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!

UPDATED slightly 4/18/2004.



Some LEDs work well for night vision

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

You still haven't got the message have you Gunner? Orwell wasn't
talking about a privately owned weapon! That's a government issue
rifle for a Home Guard member he's referring to! The Brit equivalent
of a national Guard member.

On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:28:17 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

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

You still haven't got the message have you Gunner? Orwell wasn't
talking about a privately owned weapon! That's a government issue
rifle for a Home Guard member he's referring to! The Brit equivalent
of a national Guard member.

You still havent gotten the clue that the Militia is NOT the National
Guard.

Need Orwells clarification once again?

The links you have been given have clearly shown your world view on
this to be deeply flawed. Your bias and agenda is noted.

Shrug..must suck to be you.

G

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 Sat, 15 May 2004 17:47:04 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

You still havent gotten the clue that the Militia is NOT the National
Guard.

It isn't the Home Guard either!

Brits aren't paranoid about states rights the way Americans are.
They don't feel that they have to be armed to keep a federal
government off their backs.

Just wait a year or so. They are not cheap enough yet to replace
ceiling lights, but that day is definitely coming.

The Brits don't think about the varmits either.

Dan

John Ings wrote in message

Brits aren't paranoid about states rights the way Americans are.
They don't feel that they have to be armed to keep a federal
government off their backs.

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 Sat, 15 May 2004 11:56:13 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2004 17:47:04 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

You still havent gotten the clue that the Militia is NOT the National
Guard.

It isn't the Home Guard either!

Brits aren't paranoid about states rights the way Americans are.
They don't feel that they have to be armed to keep a federal
government off their backs.


Subjects seldom do.

One should note the origins of gun control in the UK. Seems the Lords
of the Rlhem didn't want the pesky Reds coming across the Channel and
ultimately tossing them out on their asses.

So between the royalty and the Bolsheviks, they got a really nice
Socialist Kingdom going for themselves nowadays. Seems almost a
contradiction in terms don't 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 02:27:43 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Brits aren't paranoid about states rights the way Americans are.
They don't feel that they have to be armed to keep a federal
government off their backs.

Subjects seldom do.

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

One should note the origins of gun control in the UK. Seems the Lords
of the Rlhem didn't want the pesky Reds coming across the Channel and
ultimately tossing them out on their asses.

Seems you need to read a few history books Gunner.

So between the royalty and the Bolsheviks, they got a really nice
Socialist Kingdom going for themselves nowadays. Seems almost a
contradiction in terms don't it?

## Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence;
## Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.
Gladstone

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

You still haven't got the message have you Gunner? Orwell wasn't
talking about a privately owned weapon! That's a government issue
rifle for a Home Guard member he's referring to! The Brit equivalent
of a national Guard member.

To expand on this, the quote is from an article in the
Evening Standard, 8 Jan 1941, "Don't let Colnel Blimp ruin the Home Guard."

"Even as it stands the Home Guard could only exist in a country where
men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things,
but there is one thing they cannot do, they cannot give the factory
worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom.
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 IT STAYS
THERE."

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

On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:45:30 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

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

You still haven't got the message have you Gunner? Orwell wasn't
talking about a privately owned weapon! That's a government issue
rifle for a Home Guard member he's referring to! The Brit equivalent
of a national Guard member.

To expand on this, the quote is from an article in the
Evening Standard, 8 Jan 1941, "Don't let Colnel Blimp ruin the Home Guard."

"Even as it stands the Home Guard could only exist in a country where
men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things,
but there is one thing they cannot do, they cannot give the factory
worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom.
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 IT STAYS
THERE."

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

Bravo Ian!

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

Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:45:30 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

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

You still haven't got the message have you Gunner? Orwell wasn't
talking about a privately owned weapon! That's a government issue
rifle for a Home Guard member he's referring to! The Brit equivalent
of a national Guard member.

To expand on this, the quote is from an article in the
Evening Standard, 8 Jan 1941, "Don't let Colnel Blimp ruin the Home Guard."

"Even as it stands the Home Guard could only exist in a country where
men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things,
but there is one thing they cannot do, they cannot give the factory
worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom.
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 IT STAYS
THERE."

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

Bravo Ian!

Actually, I happen to agree with the poster that this fundamentally
disagrees with your position on what Orwell meant by this.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:10:34 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:45:30 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

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

You still haven't got the message have you Gunner? Orwell wasn't
talking about a privately owned weapon! That's a government issue
rifle for a Home Guard member he's referring to! The Brit equivalent
of a national Guard member.

To expand on this, the quote is from an article in the
Evening Standard, 8 Jan 1941, "Don't let Colnel Blimp ruin the Home Guard."

"Even as it stands the Home Guard could only exist in a country where
men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things,
but there is one thing they cannot do, they cannot give the factory
worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom.
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 IT STAYS
THERE."

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

Bravo Ian!

Actually, I happen to agree with the poster that this fundamentally
disagrees with your position on what Orwell meant by this.

How so, given a clear reading of the above? Even the English Bill of
Rights gives full and clear approval of the right to self defense.

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 10:10:34 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Bravo Ian!

Actually, I happen to agree with the poster that this fundamentally
disagrees with your position on what Orwell meant by this.


