Eeyore wrote:

John Stumbles wrote:

Arnold Walker wrote:

NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.
So much for your opinion of cops.

In the UK we have had an unarmed man shot dead by armed police on an
underground railway station, an unarmed and naked man shot dead by armed
police in his bedroom, an elderly man recovering from a cancer operation
shot dead by armed police who decided that the table leg he was carrying
was a firearm, and other similar cases.

Under tense situations, mistakes are easily made. With a gun, those
mistakes may be terminal.

Three women shot dead by police since 1985.

Anguish won't bring back the dead.

Oh, so by your book it's OK for the police to gun down unarmed civilians
but it's folly for citizens to enjoy the hobby of shooting at targets
under controlled and regulated conditions?

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Doctor Drivel wrote:

We don't have them, even the police are not armed here.

That is of course ********, as the family of Jean Charles de Menezes
will testify.

The police are NOT armed look at them in the streets. If there are guns
involved in a situation the armed response team will be called. Special
units.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Eeyore wrote:

Guns are unique in the above that
their sole PURPOSE is to harm people. They
have no other function.

Totally correct. The are not ornaments.

Drivel, pure and simple.

That wasn't me at all.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Eeyore wrote:

The sole purpose of a handgun is to kill or main people.

Wrong.

snip total drivel

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
In the UK we have had an unarmed man shot dead by armed police on an
underground railway station, an unarmed and naked man shot dead by
armed police in his bedroom, an elderly man recovering from a cancer
operation shot dead by armed police who decided that the table leg he
was carrying was a firearm, and other similar cases.

Under tense situations, mistakes are easily made. With a gun, those
mistakes may be terminal.

For the victim, yes.

Anguish won't bring back the dead.

It might prevent further atrocities, though. Give some of the domestic
security forces arms and they have a habit of firing first and asking
questions afterwards. And their record seems to show often at an innocent
party.

--
*Indian Driver - Smoke signals only*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2007-10-19 13:22:00 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Eeyore wrote:

Guns are unique in the above that
their sole PURPOSE is to harm people. They
have no other function.

Totally correct. The are not ornaments.

Drivel, pure and simple.

That wasn't me at all.

At least not the first one anyway....

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Doctor Drivel wrote:

We don't have them, even the police are not armed here.

That is of course ********, as the family of Jean Charles de Menezes
will testify.

The police are NOT armed

Bull****.

look at them in the streets. If there are guns involved in a situation
the armed response team will be called. Special units.

Are you claiming that these "special units" are not police officers?

Huge wrote:

On 2007-10-19, Eeyore wrote:


Huge wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.

Why is it that the moment the subject of guns comes up, so many people
lose the power of rational thought?

The sole purpose of a handgun is to kill or main people.

*plonk*

Well, personally I'm looking forward to the 2008 Olympic people killing
and maiming event.

"Eeyore" wrote
Sounds entirely rational to me. It is indeed the handguns that are the
problem and there
can be no valid reason for those as anything other than an anti-person
weapon.

Right. An "anti-person-who wants to kill me" weapon.
Eeyore, things are rather pleasant in the hundred acre wood, but here in
the real world people want to kill you and take your stuff. I like my things
in my house, my wife not raped, my kids alive, and my blood =inside= my
body.....


Graham

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-18, Eeyore wrote:

No matter how 'nice' people may appear to be, gun ownership leads to gun
crime.

Sigh.

One word.

Switzerland.

Touche'!


--
"Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
and presumptuous desire for a second one."
[email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org dot uk]

"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
...
Eeyore wrote:
...
The obsession with the 'right to bear arms' is a truly weird American
thing.
No matter how 'nice' people may appear to be, gun ownership leads to gun
crime.

Sure, just like knife ownership leads to knife crime and car
ownership leads to running people over with cars. The reason
why so many people die when someone brings a gun to school
or hijacks a plane is because no one else has a weapon and
they have all been told to sit quietly and not defend themselves.

Perhaps we shouldn't have given all those guns and bombs to Britain when
Churchill requested them.....


Anthony

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And their record seems to show often at an innocent
party.

Their latest in Kent is the shooting dead of a woman holding a
ball-bearing pistol. In this instance they claim to "know the woman" and
they keep referring to the toy gun as "a firearm". What next, I wonder?
Will spud guns also be referred to as "firearms"?

I see that PC Copper also refers to air guns as "firearms" that is when
they are not referring to them as "dangerously powerful firearms."

