In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

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

Wrong.

They have no legitimate role, least of all being carried on the
person, in a civilised society.

Also wrong.

This country used to be a regular Olympic Gold winner in the pistol
shooting events until brain dead ****wits like you ensured that it is
impossible to train for the sport in the UK. It's also amusing that
every entrant in the pistol shooting events at the 2012 Olypics will be
breaking the law.

Why should a so called sport involve a device invented for killing or
maiming? Pistol shooting as a pure sport is basically a coordination of
hand and eye and could easily be accomplished in this day and age with a
non lethal weapon. As they do with swords.

It's a bit like playing bowls with bombs.

--
*Your kid may be an honours student, but you're still an idiot.

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

Arnold Walker wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
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.

Rubbish. I never said there weren't other way to kill people. Like bombs. Hardly a
typical choice however.

Re-interpreting my words to suit your agenda is very shallow of you. Where's the debate
in that ?

Graham

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

Ah yes, well there were are onto a different tack and the answer to that
is mostly "it depends". I've lived in countries where guns are permitted
and those where they are banned. The USA appears to be a real exceptiion
in terms of culture. People blast away at each other there without
thinkign much about what they are up to and also they tend to be fairly
careless.

Switzerland permits citizens to own guns of types that would see them
run into prison fairly rapidly here and they don't run amok and kill
each other in hundreds. In some countries it's a legal right to own
assault rifles and in general although those countries have problems,
the accident rate doesn't seem to be terrible, or possibly it just
shrinks into insignificance compared to their other problems. My
relatives serving in Iraq had great trouble understanding that all
households are permitted to own a number of self-loading weapons, for
example. Yet my recollectionf o Iraqi's before the present mess is that
in general they are respectful and larely westernised and don't go
around "popping caps" in the "ass" of anyone they disagree with.

Eeyore wrote:

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

A .22 is better for rabbits and foxes and you'll have a heap of trouble
trying to get one. Shotguns are really only OK close up, and for vermin
a pump action would be better than a the twin bore shotguns permitted by
law.

I know you won't see the point, but the UK government doesn't restrict
guns out of fear for the safety of its citizens. They do so because they
fear for the safety of their own backsides.

In article , Jim
wrote:
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.....

Ah - you consider yourself some sort of Superman?

You seem to think villains are all inept cowards that will lie down and
wait to be shot by the self righteous. One of the Hollywood lies...

--
*No I haven't stolen it , I'm just a **** driver*

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

Morris Dovey wrote:

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.

I'm sure and in a 'domestic' I dare say it's easy to use that firearm in a
'moment of madness'. NO firearm, probably no murder.


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.

Oh yes, I've been increasingly aware of the differences, largely through
conversations such as this one on usenet in fact.


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.

I've always also kind of imagined it dates back to 'frontier spirit' and fending
off wild animals, injuns and so on. It just seems sad it's not possible to move
in.

I'm additionally forever perplexed that Americans seem keen to encourage wider
ownership of guns in other countries in this bizarre belief that we'll be
somehow 'safer' in spite of what all the evidence says.

The US gun death rate is FORTY times that in the UK btw.

Graham

Andy Hall wrote:

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.

Yabbut ..... The IRA was also an illegal organisation in the Irish Republic !
Perception about the IRA was uniform (except maybe in the USA behind some clsoed
doors). The only country that openly supported them was Libya.

Graham

In article ,
Morris Dovey wrote:
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.

I've often wondered why. Including the fascination with the death penalty
etc. Despite the proof that it is no deterrent.

--
*Errors have been made. Others will be blamed.

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

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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?

You implied it was nothing special.


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?

The majority of guns held by police officers in the USA are carried by the
equivalent of bobbies on the beat. I understand they have significantly less
specialist training.

Maybe someone who know more detail can let us know.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

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.

Re-instating self-government in N Ireland didn't require legislation ?

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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.

I've already told you I think the part that restricts sport shooting is
unneccessary and pointless. You seem to be determined not to listen to what I
say.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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

A .22 is better for rabbits and foxes and you'll have a heap of trouble
trying to get one.

But it's not impossible.

Shotguns are really only OK close up, and for vermin
a pump action would be better than a the twin bore shotguns permitted by
law.

I know you won't see the point, but the UK government doesn't restrict
guns out of fear for the safety of its citizens. They do so because they
fear for the safety of their own backsides.

It was done as a result of public pressure as I'm sure you well know.

Graham

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Morris Dovey wrote:

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.

I've often wondered why. Including the fascination with the death penalty
etc. Despite the proof that it is no deterrent.

I'm sure the death penalty thing is about the desire for vengeance.

Graham

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Why should a so called sport involve a device invented for killing or
maiming?