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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No right of self-defense in Blair's barbaric Britain

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 6, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


A British Times Literary Supplement reviewer recently took a shot at
tracing the "providential themes" present in George Bush's political
rhetoric. Indeed, the interminable war on "tyrants and terrorists" is
laced with evangelical zeal. The American president, however, is not
alone "in the redemption business."

Tony Blair fancies himself every bit the redeemer of mankind. Etched
all over Blair's address to Congress was the crazed devotion to the
"mystic [and, might I add, malevolent] idea of national destiny."

One particularly chilling dictate was this: "I know out there there's
a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own
business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, 'Why
me? And why us? And why America?' And the only answer is, 'Because
destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and
the task is yours to do.'"

The tyranny implied in Blair's maudlin grandiosity should be obvious.

First, the little guy back home ought to be the one calling the shots,
not Messrs. Messiah and Company.

Second, before Blair joins Bush in rousing the "visionless"
middle-class American from his uninspired slumber – The Great Redeemer
thinks it's below contempt to harbor a civilized desire to mind one's
own business and live in peace – he ought to take a look at the little
guy back in England.

Tony Martin, for one, is not having a terribly tranquil time.

He was only just released from jail for the crime of defending his
English liberties. Blair blathered to Congress about "the spread of
freedom" being "the best security for the free," but this poor,
benighted Norfolk farmer, doubtless would no more advocate the spread
of British-style freedom than he would the bubonic plague.

Martin killed a career criminal by the name of Fred Barras and injured
his accomplice Brendon Fearon when the two broke into the elderly
man's homestead. However, Martin, who was initially convicted of
murder and jailed for life, had no freedom to defend his property or
his life.

The "Rights of Englishmen" – the inspiration for the American founding
fathers – are no longer cool in Cool Britannia. The great system of
law the English inherited, including the 1689 English Bill of Rights,
which entails the right to possess arms, is in tatters. The sovereign
and his elites, most of whom enjoy taxpayer-funded security details,
have disarmed law-abiding Britons, who now defend themselves against
the protected criminal class at their own peril.

A right that can't be defended is a right that exists only in name. In
Britain there is, in effect, no right to life or property.

In Blair's Britain, proud and self-sufficient people like Martin have
been broken and subdued. His self-defense plea the Crown rejected,
although his conviction for murder was commuted to manslaughter once
Martin capitulated and agreed to accept a mental diagnosis. In other
words, to defend your home in Britain is to evince a paranoid
personality disorder.

According to a recent U.N. study, writes Historian Joyce L. Malcolm,
author of "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," "England and
Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for 'very serious'
offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed." While violent crime
in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, British
violence has been rising.

Since Blair's 1997 total ban on armed self-defense, things have gone
from bad to worse. "You are now six times more likely to be mugged in
London than New York," avers Malcolm. "Why? Because as common law
appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to
protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack
them ... A study found American burglars fear armed homeowners more
than the police." The most dangerous burglaries – the kind that occur
when people are at home – are much rarer in the U.S. ... only 13
percent, in contrast to 53 percent in England.

How far has British barbarism gone? Malcolm's evidently garden-variety
accounts include the story of an elderly lady who fought off a gang of
thugs "by firing a blank from a toy gun, only to be arrested for the
crime of putting someone in fear with an imitation firearm."

When Eric Butler was brutally assaulted in a subway, "he unsheathed a
sword blade in his walking stick and slashed" at one of his
assailants. Butler was added to the lineup – he "was tried and
convicted of carrying an offensive weapon."

Tony Martin was almost denied parole. You see, Martin was not contrite
for killing the creature that invaded what was supposed to be his
castle. I kid you not, but apparently, in the words of a probation
officer, Martin continues to be "a danger to burglars."

Having been robbed of three years and five months of his life for the
crime of self-defense, Martin's ordeal is not over. The surviving
ruffian, who has more than 30 convictions to his name, has been
granted permission to sue his victim, even given legal aid to so do,
for the injury he suffered on the "job."

The criminal protection and reinforcement program that is British
justice also entails honoring Brendon Fearon's "right" to know where
the old farmer will reside now that he's been released.

For this "Train of Abuses and Usurpations," Tony Blair is beneath
contempt and beyond redemption.


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

Evidently your view didn't work out.. now its illegal for ALL guns in GB.

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

PA Constitution Article 21 - The right of an individual to keep a firearm
for defense and protection shall not be questioned.

GB (AU and to a limited extent Canada) law abiding citizens are at the will
of thugs with guns. AU can't even have knives. You guys are soo screwed.

ENJOY!

"John Ings" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:47:00 GMT, Gunner
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

You still haven't got the message have you Gunner? Orwell wasn't
talking about a privately owned weapon! That's a government issue
rifle for a Home Guard member he's referring to! The Brit equivalent
of a national Guard member.

On Sat, 15 May 2004 18:03:18 -0400, "Paul Farber"
wrote:

Evidently your view didn't work out.. now its illegal for ALL guns in GB.

My view, and Orwells, is that guns issued by the national government
for the protection of the country against foreign invasion is
necessary for democracy. Not that privately owned or local government
issued weapons are necessary to protect the province or shire from the
democratically decided will of the nation.

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

So some states are safe and some aren't. This is a good thing?

PA Constitution Article 21 - The right of an individual to keep a firearm
for defense and protection shall not be questioned.