Meanshile a Heckler and Koch carried by a policeman apparently shoots
fragrant rose petals, because Drivel assures us that they are not armed.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:19:57 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

How does this compare with the mercury emitted producing the extra
electricity needed to power incandescent bulbs?

Quite badly if compared with sensible generation methods such as
nuclear.

There are no poisonous metals in nuclear electricity generation?
Fascinating.

They don't generally go flying up the chimney, laddie....



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The sole purpose of a handgun is to kill or main people.

Wrong.

Give me a good alternative reason.

And don't give me that silly nonsense about 'self-protection'. It counts as the
same as it implies a threat of death or injury.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Guns are unique in the above that their sole PURPOSE is to harm people. They
have no other function.

Drivel, pure and simple.

Target shooting is not why guns were invented.

Graham

Huge wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Huge wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.

Why is it that the moment the subject of guns comes up, so many people lose the
power of rational thought?

The sole purpose of a handgun is to kill or main people.

*plonk*

Plonked by a gun-loving IDIOT !

Awesome.

Graham

Jim wrote:

Perhaps we shouldn't have given all those guns and bombs to
Britain when Churchill requested them.....


You didn't. You sold them to us on credit at a crippling rate of interest.

Tom

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Stumbles wrote:
Arnold Walker wrote:

NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.
So much for your opinion of cops.

In the UK we have had an unarmed man shot dead by armed police on an
underground railway station, an unarmed and naked man shot dead by armed
police in his bedroom, an elderly man recovering from a cancer operation
shot dead by armed police who decided that the table leg he was carrying
was a firearm, and other similar cases.

Under tense situations, mistakes are easily made. With a gun, those
mistakes may be terminal.

Three women shot dead by police since 1985.

Anguish won't bring back the dead.

Oh, so by your book it's OK for the police to gun down unarmed civilians
but it's folly for citizens to enjoy the hobby of shooting at targets
under controlled and regulated conditions?

You're not making any sense.

FWIW the restriction on guns for target shooting is plain silly imho. They could
easily be securely stored.

Graham

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote:

We don't have them, even the police are not armed here.

That is of course ********, as the family of Jean Charles de Menezes
will testify.

The police are NOT armed look at them in the streets. If there are guns
involved in a situation the armed response team will be called. Special
units.

And properly trained unlike in America.

de Menezez wasn't shot because we have special armed police, he was shot because
of a failure in 'intelligence'.

Graham

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
In the UK we have had an unarmed man shot dead by armed police on an
underground railway station, an unarmed and naked man shot dead by
armed police in his bedroom, an elderly man recovering from a cancer
operation shot dead by armed police who decided that the table leg he
was carrying was a firearm, and other similar cases.

Under tense situations, mistakes are easily made. With a gun, those
mistakes may be terminal.

For the victim, yes.

Anguish won't bring back the dead.

It might prevent further atrocities, though. Give some of the domestic
security forces arms and they have a habit of firing first and asking
questions afterwards. And their record seems to show often at an innocent
party.

The American answer to this is to be armed yourself and shoot back of course !
Quite how they imagine you'd have the opportunity is something they like to
gloss over.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
Doctor Drivel wrote:

We don't have them, even the police are not armed here.

That is of course ********, as the family of Jean Charles de Menezes
will testify.

The police are NOT armed

Bull****.

look at them in the streets. If there are guns involved in a situation
the armed response team will be called. Special units.

Are you claiming that these "special units" are not police officers?

I think he's claiming that they are specially trained units rather than just PC
Plod like in the USA.

Graham

Jim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Sounds entirely rational to me. It is indeed the handguns that are the
problem and there
can be no valid reason for those as anything other than an anti-person
weapon.

Right. An "anti-person-who wants to kill me" weapon.
Eeyore, things are rather pleasant in the hundred acre wood, but here in
the real world people want to kill you and take your stuff. I like my things
in my house, my wife not raped, my kids alive, and my blood =inside= my
body.....

This is the usual American story. My wife will be raped, my children murdered in
their beds etc ..... That's merely because you're in the USA and it's a very
violent society, but even so, how often does that actually happen ?

In the UK I think I can confidently say NEVER.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The sole purpose of a handgun is to kill or main people.

Wrong.

Give me a good alternative reason.

It was there in the post that you replied to and you snipped that
material without comment.

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Guns are unique in the above that their sole PURPOSE is to harm
people. They have no other function.

Drivel, pure and simple.

Target shooting is not why guns were invented.