Hmm,

So that's an end to:

Archery
Javelin
Discus
Shot
Hammer
Epee
Sabre

And I'm sure several others.

Pistol shooting as a pure sport is basically a coordination of
hand and eye and could easily be accomplished in this day and age with a
non lethal weapon.

No, you're wrong, I'm afraid. An essential element of pistol shooting is
recoil, variation in the physical performance of the roudns of
ammunition, windage as well as physical control of the gun. It's not
possible to replicate this. Woudl you like to see sailing done in a
simulator on the grounds that it's really just a matter of tactics?

As they do with swords.

The swords used in fencing are not inherently non-lethal. They are used
in controlled conditions and according to safety rules. Just the same
applies to pistol shooting.

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

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.

Re-instating self-government in N Ireland didn't require legislation ?

The IRA declared an amnesty before the reinstatement of rule from
Stormont. You're really not doing very well here.

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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.

I've already told you I think the part that restricts sport shooting is
unneccessary and pointless. You seem to be determined not to listen to what I
say.

The government isn't offering options it's ban everything. You're really
determined not to think abotu anything you say.

On 2007-10-19 18:30:21 +0100, Eeyore
said:



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

Precisely, which is why having/not having the means to dispatch one
another is not an influence on outcome. One needs to look at
attitudes and motivations.

On 2007-10-19 18:56:43 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

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

Wrong.

They have no legitimate role, least of all being carried on the
person, in a civilised society.

Also wrong.

This country used to be a regular Olympic Gold winner in the pistol
shooting events until brain dead ****wits like you ensured that it is
impossible to train for the sport in the UK. It's also amusing that
every entrant in the pistol shooting events at the 2012 Olypics will be
breaking the law.

Why should a so called sport involve a device invented for killing or
maiming? Pistol shooting as a pure sport is basically a coordination of
hand and eye and could easily be accomplished in this day and age with a
non lethal weapon. As they do with swords.

It's a bit like playing bowls with bombs.

Javelins?

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

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.

I've already told you I think the part that restricts sport shooting is
unneccessary and pointless. You seem to be determined not to listen to what I
say.

The government isn't

wasn't

offering options it's ban everything.

And I said I disagree with that.

You're really determined not to think abotu anything you say.

You're *REALLY* determined not to listen to what I'm TELLING you. ! I have always
thought the restrictions on sport shooting were excessive, from the day I first
heard about it. It smacked of someone in power having it in for the sport (a bit
like fox hunting perhaps). Since it was under Nu Labour, I imagine they deemed sport
shooting to be 'politically incorrect'. Heck, even I have shot on a range. Untwist
those damn knickers of yours !

Graham

On 2007-10-19 19:02:23 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article , Jim
wrote:
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.....

Ah - you consider yourself some sort of Superman?

You seem to think villains are all inept cowards that will lie down and
wait to be shot by the self righteous. One of the Hollywood lies...

When that doesn't happen, they will be in a car that will leave a
twisty road into a ravine.

These ravines have all kinds of incendiary devices laying around
because the car always explodes with a ball of flame.

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
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.

Re-instating self-government in N Ireland didn't require legislation ?

The IRA declared an amnesty before the reinstatement of rule from
Stormont. You're really not doing very well here.

When exactly did they renounce all use of violence ? And 'putting weapons out of
reach' ?

Graham

Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:
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.


Precisely, which is why having/not having the means to dispatch one
another is not an influence on outcome. One needs to look at
attitudes and motivations.

I agree that attitude, background, upbringing, social values and the like all hugely
influence these things.

Graham

On 2007-10-19 19:09:50 +0100, Eeyore
said:



Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:

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.

Yabbut ..... The IRA was also an illegal organisation in the Irish Republic !

...... and you imagine that David BG's mob wasn't illegal in what was
then Palestine?


Perception about the IRA was uniform (except maybe in the USA behind
some clsoed
doors). The only country that openly supported them was Libya.


Until the game changed. The important point is that in these
things, it is perception that is the major influence.

Eeyore wrote:

I'm sure and in a 'domestic' I dare say it's easy to use that firearm in a
'moment of madness'. NO firearm, probably no murder.

No knives in the kitchen drawer in places where you live?

Eeyore wrote:

The US gun death rate is FORTY times that in the UK btw.

The Vermon murder rate (1.5/100,000) is exactly the same as in the UK.
Yet in Vermont citizens don't even need a permit to carry a concealed
weapon.

For violent crime the figures are truly shocking.

UK - 2300 per 100,000
Vermont - 119.7 per 100,000

The US murder rate as a whole is BTW four times the UK average. So it's
misleading to simply compare the number of people killed with guns in
each country. The evidence suggests that in the UK people simply pick up
something else to kill people with, and there's no hard evidence that
lack of legal guns is protecting citizens. Indeed the Vermont data
suggests that guns protect US citizens from criminals to a significant
extent.

