On 2007-10-19 17:10:58 +0100, Huge said:

On 2007-10-19, Steve Firth wrote:
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.

I know. But I can't be arsed refuting the same old arguments all over
again from
people with the intellectual rigour of yesterday's pasta.

Out of a tin as well......

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Huge wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

An argument so circular that I'm surprised it isn't in a vault in Paris
somewhere, along with the standard kilogram and metre.

It's not an argument, circular or otherwise. It's a FACT.

Besides, gun ownership has never been a popular desire for educated
civilised
people anyway. Besides, what would I want one for ?

There was a documentary I saw about a teenage ? girl who moved from the
USA to
live with her family on an air base in Britain. She was frightened out in
public
because our police don't carry guns. It apparently had never ocurred to
her that
there can be a society where the public don't go around in daily fear of
armed
criminals and that the police don't NEED guns in their normal everday work
!
It's a sad reflection on the violence endemic in US society.

That's because we have tried to melt too many disparate types into our
melting pot. But your time is coming soon in Britain......


Graham

On 2007-10-19 17:23:15 +0100, Eeyore
said:



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

It's very simple. Yesterday's terrorists are today's freedom fighters.

There is plenty of precedent for that.

"Eeyore" wrote

Dare I ask if it was the vandalistic behaviour was colour/race related or
maybe simply
a 'social class' issue ?

It was mostly Dariel, Tyniquiaia, Tyrone Shoelaces, and his cousin
Tyrone....
If you'd ever been to NOLA you'd know exactly what I mean.


Graham

Jim wrote:

"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....

Considering the possibility for accidental shooting, even people you'd totally
trust may prove to be unsafe when given a gun.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/6610521.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,2182514,00.html

Superintendent John O'Hare, of Greater Manchester police, said: "This incident
shows the horrific consequence when guns are left in our community."

Graham

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:17:55 -0500, 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.

A voice of reason!


--
John Stumbles

Extreme moderate

"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.

Drivel, pure and simple.

Coyotes, rabbits, and squirrels are =people=?

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
...
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.

If complete safety is your desire in life then you need to lock
yourself away in a padded cell right now because you're probably
your own worst enemy.

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.

Sounds like a brainwashed American obsessed with guns. They are beyond
redemption. We don't have them, even the police are not armed here.
Look at the death rate through gunshot here and in the US then it is clear
we are doing the right thing by banning the things and even tightening up
laws to keep them off the streets. You can get 5 years for just being in
possession of a gun. You can get jail if you have a replica too. Guns
are meant to "kill" people.

Just wait til you see how many criminals have them; you blokes will
legalize possession by decent citizens in a second flat.

Jim wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote
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?

Do don't need a GUN in this country to protect yourself. Not that you're ever
likely to need to protect yourself anyway. It's not as violent as the USA,
although I do fear that imported US TV programs are making it gradually more
violent. The first step of course being de-sensitisation to violence, so making
it seem more acceptable.

Graham

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
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?

I have a lovely yard sloping to a creek, with a high bluff on the other
side. Makes an ideal target range; I prefer old Coke cans. My children are
learning how to use a weapon, because a time is coming when they will need
to know how. Graham carries on about "civilised" people; Western nations are
admitting uncivilised people at a frenetic pace. It's devolution.....

Jim wrote:

"Huge" wrote
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....

I cherish the fact that guns are not an everyday item in this country.

It's a sad day when you reckon you need to own a lethal weapon to defend
yourself in a supposedly civilised society. Fortunately in Britain you don't
need one.

Graham

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"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.

What happens if the bad guys start shooting before the "special units"
arrive? WTF????

Special
units.

Jim 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. 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.

Pretty unlikely I'd say. I'm disappointed you even suggested that. Guns are no
mark of virility.


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.

Violent crime is rare here, let's not increase it by upping the ante.

Incidentally, I know the Caandians think you guys are nuts about guns too.

Graham

Jim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
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.

In the classroom ?

Graham

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

It's not charity, but rather the Americans being so evil as to
distribute GUNS!!!!!
I am quite familiar with Winnie, I've read thousands of pages of works.



--
"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]

"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.


Be glad of it too, orer du bist eine Deutschlander......
The Americans saved Europe's ass and they want to bitch about it.....




Tom

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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.

So no wives are ever raped, or children murdered in the UK.
Right.


Graham

Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:
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 ?


It's very simple. Yesterday's terrorists are today's freedom fighters.

There is plenty of precedent for that.

It doesn't bring those people back to life. And the IRA was at that time a
criminal organisation according to UK law.

Graham

On 2007-10-19 17:41:20 +0100, Eeyore
said:



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

Except that last week almost all of them were working in factories,
offices and shops and in 3 weeks time they will be replaced by a
different set.

How can you be sure that there isn't a wrongun among them?

Jim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Dare I ask if it was the vandalistic behaviour was colour/race related or
maybe simply a 'social class' issue ?

It was mostly Dariel, Tyniquiaia, Tyrone Shoelaces, and his cousin
Tyrone....
If you'd ever been to NOLA

Nope.

you'd know exactly what I mean.

You'd have to help me there. I think I get only a part of it.

Graham

Jim wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote
Eeyore wrote:

Guns

I should have said handguns here.


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

Drivel, pure and simple.

Coyotes, rabbits, and squirrels are =people=?

No coyotes here but the recommended device for eradication of vermin is a
shotgun and unlike handguns these are NOT banned in the UK.

Graham

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:13:56 UTC, "Jim" 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 ?

In the UK I think I can confidently say NEVER.

So no wives are ever raped, or children murdered in the UK.
Right.

Well, there's are certainly only very rare occurrences of people
rampaging round schools and colleges with guns. But it's a relatively
frequent occurrence in the US gun culture - how many times this year?