So? You said that the sole purpose or rather PURPOSE was to harm people.
And "They have no other function." That was and remains, drivel.

Eeyore wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote:

We don't have them, even the police are not armed here.

That is of course ********, as the family of Jean Charles de Menezes
will testify.

The police are NOT armed look at them in the streets. If there are guns
involved in a situation the armed response team will be called. Special
units.

And properly trained unlike in America.

de Menezez wasn't shot because we have special armed police, he was shot
because of a failure in 'intelligence'.

No he was shot because of a failure in intelligence.

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Stumbles wrote:
Arnold Walker wrote:

NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.
So much for your opinion of cops.

In the UK we have had an unarmed man shot dead by armed police on an
underground railway station, an unarmed and naked man shot dead by armed
police in his bedroom, an elderly man recovering from a cancer operation
shot dead by armed police who decided that the table leg he was carrying
was a firearm, and other similar cases.

Under tense situations, mistakes are easily made. With a gun, those
mistakes may be terminal.

Three women shot dead by police since 1985.

Anguish won't bring back the dead.

Oh, so by your book it's OK for the police to gun down unarmed civilians
but it's folly for citizens to enjoy the hobby of shooting at targets
under controlled and regulated conditions?

You're not making any sense.

I'm makign perfect sense, the problem for you is that you're emoting and
writing drivel.

FWIW the restriction on guns for target shooting is plain silly imho. They
could easily be securely stored.

Indeed, but lame-brains arguing like yourself had anyone who used a gun
for sport pilloried for something done by a maniac. Perhaps you could
engage your brain before making stupid statements about the function and
purpose of guns and the motives of those who own them?

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:

Perhaps we shouldn't have given all those guns and bombs to
Britain when Churchill requested them.....

You didn't. You sold them to us on credit at a crippling rate of interest.

The vast majority of British military equipment was British made - the
British even exported some to Russia, they made so much. The only US items
used extensively was the Jeep (a small run-about) and the Sherman tank,
which wasn't that brilliant either. It was only ever any good when the
British converted it to the Firefly and put a 17 pounder gun on it sideways,
and then it could knock out a Tiger tank. The US wouldn't use them because
they didn't make it and many US tankers were killed because of that.

The US appreciated British RADAR, jet engines, RR Merlin engines, etc. The
US provided much raw materials, wheat and the likes, no so much finished
goods. Sorry to dispel the myth.

On 2007-10-19 14:53:04 +0100, Anthony Matonak
said:

Eeyore wrote:
John Stumbles wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Unless there is a perceived need to reprocess nuclear fuel, keeping it
out of the biosphere is absurdly simple. You just 'contain' it in a safe
place !
What's absurdly simple about devising 'containment' for radioactively and
thermally hot chemicals, that must remain hermetically sealed for the order
of millions of years?

They don't need to be *hermetically* sealed. Just kept in a cool dry
environment. We fret excessively over used reactor rods.

I suppose there are places, like Russia, that have large areas already
contaminated with lots of radioactive material. One method to deal with
nuclear waste would be to ship it there and just dump it on the ground.
Maybe put up a warning sign.

This is still off topic for all of these newsgroups.

Anthony

I wouldn't have thought so. For the homepower one, it would depend on
the size of your home.

Don't limit the scope of your thinking

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Anthony Matonak wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Anthony Matonak wrote:
It only takes one person out of an entire classroom shooting back
to stop a massacre.

Unbelievable. Ever heard of something called mental health. Or jealousy
?
NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.

Nothing in this world, people, animals, pianos, cell phones, is so
completely safe that they can never, ever, under any weird set of
bizarre circumstances, harm you.

Guns are unique in the above that their sole PURPOSE is to harm people.
They
have no other function.

Graahm
Not totally ,some areas they have bombs for that purpose and even strap them
on or leave them in British subways.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Guns are unique in the above that their sole PURPOSE is to harm
people. They have no other function.

Drivel, pure and simple.

Target shooting is not why guns were invented.

So? You said that the sole purpose or rather PURPOSE was to harm people.
And "They have no other function." That was and remains, drivel.

Hand guns were invented so officers could shoot their own men. A supposes a
man is a target of some description.

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Why even UK football is slightly better
since the bull****ting swede vanished.

It'll be better still when they get paid 10% or less of the insane
salaries they
get now.

Graham
Is there a pro sport where that isn't true?




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Owain wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Rifles are a whole different story. For one thing they can't be concealed.

Of course they can, otherwise snipers wouldn't get very far.

