other hand, argued against
government interference in the economy. But, she adds, "a very
interesting reversal took place in the 20th century," exemplified by
the actions of two presidents. First, Republican President Teddy
Roosevelt promoted a government role in curbing the corporate excesses
of the Gilded Age - a change in emphasis from earlier Republican
policies designed to boost economic growth. Second, Democratic
President Franklin Roosevelt launched the New Deal, which included
Social Security and massive public works programs and remade the
Democratic Party as the party of big government.

Today, the term "liberal" is associated with a more active government
role in social and economic matters, and, says Baum, "the conservative
mantra is less government." In essence, today's fiscal conservatives
are classical liberals, while liberals are progressive. However, Baum
notes, the matter is further complicated because "there are at least
two different strains of conservatism in this country" - social and
fiscal. "


Classical Liberalism, and Classical Conservativsm have indeed reversed
roles. But..apparently not in your own tiny little bit of reality.
Mores the pity. When doing historical research..you really really
should keep that in mind...chuckle.

Gunner



That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On 16 May 2004 14:42:20 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , John Ings says...

So if you kill no people and destroy no property there's no reason to
prevent your having which of the following?

Automatic weapons?
Hand grenades?
Anti-tank rocket launchers?
20 mm cannon?
A flamethrower?
Claymore mines?
Anti-personnel mines?
Anti-tank mines?
Tactical nuclear weapons?

You forgot:

baseball bat
tire iron
large rock
gasoline

Jim

Until the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City..the worst
massacre of civilians was committed by a single gallon of gasoline.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 15:29:43 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 14:56:23 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

I feel there should be no laws that prevent a person from posessing the
items you list below

You will therefor never understand why people who think the way you do
make the general public very, very nervous. Many reading this thread
will understand though.

Im not nervous by that. Id be surprised if the majority of those
reading that feel nervous. Its only those like you that for some
strange reason feel nervous.

Is it because of your mental issues that you feel that way? Do you
think you would nut roll and massacre hundreds?

Seek help immediately.


Btw...you may find this frightens the **** out of you...chuckle...

http://www.knobcreekrange.com/

Check out the photos and the archive. The annual shoot is not to be
missed G The links may be of interest as well.

All those privately own machineguns and cannon and what not..just
south of you....brrrrrr...must make your skin crawl..eh?

Gunner
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 16:13:35 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 15:48:58 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

Why should someone be nervous....

Because you want to have those things.
Does it not occur to you that people will wonder why, and not be
placated by your bland assurance of harmlessness?

Say John..how fast will your personal vehicle go? Fast enough to
commit an armed robbery (with a knife of course) and to outrun the
cops? Or at least try? Or simply so you can get ****faced and go mow
down a bunch of pedestrians.

Im nervous about you John..and John...you really dont need a penis do
you? Having one makes you a potential rapist.

Brrrrrrrrr


Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 17:08:39 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 16:20:52 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

Why should someone be nervous....

Because you want to have those things.
Does it not occur to you that people will wonder why, and not be
placated by your bland assurance of harmlessness?

Tell me honestly..do you ever want to have or try something might have some
danger involved?

Like living in proximity to a person of unknown mental stability who
owns machine guns, mortars and flamethrowers? No.


You make me nervous John..with your issues..and having access to a
motor vehicle and booze...or even power tools....

brrrrrr

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 18:59:06 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:18:14 -0400, Patrick
wrote:

Tell me honestly..do you ever want to have or try something might have some
danger involved?

Like living in proximity to a person of unknown mental stability who
owns machine guns, mortars and flamethrowers? No.

Depending on the phase of the moon, that could be a lot of people to worry
about.

Not in my country.

6 million firearms in your country John....Ill bet the dead bodies are
laying every where.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:46:42 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Paul Farber
wrote --

Good thing about the USA is that each state has the right
to its own gun laws.

No, they don't.

Given that the Second Amendment guarantees the Right to keep and bear
arms of a military nature..and the few states that have violated that
Right, such as California with its Assault Weapon Ban...

So Cattle..which is it?

Snicker

Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:42:58 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 07:58:06 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

Do you have that little faith in the citizenry of Britain that you think
everyone would go on a killing spree if they were armed?

A few would. Many would also engage in the same klutzy behaviour
as US handgun owners. Shooting themselves or shooting family members
by accident or deliberately. Acting as a source of handguns for the
criminal element, etc etc.


By your reasoning, then I should have shot at least one or two of my family
members by now or should at least know someone who has shot someone
accidentally.

No, the klutz incidence isn't that frequent. But it's way more
frequent than the "98 lb granny fights off 200 lb assailant"
frequency.


Actually no its not. Government figures show that between 1.2 and 2
million defensive gun uses occur in the US every year. The vast
majority of them never involve firing a shot. On the other hand, the
changes of being shot accidently are somewhat less than dying in a
swimming pool accident, and way below choking to death on food.

Given that automobiles kill more people in this country, (and they require
licenses and registration) than firearms, then should we now ban automobiles
and rely on the government for transportation?

Since when do all vehicles require licensing and registration? They
do NOT. Only those used on public roadways.

No, because automobiles have another use besides "self protection".

So do firearms. I hunt with them, target shoot with them, enjoy
competition with them, enjoy collecting and building them.


Gunner


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell