Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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...

If I had a gun, and someone else drew on me, I'd shoot.

If I didnt have a gun, I wouldn't.

When I didn't have a gun, I didn't.

I am still alive and to the best of my knowledge so is the man who 'only
wanted a soma respect here'

Most gun toters suffer from deep inferiority complexes. Possibly because
they are. Having a gun makes em feel in control. Sadly its a myth. They
just get killed.

Neil Barker wrote:
In article ,
says...

Heck, even I have shot on a range.

Which range, when, what firearms(s) did you shoot and who owned them ?

My school, .22 rifle, the school cadet corps

Jim wrote:
"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.....


Yup. Keep those septics out of civilised western society I say.

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....

Graham



Oh we do.

I would not feel safe around you.

Unlike - say - a guy down the road whose shooting is first rate, and
whose safety standards are Army training inspired.

People who have been shot at get remarkably less complacent about firearms.

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arnold Walker wrote:
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.

No Graham, it does disprove what you say in a roundabout way..... People
who want to kill, will kill. Period. Guns, knives, sarin, ricin, cyanide,
bombs, etc ad infinitum ad nauseum.....
Britain just doesn't quite have the criminals that we have here- yet.
Yet you tolerate Islamofascists preaching genocide on the corners in
Londonistan.....
Your time will come; i will pray for you all, as I have friends in the
UK.


Graham

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

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

I think that clearly displays your psyche: White supremacist.

I bet you have never left the Americas.

There are very few actual gun killings in the UK - it used to be a dozen
a year. Its maybe in the one hundred or so now. last time I checked,
Detroit was a dozen a day.

Canada, which has a similar population mix to the USA at least around
the borders, shows an ABRUPT transition in levels of gun crime.

Go figure.

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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.

Graham, no hard feelings here, but you don't know your ass from a hole
in the ground. I have worked undercover for the police as an informant etc.
I know a =lot= about the police in America, and you are dead wrong.
I think I'm going to take a vacation from your silly uninformed
knee-jerk liberalism for awhile.
plonk


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

No, it's significantly superior.


You're wrong on both counts if you are.

No, I'm right.


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

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

Graham

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

PURPOSE

KILLING.

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

Graham is normally a quite sensible chap, but on this he's a rabid loon.
Plonk him for a week or two, and let's get on with it.....

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.

True. But what use are they to society? All those that have aspirations
for "professional football" should be sent out in Douglas Adams' first
spaceship!

What good is it to them to have ridiculous wages which heightens their
expectation in life?

"Professional" football, rugby and cricket should be banned! Discuss?

Jim wrote:
"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.


To have one makes yo a criminal, so its a pretyy specious statement to
start with. And generally criminals with guns use them to control
situations. Only amateur criminals - gangs looking for 'respect' use
them casually.

in fact your whole seres of posts show a complete lack of understanding
of cultures beyond your own narrow racist paranoid view of the USA.

With or without a gun, you wouldn't last a minute here.

Jim wrote:
"Arnold Walker" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
et...
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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

(c) the consequences could be disastrous for all humankind
Potential consequences in hundreds of years time. There is no
immediate danger
Tell that to to N Orleans.
The flooding of New Orleans was due to defective flood defences.
I guess teh rain and storms urges were simply no relevant then?
If the defences had been built properly ... NO.
I have been there, and you are only partially correct. Some of it was
unavoidable, but the areas inside the levees in the city of NOLA proper,
were largely dmgd by incompetence, but the area subsides at about 3mm per
annum, so it will be moot soon anyways......
Which might be the reason much of the rebuilding is on high ground.not in
the soupbowl.
Like the political figures seem to want....taxes revenues have been on a
major decline due to
lack of residents in some areas.
Everything inside the city of NO except the French Quarter and small
areas near the river, is very much below sea level. And sinking....


Well so is 90% of Holland. And most of cambridgeshire and lincoln, and
quite a bit of Norfolk here.

So what?