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

In article ,
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.....

I take it then you want to kill rape and take others things? Or are you
some sort of superior being to all your fellow humans?

--
*How do you tell when you run out of invisible ink? *

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

Jim wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote

Sounds like a brainwashed American obsessed with guns. They are beyond
redemption. We don't have them, even the police are not armed here.
Look at the death rate through gunshot here and in the US then it is clear
we are doing the right thing by banning the things and even tightening up
laws to keep them off the streets. You can get 5 years for just being in
possession of a gun. You can get jail if you have a replica too. Guns
are meant to "kill" people.

Just wait til you see how many criminals have them; you blokes will
legalize possession by decent citizens in a second flat.

The 1997 amendment to the law concerning firearms making them more heavily
controlled was the result of public pressure.

The public in the UK have never expressed a desire for widespread gun ownership,
quite the reverse. Not least, we can see what it did to the USA where 'casual
violence' seems to be routine.

Graham

Bob Eager wrote:

... Well, there's are certainly only very rare occurrences of people
rampaging round schools and colleges with guns.

Please move this discussion out of alt.solar.thermal.

Thanks,

Nick

Jim wrote:

I have a lovely yard sloping to a creek, with a high bluff on the other
side. Makes an ideal target range; I prefer old Coke cans.

Such a property is a rare thing here. Let off a gun here and you're likely to
kill someone by accident.


My children are learning how to use a weapon, because a time is coming when
they will need
to know how.

God help you.


Graham carries on about "civilised" people; Western nations are
admitting uncivilised people at a frenetic pace.

Something may need to be done about that.

Graham

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
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.

Of course these horrible events happen. But the point is would this *not*
have happened if all those who were murdered owned guns? They'd have had
to keep them about their person night and day - and not sleep in case that
madman waited till late to perpetrate his crime. I'd also ponder how many
accidental deaths there would be if everyone carried guns with them. I'd
hazard a guess at far more than there are murders.

--
*No sentence fragments *

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

Jim 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.

What happens if the bad guys start shooting before the "special units"
arrive? WTF????

Even our 'bad guys' don't like shooting if they can at all avoid it.

Graham

In article ,
Jim wrote:
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?

Most here would consider it a cowardly act to carry a gun or knife for
'self defence'. And totally impractible for many at risk.

--
*Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? *

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

Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:
Huge wrote:

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 !

Except that last week almost all of them were working in factories,
offices and shops and in 3 weeks time they will be replaced by a
different set.

How can you be sure that there isn't a wrongun among them?

You can't be SURE. But they are SWISS. They really are quite different to you and me.
Even mildly anti-social behaviour isn't common there.

Graham

In article ,
Jim wrote:
Perhaps we shouldn't have given all those guns and bombs to Britain
when Churchill requested them.....

Well 'you' almost certainly gave nothing. And your forbears even less.
Everything the US supplied to the UK before being forced into joining the
war was paid for - and handsomely.

--
*If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?

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

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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.
Yes ,points out that they are not unique for starts.



----== 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:
| Morris Dovey wrote:

|| 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.

You're welcome. Being murdered in my bed isn't something I worry
about, but I can't claim that the idea has never entered my head at
all. I live in the outskirts of a city of ~350,000 where there are
many times more non-firearm murders than that every year. Nearly of
the murders are either arise from domestic disputes or are
drug-related. I don't have exact statistics, but read the all too
frequent reports in the newspapers.

It might help to remember that Americans aren't simply Brits who've
forgotten how to spell. You and I see the world through different
eyes, and although we can carry on a conversation and agree about
nearly everything that a pair of Brits or a pair of Americans might
agree on, our ability to survive and thrive in our personal worlds
depends on our abilities to automatically react to events in different
contexts.

However difficult it might be for you to appreciate, the American
fixation on lethal defense (and you're mistaken if you believe it's
limited to firearms) has a solid basis in the American context. It
doesn't matter that anyone might find that irrational or uncivilized -
it's real. To reach back and borrow from British naval tradition:
We're prepared to repel all boarders. That there may (note the implied
uncertainty) no longer be a need such defense is moot - the
preparedness has become part of our fiber.

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

On 2007-10-19 18:14:44 +0100, Eeyore
said:



Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:
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 ?


It's very simple. Yesterday's terrorists are today's freedom fighters.

There is plenty of precedent for that.

It doesn't bring those people back to life. And the IRA was at that time a
criminal organisation according to UK law.

Graham

Of course. The UK establishment thought the same about David ben
Gurion and in a somwhat different way about Mahatma Gandhi. Times,
perceptions and circumstances change.

One has to realise that in more cultures than not, the end justifies
the means and life is cheap.

Given that complete spectrum, the means by which killing an injury
happen is irrelevant.

Eeyore wrote:

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.

I don't need to, you said NEVER. One example proves that you are wrong.

Eeyore wrote:

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 ?

Nothing, but that has nothing to do with personal ownership. I keep
valuables at the bank, it doesn't mean those valuables belong to the
bank.

Instead of emoting, why don't you try (a) thinking and (b) applying some
thought to what you write?

Jim wrote:

"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.

Drivel, pure and simple.

Coyotes, rabbits, and squirrels are =people=?

If Disney says so, it must be true.

Eeyore wrote:

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.

Still with the capitals.

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.

Did anyone say they were not trained?

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.

Six weeks eh?

Now returning to the point, in what way is this training superior to the
training given to the equivalent teams in the USA?

BTW, fix your bloody line length.

Eeyore wrote:

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 ?

On the basis that they have given up killing people, but not in response
to any change in legislation. Remove IRA deaths from the 1997 and 2003
figures and compare them.

Eeyore wrote:

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.

You appear to ahve difficulty thinking about what you say. You say you
are not banning sport, but you support the legislation that bans the
sport.