Even if you aren't competent to use guns safely or even sane.

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, and our police feel a lot
safer. In England police don't even have to carry guns themselves.

AU can't even have knives. You guys are soo screwed.

Not that we've noticed. The only time I worry about an irate motorist
pulling a pistol out of his glove compartment and shooting at me
because I cut him off is when I cross the border!

ENJOY!

We are. You can live in Dodge City or Tombstone if you want.

On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:01:15 -0700, John Ings
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, and our police feel a lot
safer. In England police don't even have to carry guns themselves.

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

Failure of British Gun Ban Illustrates Folly of
California Gun Control Efforts

Newly released statistics reported October 13th show that since the
British government passed one of the most stringent gun bans in the
world in 1997, Britain's murder rate has risen to its highest level
since records began being kept 100 years ago.

The number of murders in the first eight months of this year has risen
by as much as 22% in some of Britain's biggest cities, which account
for the majority of homicides. This builds on a 4% rise in the murder
rate in the year to March and is 20% higher than the total for 1997,
the first year of Tony Blair's government and the year that strict new
gun bans were imposed. Police say random killings are rising.
Official figures show the proportion of murders in which the victim is
not known to the killer has nearly doubled in the past decade to 31%.
The British Home Office reports that handgun crime is at its highest
since 1993, while overall gun crimes have never been higher. Since
the draconian 1997 gun ban was passed, criminal misuse of handguns has
jumped by 40 percent. As in California, much of the gun violence is
related to urban youth gang warfare and the illicit drug trade. But
petty criminals are now using guns during common street crime. London
has surpassed the crime rate of New York City. Robberies, in which
criminals use or threaten violence, have gone up by 35 percent in the
past year. In fact, Chris Fox, vice-president of the British
Association of Chief Police Officers, said the rising murder rate put
Britain out of line with America, where it has fallen 12%, and France
and Germany, where it has dropped 29% and 27% respectively since 1995.

Under the 1997 gun law, law abiding citizens were forced to give up
their handguns. Pistols that had been in families for generations,
including priceless antiques and Olympic pistols, were confiscated by
the government for a fraction of their value, all in the name of
public safety. Yet on October 13th, the London Sunday Times reported
that Commander Andy Baker, who is in charge of more than 900
detectives investigating all murders in London, blames drugs and a
greater availability of guns for the increased violence. And
according to Associated Press: "Dave Rodgers, vice chairman of the
Metropolitan Police Federation, said the ban made little difference to
the number of guns in the hands of criminals." He acknowledged, "The
underground supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all.:
Since the ban didn't work, Tony Blair's government is now calling for
a ban on replica firearms, gun shaped cigarette lighters, and air
pistols.

In California, similar past and present efforts to expand gun control
laws have been equally ineffective. For many years Los Angeles,
Oakland, and San Francisco have passed every ill-conceived gun control
scheme that was suggested by the gun ban lobby. Despite promises from
the promoters of these ordinances, these tried-and-failed schemes have
not slowed the rising violent crime and murder rate in those cities.

The gun ban lobby - in England and California - won't acknowledge that
banning guns doesn't stop criminals from misusing guns. But as
England vividly illustrates, gun control laws typically increase
violent crime by shifting the balance of power to the criminals, who
ignore the laws. Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter
crimes and save lives.


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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1471716.stm

Gun Laws, Culture, Justice & Crime In Foreign Countries


Do other countries all have more restrictive gun laws and lower
violent crime rates than the U.S.? How do U.S. and other countries`
crime trends compare? What societal factors affect crime rates?

A recent report for Congress notes, "All countries have some form of
firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated
countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and
Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of
Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a
part of the national heritage up to the present time." However, "From
available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is
difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict
firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . .
.. (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used
in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were
most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany,
gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland
and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation."
(Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign
Countries, May 1998.")

Many foreign countries have less restrictive firearms laws, and lower
crime rates, than parts of the U.S. that have more restrictions. And
many have low crime rates, despite having very different firearms
laws. Switzerland and Japan "stand out as intriguing models. . . .
(T)hey have crime rates that are among the lowest in the
industrialized world, and yet they have diametrically opposite gun
policies." (Nicholas D. Kristof, "One Nation Bars, The Other
Requires," New York Times, 3/10/96.) Swiss citizens are issued
fully-automatic rifles to keep at home for national defense purposes,
yet "abuse of military weapons is rare." The Swiss own two million
firearms, including handguns and semi-automatic rifles, they shoot
about 60 million rounds of ammunition per year, and "the rate of
violent gun abuse is low." (Stephen P. Halbrook, Target Switzerland;
Library of Congress, pp. 183-184.) In Japan, rifles and handguns are
prohibited; shotguns are very strictly regulated. Japan`s Olympic
shooters have had to practice out of the country because of their
country`s gun laws. Yet, crime has been rising for about the last 15
years and the number of shooting crimes more than doubled between
1997-1998. Organized crime is on the rise and 12 people were killed
and 5,500 injured in a nerve gas attack in a Japanese subway system in
1995. (Kristof, "Family and Peer Pressure Help Keep Crime Levels down
in Japan," New York Times, 5/14/95.) Mostly without firearms, Japan`s
suicide rate is at a record high, about 90 per day. (Stephanie Strom,
"In Japan, Mired in Recession, Suicides Soar," New York Times, p. 1,
7/15/99.)