Gonna just cry 'can;'t and give up?

Typical septic, No balls. Just guns..



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

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

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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.

He is just ignorantly parroting what he's been told. Everything I know
about weapons I learned from police officers and a friend who is a machine
gun dealer. They are all =extremely= knowledgeable. It's British pride
talking. Or one pint too many... eg



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

No, it's significantly superior.

Utter bull****.

You're wrong on both counts if you are.

No, I'm right.

Proof by assertion, you lose again.

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

Mostly in their ARVs.

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

You're being disingenuous there.

Oh, the irony.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Morris Dovey wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

But the crook used a knife!!!!!! So Eeyore is right!!!! LOL!!!!

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

Eeyore wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

A gun is a lump of metal. An intricate mechanism, but still inanimate. I
went to a gun show two weeks ago, and they were the nicest folks imaginable.
Everyone was armed to the teeth, including me, and in a situation like that
NO ONE could possibly be foolish enough to try something. I have never felt
safer than when surrounded by hundreds of my fellow citizens heavily armed.
I have not had a malfunction since 1979, and have saved my life once,
and that of another person once. My best friend was attacked while arresting
a drug dealer, suffered a fractured skull, and broken neck, but still
managed to pump two .357's into his chest as he passed out, purely on the
instinct of the TRAINING that was pounded into his head. The training that
Eeyore thinks is non-existent.....
His wife and kids really do kinda enjoy the fact that he's still
alive.... My kids are pretty happy about it too....



--
"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]

Eeyore wrote:

Jim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Sounds entirely rational to me. It is indeed the handguns that are the
problem and there
can be no valid reason for those as anything other than an anti-person
weapon.
Right. An "anti-person-who wants to kill me" weapon.
Eeyore, things are rather pleasant in the hundred acre wood, but here in
the real world people want to kill you and take your stuff. I like my things
in my house, my wife not raped, my kids alive, and my blood =inside= my
body.....

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

In the UK I think I can confidently say NEVER.


Well I know of two people that got zapped by the IRA with weapons they
bought with american donated dollars..I have seen three people die in
road accidents..and knew two who did so as well..three dead from
substance abuse..one cancer death 'before his time'

No one dead that I know of or anyone I know of from violent (non
political) crime.

I've had loaded firearms waved in my face on two occasions..but never in
Europe.

The problem with the USA is that by and large it hasn't ever had a major
war on its soil apart from slaughtering the natives and each other 150
years ago.. Certainly not one that took out all the 'jims' and so
on..whereas most of N Europe can claim two wars fought over their heads
at which they lost better than 10% of the adult male population. In some
case considerably better.

It tends to grow societies up a bit faster.
\



Graham

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
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?

How many little kids were murdered in the school across the pond those
years ago? I think the Va. massacre of April 16th only just broke that
record now.... IIRC.

QUESTION-
ALL YOU SMUG ANTI-GUNNERS; IF I SEE SOMEONE ABOUT TO BLOW YOUR BRAINS
OUT, DO YOU WANT ME TO SHOOT HIM FIRST, OR JUST SIT BACK AND SCORE HIM ON
MARKSMANSHIP?



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

Morris Dovey wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Its no brag: its still more or less a FACT.

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

Eeyore wrote:

Morris Dovey wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I don't even lock my cars or doors..even when we go out, mostly.



Graham

"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

Thou shalt not commit murder.

rape

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

and take others things?

Thou shalt not covet.

Or are you
some sort of superior being to all your fellow humans?

No, I just obey the law. God's and man's.


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

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

"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

Nearby is close enough if you have three.....

- and not sleep

A dog; man's best friend.

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.

Darwinism in action....


--
*No sentence fragments *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote
Most here would consider it a cowardly act to carry a gun or knife for
'self defence'.

That is ridiculous. Look up ridiculous in the dictionary; it is
something that =deserves= ridicule.

And totally impractible for many at risk.

