Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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?

You're mistaken. I was against the excessive restrictions on target shooting.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Anthony Matonak 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 have to remain sealed for millions of years. I think most of
the stuff only needs to be stored for a few thousand years at most and
the worst stuff is pretty safe after a few hundred.

I think even a few tens of years calms the stuff down quite a lot.

Graham
If you are talking tritium or stromium 90 totally decayed is more like it.
One other thing .....one wonders about is talking about sealing everything
in sight.
Not recycling or the eco impact of the unmined nuke material ....many speak
of a grain
creating mass disaster at every corner.What about the tons in the ground
unmined on mass disaster?
Are we to believe that we have naturally occuring toxic waste sites?
Dating back before the pyamids,etc.,etc......
Maybe moses should have been arranging a super fund to clean up Nevada and
Austrialia.
And Noah checking his ark insurance policy for radiation poisoning from
uranium fields in Libya.
(Sort of unclear on whether he knew where he was ...much less if he cruised
over Libya)



----== 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 =----

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-19, Jim wrote:
"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.....

You didn't "give" them. We bought them.
OK, you loaned us the money,

Initially they never loaned anything and payment had to be in gold. When
they did "sell" materials, it was for the indirect protection of the USA.
So, they "sold" us arms to fight to protect them. What a deal they got.
They only came into the conflict when a large part of their fleet was wiped
out and Germany declared war on them.

but you got it paid back. There
was very little charity involved.

Little charity? There was none whatsoever.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Tom" wrote
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.

The USA did supply us with a lot of those Merlin engines btw.

Graham

Arnold Walker wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
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.


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

That doesn't change what I said about guns.

Graham

"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
...
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
Yes and no,since the nuts and bolts of solar energy and wind is the nuke
energy from the sun.
Which would make nuke alternate energy......give or take the bean counters
realizing that.
And this is an alternative energy group.



----== 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 =----

Arnold Walker wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Anthony Matonak 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 have to remain sealed for millions of years. I think most of
the stuff only needs to be stored for a few thousand years at most and
the worst stuff is pretty safe after a few hundred.

I think even a few tens of years calms the stuff down quite a lot.


If you are talking tritium or stromium 90 totally decayed is more like it.
One other thing .....one wonders about is talking about sealing everything
in sight.
Not recycling or the eco impact of the unmined nuke material ....many speak
of a grain
creating mass disaster at every corner.What about the tons in the ground
unmined on mass disaster?
Are we to believe that we have naturally occuring toxic waste sites?
Dating back before the pyamids,etc.,etc......
Maybe moses should have been arranging a super fund to clean up Nevada and
Austrialia.
And Noah checking his ark insurance policy for radiation poisoning from
uranium fields in Libya.
(Sort of unclear on whether he knew where he was ...much less if he cruised
over Libya)

In certain parts of the UK for sure (notably area where the bedrock is granite IIRC)
you may have your life shortened by exposure to naturally occurring radioactive radon
gas. It can accumulate in homes.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

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?

Minimal.


Are you claiming that the UK training is somehow infinitely superior to the
US training?

No, it's significantly superior.


You're wrong on both counts if you are.

No, I'm right.


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

Mostly in their ARVs. You're being disingenuous there.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

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.

No, he was talking about a single person having all those things happen to them.

And if you think the answer to dealing with them on an individual basis is gun
ownership, then you're a damn fool.

Graham

"Jim" wrote in message
et...
"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'!

Not that drivel about Switzerland. I find drivel all the time. I did a
Google and found this non-drivel:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.energy.homepower/tree/browse_frm/thread/a052266f1dee071c/780cb73a19b4e5f4?hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.energy .homepower%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fa052266f1dee071 c%2F780cb73a19b4e5f4%3Fhl%3Den%26lnk%3Dst%26q%3D%2 6&hl=en&lnk=st&q=#doc_780cb73a19b4e5f4

Here it cut and pasted. ......

Gun control in Switzerland

1. The Swiss militia

Military service in Switzerland is compulsory and all male Swiss citizens
incorporated in combatant militia units are taught how to shoot, beginning
at age 20 with basic military training. Rifle clubs teach younger men how
to shoot in voluntary preparatory courses.