"An armed society is a polite society" certainly seems to work in
Vermont.

Andy Hall wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" said:
Jim wrote:

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.....

Ah - you consider yourself some sort of Superman?

You seem to think villains are all inept cowards that will lie down and
wait to be shot by the self righteous. One of the Hollywood lies...

When that doesn't happen, they will be in a car that will leave a
twisty road into a ravine.

These ravines have all kinds of incendiary devices laying around
because the car always explodes with a ball of flame.

Have you ever seen the film Ronin ?
http://imdb.com/title/tt0122690/

It's well worth seeing as a decent film in its own right (a score of 7.1 on imdb
is pretty good) but amongst the film's better aspects are some brilliant car
chases set in *European* surroundings. The final chase through Paris (watch out
for the tunnel where Princess Di's car crashed) is utterly AWESOME.

And barely any cars catch fire ! NONE 'explode' at all IIRC. It's brilliant to
see car chases done RIGHT !

Graham

Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:
Andy Hall wrote:
Eeyore said:

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

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.

Yabbut ..... The IRA was also an illegal organisation in the Irish Republic !

..... and you imagine that David BG's mob wasn't illegal in what was
then Palestine?

What was then Palestine was under British administration. It's not the
same/comparable at all.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

I know you won't see the point, but the UK government doesn't restrict
guns out of fear for the safety of its citizens. They do so because they
fear for the safety of their own backsides.

It was done as a result of public pressure as I'm sure you well know.

It was carefully manipulated by government and press as I'm sure you are
aware. After Hungerford a police marksman I know formed part of a
deputation to beg Geoffrey Howe to reconsider the ban that was bound to
follow. Howe told him that the legislation had been drafted years ago,
and that all they had done was to wait for an appropriate moment to
bring it before Parliament.

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
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.

Re-instating self-government in N Ireland didn't require legislation ?

The IRA declared an amnesty before the reinstatement of rule from
Stormont. You're really not doing very well here.

When exactly did they renounce all use of violence ? And 'putting weapons
out of reach' ?

Do you want to put those goalposts back where you found them?

The IRA announced a ceasefire on 31 August 1994 with "a complete
cessation of military operations."

The Stormont elections were on 25 June 1998.

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

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.

I've already told you I think the part that restricts sport shooting
is unneccessary and pointless. You seem to be determined not to listen
to what I say.

The government isn't

wasn't

Don't tell me what I mean. The government has had an opportunity to
rethink the legislation in the run up to the 2012 Olympics. It has
declined to offer the option to resume target pistol shooting in the UK.

offering options it's ban everything.

And I said I disagree with that.

But you support the legislation that bans sport use of pistols.

You're really determined not to think abotu anything you say.

You're *REALLY* determined not to listen to what I'm TELLING you. ! I have
always thought the restrictions on sport shooting were excessive, from the
day I first heard about it. It smacked of someone in power having it in
for the sport (a bit like fox hunting perhaps). Since it was under Nu
Labour, I imagine they deemed sport shooting to be 'politically
incorrect'. Heck, even I have shot on a range. Untwist those damn knickers
of yours !

Umm hmm, as long as you support a ban, you support a ban on the sport.

Eeyore wrote:
| Morris Dovey wrote:

|| 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.
|
| I'm sure and in a 'domestic' I dare say it's easy to use that
| firearm in a 'moment of madness'. NO firearm, probably no murder.

That's probably not the case. More probably, given the level of rage
required to take a spouse's life, the alternative would be a knife or
blunt object.

|| 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.
|
| Oh yes, I've been increasingly aware of the differences, largely
| through conversations such as this one on usenet in fact.

Thank you for making the effort. Understanding is always worthwhile,
but often difficult to come by - for Americans, too - perhaps even
more difficult for many of us because of our geographical separation
from so many of the other important cultures in our world...

|| 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.
|
| I've always also kind of imagined it dates back to 'frontier
| spirit' and fending off wild animals, injuns and so on. It just
| seems sad it's not possible to move in.

Don't forget that along with some hostile residents and some wild
animals, there were unfriendly foreign armies.

I'd like to agree and disagree at the same time, so I won't do either.
I'm an American and that's how I am. It's my nature to want everyone
to be my friend, and to be a good friend to all people. I hope for the
best - and I prepare for the worst. shrug

| I'm additionally forever perplexed that Americans seem keen to
| encourage wider ownership of guns in other countries in this
| bizarre belief that we'll be somehow 'safer' in spite of what all
| the evidence says.