British technology is incapable of developing an efficient concealed
carry, quick-draw holster? I just paid $9.95 for one....

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

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

Ungrateful twit.



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

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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?

I'm comparing a state of the USA with a state of Europe.

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
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?

Sigh. Non of the above were invented for the sole purpose of killing or
maiming man. They were originally hunting weapons or developments of
those. But carry on squirming.

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.

Ok. Just what was the handgun invented for? It's pretty useless for
hunting - especially early ones.

--
*When blondes have more fun, do they know it?

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

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
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?

he must be a quadriplegic too; no hands to strangle with...
BAN HANDS!!!!

Morris Dovey wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
| Morris Dovey wrote:

| 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.

Cos they don't trust each other?
Cos the NRA has sold em a pup?
Cos the government finds a nice air of controlled panic, allows them to
control more than they should?
Cos the media has found it a sure fire way of selling crap programs
based on mindless violence.?

I've been on 4 continents - 5 if you count s america - and the one thing
that does is make you easily able to spot political propaganda that te
natives think is the reality.

IME only a very few white people understand what is going on in America.
The black guys do tho. The crap isn't aimed at them by and large.

It is the MOST controlled society I have ever been in (apart from a
breief rip to what had been the other side of the iron curtain,where one
could see the remains of a similar system), and the LEAST free. But the
control is only partially exercised by guns: In the main its exercised
through propaganda. And the slickest marketing of it on Gods earth.

Americans don't choose to pay such a high price: They are simply sold it
by top quality salesmen so they THINK they have chosen it. They haven't.
No viable alternative is ever given airtime.

Ones only hope, and regret too, is that a society that lives on fantasy,
will never be able to cope with reality when the bull**** finally hits
the whirly things. Nero/Bush is still fiddling as Rome burns.

the USA will go down in history as the shortest lived global power ever.



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

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

Jim wrote:

NO ONE could possibly be foolish enough to try something.

Oh I don't know, there was the fool who tried to rob H&J Leather and
Firearms.

"Arnold Walker" wrote in message
...

"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?

Courts have held that the sheriff is under no obligation to rush and
save you, he simply investigates the crime. They are under no obligation to
prevent it.



--
*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
=----

"Neil Barker" wrote in message
...
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 ?

I have a S&W Model 17, known as the K-22, w/a 6" barrel. My little girls
love to shoot Coke cans for fun.

Do you know what one even looks like ?

--
Neil Barker

"Neil Barker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Heck, even I have shot on a range.

HE INTENDS TO KILL SOMEONE!!!!
RING MI-5!!!!



Which range, when, what firearms(s) did you shoot and who owned them ?

--
Neil Barker

Erdemal wrote:
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' ?


Probably more Occam and Descartes actually.

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


No it didn;'t. It was merely that the dross who couldn't make it in
Europe were exported there, along with the criminal classes.

One o he other would have been fine: teh combiantion was lethal.

Spain exported all its drooss gentry to lord it over the peasats, and
you have th present efascist mess that is am,eraic.

Australia took nothing but the poor. And they decided that given a
chance they could become rich.

The USA got both, and of course the religious bigots who were so
insufferably pious that europe rejected them.

A country of criminals, bandits, pirates adventurers religious perverts
and slaves.

And when they ran out of plunder, they tried to take on the rest of the
world.

But sadly even a vietnamese peasant proved smarter than the Indians, and
the USA has never really won any war at all. Just waited till it was
clear who was GOING to win, and joined in for profit. Oh I guess the
Japanese..well when a few million mediaeval peasants take on a
technologically equipped nation ten times their size its not THAT hard
to work out who is going to come out on top.










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

Arnold Walker wrote:
"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.

Defintely.

Poison is chancy: You have to make sure someone eats it, and crossbows
are one shot weapons with a long reload time.





----== 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:

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.


I think no bits of the UK are as bad as the worst bits of the USA.

Not even Bradford.