U.S. crime trends have been better than those in countries with
restrictive firearms laws. Since 1991, with what HCI calls "weak gun
laws" (Sarah Brady, "Our Country`s Claim to Shame," 5/5/97), the
number of privately owned firearms has risen by perhaps 50 million.
Americans bought 37 million new firearms in the 1993-1999 time frame
alone. (BATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, 11/00.)
Meanwhile, America`s violent crime rate has decreased every year and
is now at a 23- year low (FBI). In addition to Japan, other
restrictive countries have experienced increases in crime:
England -- Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since
1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and
pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot
..22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be
registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two
shells must be licensed. Despite a near ban on private ownership of
firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and
police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English
robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English
assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether
measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious
crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than
England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the
United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.) An
English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many
times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the
most recent restrictions.

"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain `one of the most
violent urban societies in the Western world.` Declared Dan Rather:
`This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting
a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the
U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.`" (David Kopel, Paul
Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," America`s
First Freedom, 3/01, p. 26.) Street crime increased 47% between 1999
and 2000 (John Steele, "Crime on streets of London doubles," London
Daily Telegraph, Feb. 29, 2000.) See also
www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/okslip.html,
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...nt071800c.html, and
http://www.nraila.org/research/19990...ights-030.html.

Australia -- Licensing of gun owners was imposed in 1973, each handgun
requires a separate license, and self-defense is not considered a
legitimate reason to have a firearm. Registration of firearms was
imposed in 1985. In May 1996 semi-automatic center-fire rifles and
many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were prohibited. As of
Oct. 2000, about 660,000 privately owned firearms had been confiscated
and destroyed. However, according to the Australian Institute of
Criminology, between 1996-1998 assaults rose 16 percent, armed
robberies rose 73 percent, and unlawful entries rose eight percent.
Murders increased slightly in 1997 and decreased slightly in 1998.
(Jacob Sullum, "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00)
For more information on Australian crime trends, see
http://www.nraila.org/research/20000...Guns-001.shtml.

Canada -- A 1934 law required registration of handguns. A 1977 law
(Bill C-51) required a "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" for
acquiring a firearm, eliminated protection of property as a reason for
acquiring a handgun, and required registration of "restricted
weapons," defined to include semi- automatic rifles legislatively
attacked in this country under the slang and confusing misnomer,
"assault weapon." The 1995 Canadian Firearms Act (C-68) prohibited
compact handguns and all handguns in .32 or .25 caliber -- half of
privately owned handguns. It required all gun owners to be licensed by
Jan. 1, 2000, and to register all rifles and shotguns by Jan. 1, 2003.
C-68 broadened the police powers of "search and seizure" and allowed
the police to enter homes without search warrants, to "inspect" gun
storage and look for unregistered guns. Canada has no American "Fifth
Amendment;" C-68 requires suspected gun owners to testify against
themselves. Because armed self-defense is considered inappropriate by
the government, "Prohibited Weapons Orders" have prohibited private
possession and use of Mace and similar, non-firearm means of
protection. (For more information, see www.cfc- ccaf.gc.ca and
http://www.nraila.org/research/20010...trol-001.shtml.

From 1978 to 1988, Canada`s burglary rate increased 25%, surpassing
the U.S. rate. Half of burglaries in Canada are of occupied homes,
compared to only 10% in the U.S. From 1976 to 1980, ethnically and
economically similar areas of the U.S. and Canada had virtually
identical homicide rates, despite significantly different firearm
laws. See also www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120700.shtml

Germany -- Described in the Library of Congress report as "among the
most stringent in Europe," Germany`s laws are almost as restrictive as
those which HCI wants imposed in the U.S. Licenses are required to buy
or own a firearm, and to get a license a German must prove his or her
"need" and pass a government test. Different licenses are required for
hunters, recreational shooters, and collectors. As is the case in
Washington, D.C., it is illegal to have a gun ready for defensive use
in your own home. Before being allowed to have a firearm for
protection, a German must again prove "need." Yet the annual number of
firearm-related murders in Germany rose 76% between 1992-1995.
(Library of Congress, p. 69.) It should be noted, HCI goes further
than the Germans, believing "there is no constitutional right to
self-defense" (HCI Chair Sarah Brady, quoted in Tom Jackson, "Keeping
the Battle Alive," Tampa Tribune, 10/21/93) and "the only reason for
guns in civilian hands is sporting purposes" (HCI`s Center to Prevent
Handgun Violence Director, Dennis Henigan, quoted in USA Today,
11/20/91).

Italy -- There are limits on the number of firearms and the quantity
of ammunition a person may own. To be issued a permit to carry a
firearm, a person must prove an established need, such as a dangerous
occupation. Firearms which use the same ammunition as firearms used by
the military -- which in America would include countless millions of
rifles, shotguns, and handguns -- and ammunition for them are
prohibited. Yet, "Italy`s gun law, `the most restrictive in Europe,`
had left her southern provinces alone with a thousand firearm murders
a year, thirty times Switzerland`s total." (Richard A. I. Munday, Most
Armed & Most Free?, Brightlingsea, Essex: Piedmont Publishing, 1996.)