All combatant militia troops (ages 20 to 50) are obliged to keep their
personal weapon, normally an automatic assault rifle and ammunition at home.
The army takes effective possession of some secure storage space for the
draftee's equipment, including the gun, in the latter's home.

Every male over 18 fit for military service is issued a type of M16 gun with
rounds of ammnuition to be used in the event of war, that same gun must be
presented twice annually to the inspection station with all sealed
ammuntion.

It is strictly forbidden to use the military weapons for any non-authorized
prposes. While each militiaman keeps some sealed ammunition at home, he is
under no circumstances allowed to use the ammunition for any private use.

A militiaman who uses his military weapon for unauthorized and improper
purposes may, under military criminal law, be sentenced to prison or, if the
offense is of small gravity, be punished by disciplinary action.

2. The purchasing of private firearms

The purchase of firearms and ammunition is subject to cantonal (State)
legislation, and the regulations vary from Canton to Canton. Some minimal
rules have, however, been agreed upon in a so-called "Concordat" which binds
all Cantons.

In this "Concordat" in its latest revision of 1970 it is stated

a) that whoever sells firearms and ammunition commercially must have an
authorization (firearm-sale permit) issued by the competent authority of the
canton where the business is domiciled;

b) commercial sales of firearms are only allowed to persons presenting a
duly signed "firearms purchase certificate" issued by the competent
authorities of the canton where the purchaser is domiciled;

c) such purchase certificates are not issued to persons under 18 years of
age, to mentally ill people, to persons under guardianship, to alcoholics,
as well as to persons with a criminal record, or if reasonable suspicion of
doing harm with a weapon to themselves or third parties exists.

d) persons authorized to sell firearms are required to keep detailed
records containing the date of sale, the exact personal data of the
purchaser, the number, issuing authority and date of the "purchase
certificate", as well as the type and serial number of the firearm.

The purchase of a firearm requires a permit in all Swiss cantons. The
carrying and transportation of firearms and other weapons to is subject to
the issuance of a special permit in the following cantons:

Zurich, Lucerne, Schwyz, Obwalden, Freiburg, Solothurn, Basel City,
Schaffhausen, Appenzell Interior Rhodes, St. Gallen, Thurgau, Ticino,
Neuchatel, Geneva.

The "Weapon Rules" of the Canton of Zurich, which regulates the trade in
weapons and ammunition as well as the carrying and owning of weapons, and
are fairly representative of other cantonal rules, subject the carrying of
handguns, gasguns, pointed weapons (such as daggers, etc.), blunt weapons
(such as knuckledusters, etc.), as well as the transportation of these
weapons in public transport facilities to a personal permit (weapon permit),
valid up to 2 years, if danger to the applicant's person or property can be
substantiated. Private ownership of machine pistols, machine guns, explosive
weapons (i.e. hand grenades and bombs) as well as weapon simulating articles
of daily use, is prohibited.

Automatic and Semiautomatic weapons can only be purchased (and carried)
with a special permit issued by the Federal Military Department (Department
of Defense), after consultation with the Federal Police, and a special
cantonal authorization which generally is only granted to collectors.

_____

The US gun lobby presents a myth of Swiss parading around the streets with
loaded automatic weapons ready to blow away criminals. In fact Swiss Army
reservists that keep weapons at home are required to have them unloaded and
locked up. The small supply of ammunition is kept sealed. Only able bodied
men between 18 and mid 40s have an army gun at home. Women are not called
up. After service the gun goes back to the army. Most Swiss do not have
military hardware at home.

American housholds are far more likely to have a firearm than Swiss.

Steve Firth wrote:

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.

Uh ? What do you mean 'separate from' ? Separate from what ?

So what anyway ?

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

A Swiss citizen would be shocked to hear anyone think that
would even consider using a military rifle for anything other than civil
defence.

Because they're a very law abiding lot unlike in the USA.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

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.

You're wrong there as well, and you obviously know nothing about target
shooting.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"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.