Graham

In article ,
Jim wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote
Most here would consider it a cowardly act to carry a gun or knife for
'self defence'.

That is ridiculous. Look up ridiculous in the dictionary; it is
something that =deserves= ridicule.

That you find it acceptable to want to carry the means of murdering people
is ridiculous to just about every right thinking person. But of course you
simply can't see that.

And totally impractible for many at risk.

British technology is incapable of developing an efficient concealed
carry, quick-draw holster? I just paid $9.95 for one....

I'm only glad there's a large ocean separating us.

--
*Ham and Eggs: Just a day's work for a chicken, but a lifetime commitment

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

In article ,
Jim wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

Ungrateful twit.

Ungrateful that the US waited to see that the UK wasn't going to be
defeated before being forced to join in? I think not.

--
*Could it be that "I do " is the longest sentence? *

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

Jim wrote:
"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.

Very very few.

And almost never using a gun, or in a way that someone with a gun, would
have been able to make use of it.

Guns are used by gangs to establish respect, by armed robbers for money,
and by the police to shoot innocent people, mostly.

A rapist is either someone who knows the victim, and argues 'she
consented; or a lone stalker who picks isolated victims who would not
have a chance to use a gun at all. Its very rare in the victims home.
Most child murders are either by the parents, a schoolfriend or again,
the lone predator who will entice the child as a friend, before dog te
unpleasant bit.

again, if the kids been gulled, a gun is useless.



Right.

Graham

Arnold Walker wrote:
"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?


so that no one sees it?

Really. Rural crime. What crap. Out here in rural land everybody knows
everybody, and strangers stick out like sore thumbs.



--
*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 =----

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
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?

Sigh. Non of the above were invented for the sole purpose of killing or
maiming man. They were originally hunting weapons or developments of
those. But carry on squirming.

Javelins were designed as weapons of war and only as weapons of war, as
indeed were swords - it's the only purpose of a sword they have never
been used for hunting. The hammer is a development of the war hammer
(bit of a clue in the name there). What on earth you think the shot was
invented for is beyond me if not as weapon, originally fired from a
catapult and later by canon. The only one on the list that it debatably
a hunting weapon first is the bow, but bows were primarily weapons of
war.

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.

Ok. Just what was the handgun invented for? It's pretty useless for
hunting - especially early ones.

You twist and turn a lot on this. You say "the sole purpose" of a
handgun is "to kill or maim man". This isn't true, and you know it, it
can also be used for target shooting. When you remember/realise this you
swap to "what was it invented for".

What were javelins, the shot and swords invented for if not "to kill or
main man" and yet they are perfectly acceptable as Olympic sports. As
indeed is pistol shooting everywhere other than in the UK.

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 a damn thing, you sold em at a premium for profit.

And damn near ruined us.

Only Churchill was smart, and had a septic wife, and he conned you and
the russkies, and set you at each others throats so you would give us
the marshall plan to 'halt the spread of communism'..


The same way he bombed berlin to get hitler to bomb london instead of
the airfields and radar stations.


You haven't a clue really, have you?

Anthony

Eeyore wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Tom" wrote
Jim wrote:
Perhaps we shouldn't have given all those guns and bombs to
Britain when Churchill requested them.....
You didn't. You sold them to us on credit at a crippling rate of interest.
The vast majority of British military equipment was British made - the
British even exported some to Russia, they made so much. The only US items
used extensively was the Jeep (a small run-about) and the Sherman tank,
which wasn't that brilliant either. It was only ever any good when the
British converted it to the Firefly and put a 17 pounder gun on it sideways,
and then it could knock out a Tiger tank. The US wouldn't use them because
they didn't make it and many US tankers were killed because of that.

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

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


Inded. but NEVER for free. We gave all the technology - radar,computers,
atomic stuff, jet engines: Rockets they stole from the Nazis..and got it
SOLD BACK TO US. At a HUGE markup.

The USA PROFITED from WWII MIGHTILY.


Graham