Foreign Country Cultures, Law Enforcement Policies, and Criminal
Justice Systems
While America is quite different from certain countries in terms of
firearms laws, we are just as different from those countries in other
respects which have a much greater influence on crime rates. Attorney
David Kopel explains, "There is little evidence that foreign gun
statutes, with at best a mixed record in their own countries, would
succeed in the United States. Contrary to the claims of the American
gun-control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low
crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations. Despite strict and
sometimes draconian gun controls in other nations, guns remain readily
available on the criminal black market. . . . The experiences of
(England, Japan, Canada, and the United States) point to social
control as far more important than gun control. Gun control (in
foreign countries) validates other authoritarian features of the
society. Exaltation of the police and submission to authority are
values, which, when internally adopted by the citizenry, keep people
out of trouble with the law. The most important effect of gun control
in Japan and the Commonwealth is that it reinforces the message that
citizens must be obedient to the government." (The Samurai, The
Mountie, and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of
other democracies?, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992, pp. 431.)

Kopel notes that crime is also suppressed in some foreign countries by
law enforcement and criminal justice policies that would run afoul of
civil rights protections in the U.S. Constitution and which the
American people would not accept. "Foreign gun control comes along
with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil
liberties too intrusive for America," Kopel observes. "Foreign gun
control . . . postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government and
society fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian
American ethos. In the United States, the people give the law to
government, not, as in almost every other country, the other way
around." Following are details for two countries which anti-gun
activists often compare to the U.S.:

Britain -- Parliament increasingly has given the police power to stop
and search vehicles as well as pedestrians. Police may arrest any
person they "reasonably" suspect supports an illegal organization. The
grand jury, an ancient common law institution, was abolished in 1933.
Civil jury trials have been abolished in all cases except libel, and
criminal jury trials are rare. . . . While America has the Miranda
rules, Britain allows police to interrogate suspects who have asked
that interrogation stop, and allows the police to keep defense lawyers
away from suspects under interrogation for limited periods. Britain
allows evidence which has been derived from a coerced confession to be
used in court. Wiretaps do not need judicial approval and it is
unlawful in a British court to point out the fact that a police
wiretap was illegal." (Kopel, 1992, pp. 101-102.)

Recently, London law enforcement authorities began installing cameras
overlooking selected intersections in the city`s business district, to
observe passers-by on the sidewalks. The British Home Office has
introduced "`Anti-Social Behaviour Orders` -- special court orders
intended to deal with people who cannot be proven to have committed a
crime, but whom the police want to restrict anyway. Behaviour Orders
can, among other things, prohibit a person from visiting a particular
street or premises, set a curfew or lead to a person`s eviction from
his home. Violation of a Behaviour Order can carry a prison sentence
of up to five years. Prime Minister Tony Blair is now proposing that
the government be allowed to confine people proactively, based on
fears of their potential danger to society." (Kopel, et al., 2001, p.
27.)

"The British government frequently bans books on national security
grounds. In addition, England`s libel laws tend to favor those who
bring suit against a free press. Prior restraint of speech in the
United States is allowed only in the most urgent of circumstances. In
England, the government may apply for a prior restraint of speech ex
parte, asking a court to censor a newspaper without the newspaper even
having notice or the opportunity to present an argument. . . . Free
speech in Great Britain is also constrained by the Official Secrets
Act, which outlaws the unauthorized receipt of information from any
government agency, and allows the government to forbid publication of
any `secret` it pleases. . . . The act was expanded in 1920 and again
in 1989 -- times when gun controls were also expanded." (Kopel, 1991,
pp. 99-102.)

Japan -- Citizens have fewer protections of the right to privacy, and
fewer rights for criminal suspects, than in America. Every person is
the subject of a police dossier. Japanese police routinely search
citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens`
residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate
is more than 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Assn. has said that the Japanese
police routinely engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases
where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the
physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their
confessions. Amnesty International calls Japan`s police custody system
"a flagrant violation of United Nations human rights principles."
Suspects can be held and interrogated for 28 days without being
brought before a judge, compared with no more than two days in many
other nations. They aren`t allowed legal counsel during interrogation,
when in custody may be visited by only criminal defense lawyers, are
not allowed to read confessions before they sign them, and have no
right to trial by jury. (Kopel, 1991, pp. 23-26.)


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

Gunner,

It looks like you call Brits with out guns, targets.

Gordon

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:01:15 -0700, John Ings
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, and our police feel a lot
safer. In England police don't even have to carry guns themselves.

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

Failure of British Gun Ban Illustrates Folly of
California Gun Control Efforts

Newly released statistics reported October 13th show that since the
British government passed one of the most stringent gun bans in the
world in 1997, Britain's murder rate has risen to its highest level
since records began being kept 100 years ago.

The number of murders in the first eight months of this year has risen
by as much as 22% in some of Britain's biggest cities, which account
for the majority of homicides. This builds on a 4% rise in the murder
rate in the year to March and is 20% higher than the total for 1997,
the first year of Tony Blair's government and the year that strict new
gun bans were imposed. Police say random killings are rising.
Official figures show the proportion of murders in which the victim is
not known to the killer has nearly doubled in the past decade to 31%.
The British Home Office reports that handgun crime is at its highest
since 1993, while overall gun crimes have never been higher. Since
the draconian 1997 gun ban was passed, criminal misuse of handguns has
jumped by 40 percent. As in California, much of the gun violence is
related to urban youth gang warfare and the illicit drug trade. But
petty criminals are now using guns during common street crime. London
has surpassed the crime rate of New York City. Robberies, in which
criminals use or threaten violence, have gone up by 35 percent in the
past year. In fact, Chris Fox, vice-president of the British
Association of Chief Police Officers, said the rising murder rate put
Britain out of line with America, where it has fallen 12%, and France
and Germany, where it has dropped 29% and 27% respectively since 1995.