Cocealed on the body silly.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

the ban has served no purpose and has not restricted the numbers of illegal
guns available to
criminals.

There's absolutely no way of knowing that.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

since the government banned legally owned and
licenced guns, the death rate has risen.

Wrong.

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF07.htm

1997 when the new Act came in : 201 deaths

2003 :163 deaths,

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

look at them in the streets. If there are guns involved in a situation
the armed response team will be called. Special units.

Are you claiming that these "special units" are not police officers?

I think he's claiming that they are specially trained units rather than
just PC Plod like in the USA.

He's doing no such thing, he's doing the usual Drivel tactic of talking
crap and being too stupid to admit that he made a mistake. He certainly
has not argued that these are "specially trained units" as you allege.

Are you arguing that US police officers have no weapons training? Are
you claiming that the UK training is somehow infinitely superior to the
US training?

You're wrong on both counts if you are.

And both of you are wrong if you think that police officers don't go
onto British streets, armed, on a regular basis.

Eeyore wrote:

Jim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Sounds entirely rational to me. It is indeed the handguns that are the
problem and there
can be no valid reason for those as anything other than an anti-person
weapon.

Right. An "anti-person-who wants to kill me" weapon.
Eeyore, things are rather pleasant in the hundred acre wood, but here in
the real world people want to kill you and take your stuff. I like my things
in my house, my wife not raped, my kids alive, and my blood =inside= my
body.....

This is the usual American story. My wife will be raped, my children
murdered in their beds etc ..... That's merely because you're in the USA
and it's a very violent society, but even so, how often does that actually
happen ?

In the UK I think I can confidently say NEVER.

That is as much utter baloney as anything you have said so far. Murder,
rape, arson, child abduction and burglary are serious problems in the
UK, committed by strangers on innocents. To attempt to claim otherwise
if absolute hokum.

Look up:
Angus Robertson Sinclair (murdered at least 13 people in their homes
and as they approached their homes)

Jill Dando - murdered on her own doorstep.

Cheryl Moss - murdered on a break from work.

McFadden and Spark - murdered a complete stranger Robert Gardner for
a tin of beer.

And the murder of the Laitner family:

28-year-old Robert Laitner was stabbed to death in his bedroom in the
Sheffield suburb of Dore. His father solicitor Basil Laitner went
upstairs to investigate the noise and was also stabbed to death.
Basil's wife, Avril was downstairs and was stabbed twenty-six times.
Returning upstairs the assailant then attacked the youngest of the
Laitners' daughters, Nicola. She was repeatedly raped by the
intruder, recently escaped criminal Arthur Hutchinson. Hutchinson had
been charged with rape in a different case but escaped from custody.

Which has all the elements you contrive above, together in one case,
something you claim "confidently" has never or rather NEVER happened.

Do you think writing words in capital letters makes the statement true?

Eeyore wrote:

Gun ownership in Switzerland is not as widespread as the gun lobby likes
to make out. A lot of them are militrary rifles too, not handguns.

Wrong on both counts, again. Military rifles in Switzerland are separate
from guns owned by the private individual. Possession of guns for
hunting is extremely common and pistols are owned for personal
protection. A Swiss citizen would be shocked to hear anyone think that
would even consider using a military rifle for anything other than civil
defence.

And yes, I did live there for a number of years.

Huge wrote:

On 2007-10-18, Eeyore wrote:


Huge wrote:

Eeyore wrote:


No matter how 'nice' people may appear to be, gun ownership leads to
gun crime.


Sigh.

One word.

Switzerland.

Gun ownership in Switzerland is not as widespread as the gun lobby likes
to make out. A lot of them are militrary rifles too, not handguns.

Whoosh! Just *look* at those goalposts move!

It's ******** anyway.

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The sole purpose of a handgun is to kill or main people.

Wrong.

Give me a good alternative reason.

It was there in the post that you replied to and you snipped that
material without comment.

Personal ownership (which is what's dangerous) is not required for target
shooting.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Guns are unique in the above that their sole PURPOSE is to harm
people. They have no other function.

Drivel, pure and simple.

Target shooting is not why guns were invented.

So? You said that the sole purpose or rather PURPOSE was to harm people.
And "They have no other function." That was and remains, drivel.

Guns were not invented for the PURPOSE of target shooting. No-one thought "I
wonder how we can put some holes in this piece of card, let's invent a gun" did
they ? Target shooting is simply something else thay can be used for.

The original purpose of target shooting is to practice KILLING.

Graham