Are you going for a world record for talking ********?

Eeyore wrote:

PURPOSE

KILLING.

Nope, Huge was right, you're not worth the time of day.

Eeyore wrote:

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.

Utter tripe. Criminals still have guns, indeed more than at the time the
ban was instituted. Gun crime on the street is increasing.

Eeyore wrote:

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,

Ah, lies and damned lies eh? The table makes no distinction between
accidental shooting and murder, and the 1997 data includes shootings by
the IRA and army.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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?

You're mistaken.


No I'm not.

I was against the excessive restrictions on target shooting.

By banning even the use of hand guns in sport? What a strange form of
opposition.

On 2007-10-19 15:55:14 +0100, (Steve Firth) said:

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.

I'd corroborate that, having worked for a Swiss company for a while and
a frequent visitor. Military/CD service was (probably still is)
taken quite seriously. It used to be 3 weeks per year between ages
18-55.

More interestingly, in large companies, a person's position in the
hierarchy would be a mirror of their military rank. That led to some
interesting incompetences.

Colleagues and friends of non-Swiss nationality who lived there felt it
to be somewhat of a police state, rather than its superficial
appearance of a very large train set.

Eeyore wrote:

| 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 ?

I think not frequently (it's certainly an UNcommon event) but it does
happen. That it happens at all means that it happens /too/ often.

Yes, our society has been violent from the beginning (actually, from
before our beginning) and our cultural roots are in places that
considered public disembowelment and burning at the stake acceptable
treatment of those who deviated from the norm. We tend to be more
violent than some societies and less violent than others.

I'm not sure why, but individuals here seem willing to take on more
stress than people in most other places I've seen, and some handle it
less well than others. Most who can't handle it break more or less
silently. A very small proportion break explosively.

| In the UK I think I can confidently say NEVER.

It's a good brag. May you always feel so safe.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

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.

No, he was talking about a single person having all those things happen to
them.

No he wasn't, he specifically mentioned his wife and children, not a
single person. And once again you have snipped the relevant material
where I proved that you were wrong.

And if you think the answer to dealing with them on an individual basis is
gun ownership, then you're a damn fool.

Ah, excellent, name calling, you lose.

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

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.

Uh ? What do you mean 'separate from' ? Separate from what ?

Have you a reading disability as well as a quoting disability?

So what anyway ?

So, once more you were wrong.

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

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?

Minimal.

Then you are telling lies.

Are you claiming that the UK training is somehow infinitely superior to the
US training?

No, it's significantly superior.

Utter bull****.

You're wrong on both counts if you are.

No, I'm right.

Proof by assertion, you lose again.

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

Mostly in their ARVs.

And to spell it out, that would be a perfectly ordinary traffic car with
two perfectly ordinary bobbies inside it. The only difference being that
these bobbies are armed and trained to kill.

You're being disingenuous there.

Oh, the irony.

Morris Dovey wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

| In the UK I think I can confidently say NEVER.

It's a good brag. May you always feel so safe.

It's also completely untrue. However it seems that "Eeyore" is unable to
admit that he is wrong, so he refuses to admit that he has seen this
report:

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.

All it takes is one example to prove him wrong, and there is the exact
example he denies has ever happened in the UK.

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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.

You're wrong there as well, and you obviously know nothing about target
shooting.

What's wrong with a club keeping the gun ?

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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,

Ah, lies and damned lies eh? The table makes no distinction between
accidental shooting and murder, and the 1997 data includes shootings by
the IRA and army.

On what basis would you void the numbers killed by the IRA ?

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

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?

You're mistaken.

No I'm not.

I was against the excessive restrictions on target shooting.

By banning even the use of hand guns in sport? What a strange form of
opposition.

You appear to be determined not to listen to what I'm saying. I have never had any
objection to the use of any type of gun in sport.

Graham

Morris Dovey wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

| 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 ?

I think not frequently (it's certainly an UNcommon event) but it does
happen. That it happens at all means that it happens /too/ often.