Under the 1997 gun law, law abiding citizens were forced to give up
their handguns. Pistols that had been in families for generations,
including priceless antiques and Olympic pistols, were confiscated by
the government for a fraction of their value, all in the name of
public safety. Yet on October 13th, the London Sunday Times reported
that Commander Andy Baker, who is in charge of more than 900
detectives investigating all murders in London, blames drugs and a
greater availability of guns for the increased violence. And
according to Associated Press: "Dave Rodgers, vice chairman of the
Metropolitan Police Federation, said the ban made little difference to
the number of guns in the hands of criminals." He acknowledged, "The
underground supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all.:
Since the ban didn't work, Tony Blair's government is now calling for
a ban on replica firearms, gun shaped cigarette lighters, and air
pistols.

In California, similar past and present efforts to expand gun control
laws have been equally ineffective. For many years Los Angeles,
Oakland, and San Francisco have passed every ill-conceived gun control
scheme that was suggested by the gun ban lobby. Despite promises from
the promoters of these ordinances, these tried-and-failed schemes have
not slowed the rising violent crime and murder rate in those cities.

The gun ban lobby - in England and California - won't acknowledge that
banning guns doesn't stop criminals from misusing guns. But as
England vividly illustrates, gun control laws typically increase
violent crime by shifting the balance of power to the criminals, who
ignore the laws. Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter
crimes and save lives.


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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1471716.stm

Gun Laws, Culture, Justice & Crime In Foreign Countries


Do other countries all have more restrictive gun laws and lower
violent crime rates than the U.S.? How do U.S. and other countries`
crime trends compare? What societal factors affect crime rates?

A recent report for Congress notes, "All countries have some form of
firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated
countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and
Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of
Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a
part of the national heritage up to the present time." However, "From
available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is
difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict
firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . .
. (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used
in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were
most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany,
gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland
and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation."
(Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign
Countries, May 1998.")

Many foreign countries have less restrictive firearms laws, and lower
crime rates, than parts of the U.S. that have more restrictions. And
many have low crime rates, despite having very different firearms
laws. Switzerland and Japan "stand out as intriguing models. . . .
(T)hey have crime rates that are among the lowest in the
industrialized world, and yet they have diametrically opposite gun
policies." (Nicholas D. Kristof, "One Nation Bars, The Other
Requires," New York Times, 3/10/96.) Swiss citizens are issued
fully-automatic rifles to keep at home for national defense purposes,
yet "abuse of military weapons is rare." The Swiss own two million
firearms, including handguns and semi-automatic rifles, they shoot
about 60 million rounds of ammunition per year, and "the rate of
violent gun abuse is low." (Stephen P. Halbrook, Target Switzerland;
Library of Congress, pp. 183-184.) In Japan, rifles and handguns are
prohibited; shotguns are very strictly regulated. Japan`s Olympic
shooters have had to practice out of the country because of their
country`s gun laws. Yet, crime has been rising for about the last 15
years and the number of shooting crimes more than doubled between
1997-1998. Organized crime is on the rise and 12 people were killed
and 5,500 injured in a nerve gas attack in a Japanese subway system in
1995. (Kristof, "Family and Peer Pressure Help Keep Crime Levels down
in Japan," New York Times, 5/14/95.) Mostly without firearms, Japan`s
suicide rate is at a record high, about 90 per day. (Stephanie Strom,
"In Japan, Mired in Recession, Suicides Soar," New York Times, p. 1,
7/15/99.)

U.S. crime trends have been better than those in countries with
restrictive firearms laws. Since 1991, with what HCI calls "weak gun
laws" (Sarah Brady, "Our Country`s Claim to Shame," 5/5/97), the
number of privately owned firearms has risen by perhaps 50 million.
Americans bought 37 million new firearms in the 1993-1999 time frame
alone. (BATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, 11/00.)
Meanwhile, America`s violent crime rate has decreased every year and
is now at a 23- year low (FBI). In addition to Japan, other
restrictive countries have experienced increases in crime:
England -- Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since
1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and
pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot
.22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be
registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two
shells must be licensed. Despite a near ban on private ownership of
firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and
police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English
robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English
assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether
measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious
crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than
England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the
United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.) An
English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many
times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the
most recent restrictions.

"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain `one of the most
violent urban societies in the Western world.` Declared Dan Rather:
`This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting
a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the
U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.`" (David Kopel, Paul
Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," America`s
First Freedom, 3/01, p. 26.) Street crime increased 47% between 1999
and 2000 (John Steele, "Crime on streets of London doubles," London
Daily Telegraph, Feb. 29, 2000.) See also
www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/okslip.html,
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...nt071800c.html, and
http://www.nraila.org/research/19990...ights-030.html.

