Eeyore wrote:

I believe

Come back when you have got over your religious assertion phase.

Eeyore wrote:

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,

Umm no it's quite easy actually, very little physical effort.

close up. A gun can kill at a distance with minimal effort.

Uh huh, and it's difficult to kill someone using a candle. Sorry what
was your point here?

Eeyore wrote:

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.

Neat sidestep. Are you alleging that the press and politicians changed
their tactics in between the two?

Eeyore wrote:

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

Look at those goalposts fly...

Eeyore wrote:

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.

Uh huh, so a very good match for the UK then.

Now try Chicago/Illinois.

The concealed carry laws are different, there's no point. Much like your
argument.

Morris Dovey wrote:

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

It would sound good if it were a real statistic. The truth is more
complicated, as ever.

On 2007-10-19 20:40:30 +0100, Eeyore
said:



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

No, you're confusing it with Prime Minister's question time.........

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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.

Neat sidestep.

It's not a sidestep. You're the one using drift.


Are you alleging that the press and politicians changed
their tactics in between the two?

Different political parties involved for sure. I can't see the Conservatives and
Labour ganging up together on this.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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.

Uh huh, so a very good match for the UK then.

Only some parts of the UK.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

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.

I think that's silly.

How do they plan to let the foreign shooting teams manage their guns btw ?


offering options it's ban everything.

And I said I disagree with that.

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

Not for that reason.


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.

Logic (and hearing/reading/comprehension) isn't your strong point is it.

I wouldn't abandon the legislation purely for sake of sport shooting. NO. You
really do have some kind of victim fixation.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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.

Uh huh, so a very good match for the UK then.

Only some parts of the UK.

So you're now admitting that much of the UK is worse than the USA?

Eeyore wrote:

We're not talking about Hungerford but Dunblane.

Neat sidestep.

It's not a sidestep. You're the one using drift.

No, I'm recounting a meeting between a politician and someone I know
over the subject under discussion. If I knew anyone invovled in such
discussions post-Dunblane I would mention that as well.

Are you alleging that the press and politicians changed
their tactics in between the two?

Different political parties involved for sure. I can't see the
Conservatives and Labour ganging up together on this.

You think that the political parties are never in accord?

Eeyore wrote:


I wouldn't abandon the legislation purely for sake of sport shooting.

Then you are being disingenuous when you claim that you do not support a
ban on sport shooting.

Steve Firth wrote:

You think that the political parties are never in accord?

As you note, "GUNS" is off-topic in alt.solar.thermal.

Nick

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
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.

Uh huh, so a very good match for the UK then.

Only some parts of the UK.

So you're now admitting that much of the UK is worse than the USA?

No, I'm suggesting that some bits of the UK may be as bad as some bits of the USA.

Are you stupid or something ? Comprehension isn't your strong suit. OR you just
want to spin out an argument.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

We're not talking about Hungerford but Dunblane.

Neat sidestep.

It's not a sidestep. You're the one using drift.

No, I'm recounting a meeting between a politician and someone I know
over the subject under discussion. If I knew anyone invovled in such
discussions post-Dunblane I would mention that as well.

Are you alleging that the press and politicians changed
their tactics in between the two?

Different political parties involved for sure. I can't see the
Conservatives and Labour ganging up together on this.

You think that the political parties are never in accord?

That was hardly what I suggested. As ever you want to seem to warp my words.

Yes, they may occasionally agree on some things.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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.
Not all murders are firearms....so maybe some got a butcher knife ,shovel,or
ax.
Maybe even a car.....



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





----== 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:

Are you stupid or something ?

Abuse, oh good.

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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
So you favor poison and crossbows.....over knives.





----== 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 =----

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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?
No, he is a person taking caring of himself.A big problem for government
dependent types to understand.
On the rare occassion that something does happen.especially in much of the
rural areas and the like .
By the time the sheriff gets there, the unarmed homeowner is dead and has
been so for over an hour.
Why do you think that organized crime does so many executions in rural
areas?

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

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




----== 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 =----

In article ,
says...
Most here would consider it a cowardly act to carry a gun or knife for
'self defence'.

Indeed we're busy trying to teach our children to be rather more grown
up than to solve problems by shooting people.


--
Skipweasel.
Never knowingly understood.

Eeyore wrote:

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.

You both - we all- are filled with the 'culture' of your
country, this is always amusing to see it.
Did you choose it ? Or was it 'written' on your mind by some
"Moby-Dick' or 'David Copperfield' ?

America built itself as an antithesis of England/Europe ...

America is huge and diverse : Boston, Little Rock,
Salt Lake City and San Francisco are rather different.