Hmm. This particular American hasn't done so. I've pretty much figured
that it wasn't any of my business. I wouldn't even have discussed it
with you except that you seemed so intent on establishing some weird
kind of moral superiority based on non-possession of firearms.

| The US gun death rate is FORTY times that in the UK btw.

Have you considered that Americans might already have recognized that
we're paying a very high price for our right to have firearms, and
that a clear majority have chosen to pay that price? I'd like to
suggest that your inability to understand that choice does not
necessarily mean that the majority of Americans are either stupid or
foolish.

You might ponder why so many Americans would choose to pay such a high
price.

One fortieth the US rate sounds OK.
Zero would be better.

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

On 2007-10-19 20:01:51 +0100, Eeyore
said:



Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:
Andy Hall wrote:
Eeyore said:

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

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.

Yabbut ..... The IRA was also an illegal organisation in the Irish Republic !

..... and you imagine that David BG's mob wasn't illegal in what was
then Palestine?

What was then Palestine was under British administration. It's not the
same/comparable at all.

Graham

The details don't really matter. The point is of a group trying to
disrupt the status quo.

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I'm sure and in a 'domestic' I dare say it's easy to use that firearm in a
'moment of madness'. NO firearm, probably no murder.

No knives in the kitchen drawer in places where you live?

Most knives at home are too blunt to do much damage.

Also, using a knife to kill requires very deliberate and serious physical
effort, close up. A gun can kill at a distance with minimal effort.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The US gun death rate is FORTY times that in the UK btw.

The Vermon murder rate (1.5/100,000) is exactly the same as in the UK.
Yet in Vermont citizens don't even need a permit to carry a concealed
weapon.

For violent crime the figures are truly shocking.

UK - 2300 per 100,000
Vermont - 119.7 per 100,000

Violent crime reporting methods vary wildly. I wouldn't be at all surprised
under Nu Labour if a mere argument at home counts as violent crime if the police
get called out.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I know you won't see the point, but the UK government doesn't restrict
guns out of fear for the safety of its citizens. They do so because they
fear for the safety of their own backsides.

It was done as a result of public pressure as I'm sure you well know.

It was carefully manipulated by government and press as I'm sure you are
aware. After Hungerford a police marksman I know formed part of a
deputation to beg Geoffrey Howe to reconsider the ban that was bound to
follow. Howe told him that the legislation had been drafted years ago,
and that all they had done was to wait for an appropriate moment to
bring it before Parliament.

We're not talking about Hungerford but Dunblane.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
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.

Re-instating self-government in N Ireland didn't require legislation ?

The IRA declared an amnesty before the reinstatement of rule from
Stormont. You're really not doing very well here.

When exactly did they renounce all use of violence ? And 'putting weapons
out of reach' ?

Do you want to put those goalposts back where you found them?

The IRA announced a ceasefire on 31 August 1994 with "a complete
cessation of military operations."

The Stormont elections were on 25 June 1998.

BEFORE the IRA said it was putting weapons out of reach.
http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/North...+peace+process

Graham

Morris Dovey wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
| Morris Dovey wrote:

|| 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.
|
| I'm sure and in a 'domestic' I dare say it's easy to use that
| firearm in a 'moment of madness'. NO firearm, probably no murder.

That's probably not the case. More probably, given the level of rage
required to take a spouse's life, the alternative would be a knife or
blunt object.

A gun is far easier to kill with than a knife *and* is more remote, making it
easier (less involving). I believe the issue has been studied in some depth but
I don't have a cite handy.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The US gun death rate is FORTY times that in the UK btw.

The Vermon murder rate (1.5/100,000) is exactly the same as in the UK.
Yet in Vermont citizens don't even need a permit to carry a concealed
weapon.

For violent crime the figures are truly shocking.

UK - 2300 per 100,000
Vermont - 119.7 per 100,000

I believe the reporting criteria for 'violent crime' are hugely different
between the 2 counties. In the UK 'violent crime' no longer even has to involve
actual violence, merely the threat or suggestion of it.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The US gun death rate is FORTY times that in the UK btw.

The Vermon murder rate (1.5/100,000) is exactly the same as in the UK.
Yet in Vermont citizens don't even need a permit to carry a concealed
weapon.

Vermont is highly atypical of the USA. No large down at heel cities with an
underclass, a significant wealthy and well-educated population, it's without
much poverty overall AIUI and is quite 'liberal' by US standards.

Now try Chicago/Illinois.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:
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."

The problem with BB guns is that they can be *very* good replicas (good
enough that spares & accessories designed for the real thing fit with no
problem).
Basically, unless you actually handle the "weapon" a visual inspection
will not tell you if its real or a BB gun.

VH.