Australia -- Licensing of gun owners was imposed in 1973, each handgun
requires a separate license, and self-defense is not considered a
legitimate reason to have a firearm. Registration of firearms was
imposed in 1985. In May 1996 semi-automatic center-fire rifles and
many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were prohibited. As of
Oct. 2000, about 660,000 privately owned firearms had been confiscated
and destroyed. However, according to the Australian Institute of
Criminology, between 1996-1998 assaults rose 16 percent, armed
robberies rose 73 percent, and unlawful entries rose eight percent.
Murders increased slightly in 1997 and decreased slightly in 1998.
(Jacob Sullum, "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00)
For more information on Australian crime trends, see
http://www.nraila.org/research/20000...Guns-001.shtml.

Canada -- A 1934 law required registration of handguns. A 1977 law
(Bill C-51) required a "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" for
acquiring a firearm, eliminated protection of property as a reason for
acquiring a handgun, and required registration of "restricted
weapons," defined to include semi- automatic rifles legislatively
attacked in this country under the slang and confusing misnomer,
"assault weapon." The 1995 Canadian Firearms Act (C-68) prohibited
compact handguns and all handguns in .32 or .25 caliber -- half of
privately owned handguns. It required all gun owners to be licensed by
Jan. 1, 2000, and to register all rifles and shotguns by Jan. 1, 2003.
C-68 broadened the police powers of "search and seizure" and allowed
the police to enter homes without search warrants, to "inspect" gun
storage and look for unregistered guns. Canada has no American "Fifth
Amendment;" C-68 requires suspected gun owners to testify against
themselves. Because armed self-defense is considered inappropriate by
the government, "Prohibited Weapons Orders" have prohibited private
possession and use of Mace and similar, non-firearm means of
protection. (For more information, see www.cfc- ccaf.gc.ca and
http://www.nraila.org/research/20010...trol-001.shtml.

From 1978 to 1988, Canada`s burglary rate increased 25%, surpassing
the U.S. rate. Half of burglaries in Canada are of occupied homes,
compared to only 10% in the U.S. From 1976 to 1980, ethnically and
economically similar areas of the U.S. and Canada had virtually
identical homicide rates, despite significantly different firearm
laws. See also www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120700.shtml

Germany -- Described in the Library of Congress report as "among the
most stringent in Europe," Germany`s laws are almost as restrictive as
those which HCI wants imposed in the U.S. Licenses are required to buy
or own a firearm, and to get a license a German must prove his or her
"need" and pass a government test. Different licenses are required for
hunters, recreational shooters, and collectors. As is the case in
Washington, D.C., it is illegal to have a gun ready for defensive use
in your own home. Before being allowed to have a firearm for
protection, a German must again prove "need." Yet the annual number of
firearm-related murders in Germany rose 76% between 1992-1995.
(Library of Congress, p. 69.) It should be noted, HCI goes further
than the Germans, believing "there is no constitutional right to
self-defense" (HCI Chair Sarah Brady, quoted in Tom Jackson, "Keeping
the Battle Alive," Tampa Tribune, 10/21/93) and "the only reason for
guns in civilian hands is sporting purposes" (HCI`s Center to Prevent
Handgun Violence Director, Dennis Henigan, quoted in USA Today,
11/20/91).

Italy -- There are limits on the number of firearms and the quantity
of ammunition a person may own. To be issued a permit to carry a
firearm, a person must prove an established need, such as a dangerous
occupation. Firearms which use the same ammunition as firearms used by
the military -- which in America would include countless millions of
rifles, shotguns, and handguns -- and ammunition for them are
prohibited. Yet, "Italy`s gun law, `the most restrictive in Europe,`
had left her southern provinces alone with a thousand firearm murders
a year, thirty times Switzerland`s total." (Richard A. I. Munday, Most
Armed & Most Free?, Brightlingsea, Essex: Piedmont Publishing, 1996.)

Foreign Country Cultures, Law Enforcement Policies, and Criminal
Justice Systems
While America is quite different from certain countries in terms of
firearms laws, we are just as different from those countries in other
respects which have a much greater influence on crime rates. Attorney
David Kopel explains, "There is little evidence that foreign gun
statutes, with at best a mixed record in their own countries, would
succeed in the United States. Contrary to the claims of the American
gun-control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low
crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations. Despite strict and
sometimes draconian gun controls in other nations, guns remain readily
available on the criminal black market. . . . The experiences of
(England, Japan, Canada, and the United States) point to social
control as far more important than gun control. Gun control (in
foreign countries) validates other authoritarian features of the
society. Exaltation of the police and submission to authority are
values, which, when internally adopted by the citizenry, keep people
out of trouble with the law. The most important effect of gun control
in Japan and the Commonwealth is that it reinforces the message that
citizens must be obedient to the government." (The Samurai, The
Mountie, and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of
other democracies?, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992, pp. 431.)