Yes, our society has been violent from the beginning (actually, from
before our beginning) and our cultural roots are in places that
considered public disembowelment and burning at the stake acceptable
treatment of those who deviated from the norm. We tend to be more
violent than some societies and less violent than others.

I'm not sure why, but individuals here seem willing to take on more
stress than people in most other places I've seen, and some handle it
less well than others. Most who can't handle it break more or less
silently. A very small proportion break explosively.

| In the UK I think I can confidently say NEVER.

It's a good brag. May you always feel so safe.

Thank you. Let's say, being murdered in my bed isn't even the last thing on my
mind as I go to sleep, the idea simply never even enters my head at all. In this
small city of around 70,000 we get a murder maybe once every five years or so.
The last instance involved drug crime and it's easy to stay out of those
circles.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

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?

Minimal.

Then you are telling lies.

Are you claiming that the UK training is somehow infinitely superior to the
US training?

No, it's significantly superior.

Utter bull****.

You've UTTERLY lost it. I used to know a couple of SO19 officers (now CO19 of the
Metropolitan Police (London) special firearms unit for the benefit of non-Brits)
and they're regularly on training courses.

http://www.met.police.uk/co19/
http://www.met.police.uk/co19/training.htm

Initial Firearms Course ........... The course is of two weeks duration

ARV Course
After being selected for becoming a member of the Armed Response Vehicles, the
successful Officer will undertake a Basic Firearms Course, if not already an AFO, a
one-week H & K MP5 Carbine course and then an intensive three-week ARV course.
Having passed the course Officers are then posted to an ARV relief and attend
training for three days every six weeks.

So, to get to be an ARV officer requires at least SIX weeks specialist training
plus regular training thereafter.


Graham

Steve Firth wrote:
| Morris Dovey wrote:
|
|| Eeyore wrote:
||
|||| In the UK I think I can confidently say NEVER.
||
|| It's a good brag. May you always feel so safe.
|
| It's also completely untrue. However it seems that "Eeyore" is
| unable to admit that he is wrong, so he refuses to admit that he
| has seen this report:

UK horror story snipped

| All it takes is one example to prove him wrong, and there is the
| exact example he denies has ever happened in the UK.

You and Graham are both reasonably bright guys and we're all very
human and subject to human foibles.

Can we just stipulate that and get back to sunshine?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Steve Firth wrote:

Morris Dovey wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

| In the UK I think I can confidently say NEVER.

It's a good brag. May you always feel so safe.

It's also completely untrue. However it seems that "Eeyore" is unable to
admit that he is wrong, so he refuses to admit that he has seen this
report:

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.

All it takes is one example to prove him wrong, and there is the exact
example he denies has ever happened in the UK.

Now find another example.

Anyone would think this happens all the time.

Graham

Huge wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
Steve Firth said:
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.

I'd corroborate that, having worked for a Swiss company for a while and
a frequent visitor.

I went through a major Swiss railway station a few years ago as the local Swiss
Army people were all off for their annual bash - 90% of the people in the
station were openly carrying guns. I felt perfectly safe. Unlike the hoplophobes
present here, I am not frightened of objects.

If the ARMY were there OF COURSE they could be carrying guns.

Lord above !

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote
NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.

That is the most ass-inine thing I've ever heard you say, Eeyore. You
don't know me from Adam....


Graham

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-19, 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?

Knee-jerk political correctness. I'd have thought Graham immune, silly
me....
--
"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]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Anthony Matonak wrote:
The vast majority of gun owners, like car drivers, are fairly
responsible and not considered to be a threat to others. Your
world view may not accept this but then that's your problem.

The 'vast majority' of hand gun 'owners' in the UK are criminals. And keep
them for criminal purposes.

Well, if the Brits would grow a spine and stand up like responsible
American gun owners and allow people to protect themselves instead of
ringing for the Bobbies and praying, t5his wouldn't be so.
But what do you expect in Londonistan?



--
*Sometimes I wake up grumpy; Other times I let him sleep.

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

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:01:34 -0500, Bob Adkins
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:23:53 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


Draw your own conclusions. Guns don't make you safe. And where legal guns
exist it's
that much easier for illegal ownership too.