About gun ! If my home was built in the middle of a 9 acres
land in Texas -as that uncle in another topic here - I'd have
lot of weappons, dogs, guards, alarms, ... and even wouldn't
sleep well.

Erdy

Andy Hall wrote:

Meanwhile in Russian cities with district heating, the common practice
is to turn on the heating on Oct 1st come what may. Multiple occupancy
buildings often don't have much by way of controls so people use the
windows as thermostats until it starts getting cold.

You don't have to look that far away, the ancient system in my
university building in central London works on that principle. So people
turn off the radiators (the ones that are not jammed by too many layers
of paint) and use an electric fire instead.


--
djc

Erdemal wrote:

America is huge and diverse

Heck yes, the pickle on the McDonalds in San Francisco is 0.1 pH more
acidic than that in New York. And the beer in Nome is slightly less
tasteless than that served in St Louis.

Well worth travelling the huge distances to appreciate the diversity.

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.

yeah right... try telling that to the de Menezes family...

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

Look at the overall death rate, and there is far less difference - just
the implements are different.

I would wager there are far more people bludgeoned to death in the UK
with cricket bats than there are in the US. And vice versa with baseball
bats. What does that prove?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
Steve Firth 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

So you consider these as potentially as lethal and easy to conceal as a
hand gun? And most of these started out as hunting weapons. Not so the
hand gun. Its sole purpose is to kill or main man.

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.

So be it then. Let the 'sport' die. It's of no value anyway.

Woudl you like to see sailing done in a
simulator on the grounds that it's really just a matter of tactics?

I'm sure a dingy is capable of killing someone but not usually on the
streets of London.

As they do with swords.

The swords used in fencing are not inherently non-lethal.

They are modified to prevent serious harm. Are the handguns used in
competition?

They are used
in controlled conditions and according to safety rules. Just the same
applies to pistol shooting.

It may well do. But the problem is the possession of the handgun(s).

--
*A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking *

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

In article ,
Neil Barker wrote:
Perhaps you'd be so good as to explain why handgun crime has more than
tripled in the years since handguns were banned in the UK ?

No, you explain it. I could do with a laugh.

--
*Oh, what a tangled website we weave when first we practice *

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

In article ,
Neil Barker wrote:
Guns are unique in the above that their sole PURPOSE is to harm
people. They have no other function.

How Steve finds the time or inclination to argue with someone with the
intellectually ability of treacle, defies me.

Several of the guns that I possess were specifically designed for
target shooting, not harming people.

Have you ever tried shooting a .22 free pistol such as a Morini ?

Do you know what one even looks like ?

So your 'target shooting' guns are incapable of killing? According to Mr
Firth it's essential such a gun is pretty well the same as any other.

Does it fire some sort of soft bullet at a low velocity?

--
*Procrastinate now

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

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
No knives in the kitchen drawer in places where you live?

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

Eh? I take it you never do anything in the kitchen? I have half a dozen or
so knives that could kill easily - and I'm one of the most amateurish of
cooks.

--
*Sleep with a photographer and watch things develop

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

Eeyore wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Mark wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Suddenly, when a two year old car is 1/3rd the price of a new one, we
wouldn't be changing em every two years..we would FIX them.
I'm not aware of ANYONE not fixing their cars because their value hasn't dropped
enough !

Really? you must live in a different world.

Loads of people trade in relatively new cars because its actually better
than paying to even get them serviced.

It was standard company policy in at least one place I worked.
I wonder whether this practise is only common with company cars.
However, if a £20,000 car loses 1/2 its value in 3 years that is a
loss of £10,000. I can't believe it costs this much to service it.
No, but it costs something. A typical sales rep will do up to 60,000
miles in a year.

Often the cars are sold after one year, never having even had the oil
checked.

Are you suggesting they don't get any servicing at all ? That would void any warranty
and not be in the owner's (company's) interest.


Its been known.

Who cares about warranty if you have traded them?


All the company cars I've known about have standard routine service interval attention.


They all CLAIMED to anyway..;-)

I dare say an engine would sieze on 60,000 mile old oil. At least the way the reps drive
them !


Er..the rumour is that actually they don't.

And it's not 60,000 mile oil if they get a few pints added at 30,000



Graham

Eeyore wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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

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

Graham

I dunno. Life as a pro footballer is short, and pretty hard.

At best you probably have less than ten years at top salary, and are
useless for much else thereafter.

In article ,
Steve Firth 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.

If you're going to be selective with a state of the US why talk about the
UK as a whole?

--
*Don't use no double negatives *

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

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=?


Guns=handguns.

Other stuff is shot with RIFLES or SHOTGUNS.