Kopel notes that crime is also suppressed in some foreign countries by
law enforcement and criminal justice policies that would run afoul of
civil rights protections in the U.S. Constitution and which the
American people would not accept. "Foreign gun control comes along
with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil
liberties too intrusive for America," Kopel observes. "Foreign gun
control . . . postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government and
society fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian
American ethos. In the United States, the people give the law to
government, not, as in almost every other country, the other way
around." Following are details for two countries which anti-gun
activists often compare to the U.S.:

Britain -- Parliament increasingly has given the police power to stop
and search vehicles as well as pedestrians. Police may arrest any
person they "reasonably" suspect supports an illegal organization. The
grand jury, an ancient common law institution, was abolished in 1933.
Civil jury trials have been abolished in all cases except libel, and
criminal jury trials are rare. . . . While America has the Miranda
rules, Britain allows police to interrogate suspects who have asked
that interrogation stop, and allows the police to keep defense lawyers
away from suspects under interrogation for limited periods. Britain
allows evidence which has been derived from a coerced confession to be
used in court. Wiretaps do not need judicial approval and it is
unlawful in a British court to point out the fact that a police
wiretap was illegal." (Kopel, 1992, pp. 101-102.)

Recently, London law enforcement authorities began installing cameras
overlooking selected intersections in the city`s business district, to
observe passers-by on the sidewalks. The British Home Office has
introduced "`Anti-Social Behaviour Orders` -- special court orders
intended to deal with people who cannot be proven to have committed a
crime, but whom the police want to restrict anyway. Behaviour Orders
can, among other things, prohibit a person from visiting a particular
street or premises, set a curfew or lead to a person`s eviction from
his home. Violation of a Behaviour Order can carry a prison sentence
of up to five years. Prime Minister Tony Blair is now proposing that
the government be allowed to confine people proactively, based on
fears of their potential danger to society." (Kopel, et al., 2001, p.
27.)

"The British government frequently bans books on national security
grounds. In addition, England`s libel laws tend to favor those who
bring suit against a free press. Prior restraint of speech in the
United States is allowed only in the most urgent of circumstances. In
England, the government may apply for a prior restraint of speech ex
parte, asking a court to censor a newspaper without the newspaper even
having notice or the opportunity to present an argument. . . . Free
speech in Great Britain is also constrained by the Official Secrets
Act, which outlaws the unauthorized receipt of information from any
government agency, and allows the government to forbid publication of
any `secret` it pleases. . . . The act was expanded in 1920 and again
in 1989 -- times when gun controls were also expanded." (Kopel, 1991,
pp. 99-102.)

Japan -- Citizens have fewer protections of the right to privacy, and
fewer rights for criminal suspects, than in America. Every person is
the subject of a police dossier. Japanese police routinely search
citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens`
residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate
is more than 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Assn. has said that the Japanese
police routinely engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases
where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the
physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their
confessions. Amnesty International calls Japan`s police custody system
"a flagrant violation of United Nations human rights principles."
Suspects can be held and interrogated for 28 days without being
brought before a judge, compared with no more than two days in many
other nations. They aren`t allowed legal counsel during interrogation,
when in custody may be visited by only criminal defense lawyers, are
not allowed to read confessions before they sign them, and have no
right to trial by jury. (Kopel, 1991, pp. 23-26.)


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 08:12:24 GMT, Gunner
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:01:15 -0700, John Ings
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.


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.


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

Failure of British Gun Ban Illustrates Folly of
California Gun Control Efforts

Newly released statistics reported October 13th show that since the
British government passed one of the most stringent gun bans in the
world in 1997, Britain's murder rate has risen to its highest level
since records began being kept 100 years ago.
-megasnip-

Good post, Gunner. 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. I agree with his
title, though I used to have quite the opposite stance. The stats just
don't support any kind of gun regulation. I hope John comes around as
I did. Myth abounds in this country and his.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
When I die, I'm leaving my body to science fiction. --Steven Wright
----------------------------
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

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.....

Don Foreman wrote:

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!

There's a follow on article to that that in turn links to
http://www.cree.com/Products/led_index.asp
These folk claim to be just staring into volume production on an LED
that puts out 60 to 75 lumens/watt. This is getting up near the best
flourescents, IIRC. Maybe I'll live long enough to be able to afford
some. :-)

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.

Last I looked, well made incandescent flashlights were in that price
range. I'll stick with LED's.

Ted

Ted Edwards wrote:
Don Foreman wrote:

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!

There's a follow on article to that that in turn links to
http://www.cree.com/Products/led_index.asp
These folk claim to be just staring into volume production on an LED
that puts out 60 to 75 lumens/watt. This is getting up near the best
flourescents, IIRC. Maybe I'll live long enough to be able to afford
some. :-)

Product name?
60 to 75 lumens/watt is a modest improvement over some existing LEDs,
but coloured ones.
White are all around 25lm/W.
Are you sure that they are in fact talking about white?
(colour mixing can get higher than single LEDs)

Ian Stirling wrote:

There's a follow on article to that that in turn links to
http://www.cree.com/Products/led_index.asp
These folk claim to be just staring into volume production on an LED
that puts out 60 to 75 lumens/watt. This is getting up near the best
flourescents, IIRC. Maybe I'll live long enough to be able to afford
some. :-)

Product name?
60 to 75 lumens/watt is a modest improvement over some existing LEDs,
but coloured ones.
White are all around 25lm/W.

Indeed. Check out the links in
http://members.misty.com/don/led.html
Note the "e" that isn't there.
"
White LEDs - 15-20 or mid-20's lumens/watt by Nichia, 15-25-plus by
Lumileds, 10-plus by Toyoda
Gosei and Agilent, soon around 25-30 MAYBE 60 for ones with new Cree
chips.
"

Ted