There's an old saying here that "guns make a polite society".

It all depends on who carries the guns. If nice people carry the guns,
it makes society safer. If thugs carry guns, it makes society more
dangerous.

We have this stupid politically correct view that everyone has the
same rights. If we don't want convicted felons to carry guns, then we
foolishly take away everyone's right to carry guns. That punishes the
good people in order to punish the bad. Phooey on that. Everyone
should have the right to bear arms until he proves that he is not
worthy of that right. We do have the right to discriminate against
thugs and outlaws.

So they can carry arms until they've shot someone - great idea!

Criminal types do not generally begin with murder; there is usually
=quite= a lot of warning that "this one's going to be trouble".
M

"Arnold Walker" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
et...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Stumbles wrote:

(c) the consequences could be disastrous for all humankind
Potential consequences in hundreds of years time. There is no
immediate danger
Tell that to to N Orleans.

The flooding of New Orleans was due to defective flood defences.

I guess teh rain and storms urges were simply no relevant then?

If the defences had been built properly ... NO.

I have been there, and you are only partially correct. Some of it was
unavoidable, but the areas inside the levees in the city of NOLA proper,
were largely dmgd by incompetence, but the area subsides at about 3mm per
annum, so it will be moot soon anyways......
Which might be the reason much of the rebuilding is on high ground.not in
the soupbowl.
Like the political figures seem to want....taxes revenues have been on a
major decline due to
lack of residents in some areas.
Everything inside the city of NO except the French Quarter and small
areas near the river, is very much below sea level. And sinking....


----== 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
=----

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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. They have no
legitimate
role, least of all being carried on the person, in a civilised society. Of
course
it may be that USA doesn't qualify as a civilised society. That would
explain a
lot.

Get real.

You first. If you were to spot a Jack the Ripper in the act, you'd run
away like a coward. I'd splatter his brains all over the earth.....
We have a saying here, "Some folks just need killin'", and it's
true.....
Tell me Graham, have you ever been the victim of a violent crime? It's
no picnic.
Good day.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Huge wrote:

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!

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

Not true; many are quite easy to conceal.

They also have
perfectly legitimate uses in vermin control, hunting and the like.

Graham

On 2007-10-19 17:09:28 +0100, Huge said:

On 2007-10-19, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-10-19 15:55:14 +0100, (Steve Firth) said:

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.

I'd corroborate that, having worked for a Swiss company for a while and
a frequent visitor.

I went through a major Swiss railway station a few years ago as the local Swiss
Army people were all off for their annual bash - 90% of the people in the
station were openly carrying guns. I felt perfectly safe. Unlike the
hoplophobes
present here, I am not frightened of objects.

Yes, I agree. It's a question of context , culture and purpose.

On one level, one can find the Swiss model of democracy using a
cantonal model and their perceived need to protect themselves as
rather curious. Periodically they feel a need to hold an election to
decide whether to sling out all the auslanders. It fails because
they then realise that it's needed to run their economy, but at least
people had an opportunity to discuss it and express thir opinions.

Their curious arrangements have given them stability for several
hundred years. For example, I was once sitting in the bar in a very
ordinary hotel (the kind where you can stand in the middle of the room
and touch all four walls) in Bern with a colleague. A little man in
a mac came in from outside and got into the lift. The colleague asked
me if I knew who he was. I didn't. Turned out that he was the prime
minister. No bodyguard, security or anything else.

One might argue that it was a case of the guy being of no consequence
or a belief that neutrality and independence implies a level of
protection.

I was in Stockholm when Anna Lindh was stabbed and killed in a
department store. The genuine shock among Swedes was not about the
crime itself - the guy was a loony anyway - but that something like
this could happen in their society which prides itself on a certain set
of values.

I am not in anyway a believer in the concept of "society" - it's a
label and a way to deflect attention away from individual
responsibility and an excuse for collectivism - but these scenarios
illustrate very well that it is not the *tools* that I might have at my
disposal to inflict what I might want on my fellow man but my attitude
towards him.

We can package it up as we like, but in the end it is really that simple.