A handgun is useless for game shooting/hunting, apart from putting the
wretched twitching thing out of its misery, but most wouldn't carry one
for that purpose: a rifle is heavy enough to tote around.

Neil Barker wrote:
In article ,
says...

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

Complete crap.


? what is complete crap.

You really don't understand firearms, do you ?


I really don't understand the point you are making.

BTW, you need to define 'shotgun' before you can say whether it is
banned in this country or not.

Non pump action non sawnoff.,

Neil Barker wrote:
In article ,
says...

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

How Steve finds the time or inclination to argue with someone with the
intellectually ability of treacle, defies me.

Several of the guns that I possess were specifically designed for
target shooting, not harming people.

Have you ever tried shooting a .22 free pistol such as a Morini ?

Do you know what one even looks like ?


Just about, and I have no problem with single shot target pistols: as a
weapon to threaten life, they are more likely to get you killed than
kill anyone else.

I guess there is a semantic difference on my head between a target
pistol and a handgun - an automatic or revolver capable of being
concealed about the person, and capable of lethal use.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Neil Barker wrote:
Guns are unique in the above that their sole PURPOSE is to harm
people. They have no other function.

How Steve finds the time or inclination to argue with someone with the
intellectually ability of treacle, defies me.

Several of the guns that I possess were specifically designed for
target shooting, not harming people.

Have you ever tried shooting a .22 free pistol such as a Morini ?

Do you know what one even looks like ?

So your 'target shooting' guns are incapable of killing? According to Mr
Firth it's essential such a gun is pretty well the same as any other.

Does it fire some sort of soft bullet at a low velocity?


Single shot is the key. Its actually quite hard to kill a human with a
single hard jacketed .22 round of reasonable muzzle velocity. And its
quite unlikely to stop them dead in their tracks the way a larger
caliber gun will.

The standard hunting round - at least amongst those I know using .22
rifles - is hollowpoint with supersonic ammo for best stopping power.
But even that is so chancy its disallowed for anything larger than
rabbits IIRC. You need a larger caliber for deer, certainly. Not sure
about foxes.

Even a shotgun can be sublethal a moderate range. Sister in laws got one
dog all stitched up and one vanished..judging by the pellet spread in
the dog that did come back, it was not much more than 30 yards range,
and although it tore the skin off its shoulder and haunch, the pellets
didn't get through the ribcage and it made it home.

If it had ben a fox it would have died an agonising death of course. Far
worse than being run down by a dog pack.

Eeyore wrote:

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 ?


I would love one to take out the deer that are getting to be a real pest
round here. They taste good too. BUT shooting even where we are with the
sort of gun that would take one out at 100 yards is terribly
dangerous..you have to be up high, shooting down.

Plenty of pheasants and pigeons around for shotguns to, and they would
feed the dogs if not us.

I did have a go at rabbits with a 22 air rifle, but stopped when I
realised that unless I got a head shot, the thing would hop away and die
somewhere else.


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.

Graham

Jim wrote:
"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.

No, but I did manage to engage a man waving a 38 around on a greyhound
bus for long enough for all the passengers to get off, and the police to
get on.

No one was hurt.


Good day.
Graham

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth 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

So you consider these as potentially as lethal and easy to conceal as a
hand gun?

Woah another goalpost shifter!

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

Was the question I answered. Now you're off about something else. The
fact is that many sports involve the use of device invented for killing
or maiming. Does that make them any less of a sport or mean that the
practice or development of that sport should be stopped?

And most of these started out as hunting weapons. Not so the
hand gun. Its sole purpose is to kill or main man.

Nope, you're repeating that as a mantra and you're wrong like all the
others were.

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.

So be it then. Let the 'sport' die. It's of no value anyway.

Of course, and lets stop all the other sports involving weapons, they're
of no value anyway.

Woudl you like to see sailing done in a
simulator on the grounds that it's really just a matter of tactics?

I'm sure a dingy is capable of killing someone but not usually on the
streets of London.

We're talking about sport, if one can be simulated so can others. That
doesn't mean it's sensible to do so.

As they do with swords.

The swords used in fencing are not inherently non-lethal.

They are modified to prevent serious harm. Are the handguns used in
competition?

They are controlled to prevent any harm, that's good enough for me.

They are used in controlled conditions and according to safety rules.
Just the same applies to pistol shooting.

It may well do. But the problem is the possession of the handgun(s).

Why is it a problem? Can you name a target shooter who has killed
anyone?

Neil Barker wrote:

How Steve finds the time or inclination to argue with someone with the
intellectually ability of treacle, defies me.

A naive belief that even the stupid might just start to think about
something rather than to emote and follow the herd.