Jim wrote:
"Tom" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
Perhaps we shouldn't have given all those guns and bombs to
Britain when Churchill requested them.....

You didn't. You sold them to us on credit at a crippling rate of interest.


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


Actually, they didn't. As far as Herr Hitler was concerned the Russians
won the European war. the only reason Churchill wanted you involved, was
to stop the REST of Europe becoming RUSSIAN. As it was they got nearly
half of it.

I'll give you the japs tho.


Tom

Jim wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-19, Jim wrote:
"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
...
Eeyore wrote:
...
The obsession with the 'right to bear arms' is a truly weird American
thing.
No matter how 'nice' people may appear to be, gun ownership leads to
gun
crime.
Sure, just like knife ownership leads to knife crime and car
ownership leads to running people over with cars. The reason
why so many people die when someone brings a gun to school
or hijacks a plane is because no one else has a weapon and
they have all been told to sit quietly and not defend themselves.
Perhaps we shouldn't have given all those guns and bombs to Britain
when
Churchill requested them.....
You didn't "give" them. We bought them. OK, you loaned us the money, but
you got
it paid back. There was very little charity involved.

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


And what makes you think he wrote the truth.



--
"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]

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



Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:
Steve Firth wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:

since the government banned legally owned and
licenced guns, the death rate has risen.

Wrong.

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF07.htm

1997 when the new Act came in : 201 deaths

2003 :163 deaths,

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

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


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

There is plenty of precedent for that.

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

Graham

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

The UK establishment thought that about the whole of the USA. Time has
proved it an uncannnily perceptive assessment ;-)

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

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

Steve Firth wrote:

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.

No, you're just being an awkward argumentative cuss.

Graham

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' ?

I haven't read either actually. I find Dickens' work very stodgy in fact and a
complete turn off. I wouldn't advise you to form an impression of the UK based on his
work for sure.


Graham

Neil Barker wrote:

says...

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

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 ?

Have you got any statistics for that ?

Graham

Neil Barker wrote:

says...

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

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 ?

p.s. most violent crime isn't handgun crime btw.

Graham

Neil Barker wrote:

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 ?

Which came first, target shooting or the gun ?

Graham

Neil Barker wrote:

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.

Shotguns are NOT BANNED in the UK.

FACT not crap.

Graham

Neil Barker wrote:

says...

Heck, even I have shot on a range.

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

School range with a Lee Enfield. The school even had its own CCF armoury. I have
no idea how they deal with that now.

Graham

Neil Barker wrote:

says...

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

Illegally held ones, yes.

I don't think legal bullets are any less likely to kill than illegal ones. If you
bothered to read the story, you'd see how silly and irrelevant your comment is.

Graham

John Rumm wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Sounds like a brainwashed American obsessed with guns. They are beyond
redemption. We don't have them, even the police are not armed here.

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

There's a FORTY TO ONE difference in gun deaths !


- 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?

I can't recall hearing of anyone being bludgeoned to death with a cricket bat
but I dare say it must have happened sometime. We have a less violent society
here in the UK than you do.

Graham

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

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.

I have only one knife that could perhaps do that. Lots of kitchen knive designs
are not ideally shaped for murder. That may even be intentional.

Graham

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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

A good proportion of it will still be. I believe with oil that old you're actually likely to
get 'sludge' issues. Not much sense doing it if it's going to render the car worthless.

Your ideas sound like a silly troll to me.

Graham

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.


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

Hard ? They're forever bursting into tears over here.


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

But they were useless for anything even before !

Graham

"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?

Of the world's 36 wealthiest nations, the U.S. gun death rate for 1994 was the
highest at 14.24 per 100,000 people. Asian countries had the lowest rates
followed by England and Wales.

*** In 1994, the U.S. accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths in those
36 nations.***

http://www.biomed.lib.umn.edu/hmed/1...80417_gun.html

Graham

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.

Oh, the irony ! More ridiculous insanity caused by alleged 'do-gooders'.

Graham

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.

Where do you live ? Deer are rare in most parts of the country and it's nice to watch
them rather than shoot them !


They taste good too.

Over-rated imho.

Graham

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Jim wrote:

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.

Interestingly, that's what the UK armed police (certainly SO/CO19 at least) are
trained to do. They don't WANT to have to shoot someone. They are trained to talk
people 'out of it'.

Graham

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.

I so agree. I've met only two people in my life who have owned guns and both of
them struck me as precisely the kind of people you wouldn't want to have owning
guns. Both like to bully people or push them around. One ended up in prison a
couple of years back for threatening builders who were making a noise with an
air rifle. The other one also spent some time in prison (on fraud charges).

Sorry, I met a third chap who once owned a shotgun for vermin control. He's
totally fine.

Graham

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Neil Barker wrote:
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

Similar scenario, although I wasn't in the CCF myself. Major Walker (our history
teacher) one day got bored of teaching us and decided to take us shooting
instead ! He was a great character, as was Colonel Pryke and the Sergeant Major
(an ex RSM).

Graham

Jim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
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.....

Perfectly true but an entirely different issue. As far as bombs go, we in the UK
also have strict controls on certain potential bomb materials and several such
plans have been stopped dead in their tracks as a result.

Mixing up such issues leads to muddle, confusion and bad decisions/policy.


Britain just doesn't quite have the criminals that we have here- yet.

Thankfully no.


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.

As for that 'demo' in London, some of the views expressed were illegal at the
time and I know this specifically because I complained about it (having seen it
on the news) to the Metropolitan Police and received a long and very detailed
response that explained that the police let those demonstrators continue so they
could gather evidence for prosecution. Subsequently some 3 or 4 of those
'Islamofascists' have been found guilty in court of calling for murder and
imprisoned. And I bet your media in the USA haven't carried the news of that !

There's also a new law specifically targeted at this kind of thing. It's
literally brand new on the books. My understanding is that it would make
criminal the action of carrying those placards that incited religious based
hatred (against non-Muslims in this case) too.

Graham

Jim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Steve Firth wrote:

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.

Does EVERY US policeman get 2 weeks or so gun training before being issued with
a firearm ?

Graham

Jim wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote
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 US obsession with guns is what's rabid ! No decent society needs widespread
gun ownership. The huge overwhelming majority of Britons don't even DESIRE gun
ownership.

Graham

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Jim wrote:

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..

Good point. Holland certainly knows how to makes sea defences that work. The
Thames Barrier seems to work too.

Graham

Jim wrote:

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?

Such things simply don't happen here. At least not in any significant number.
Even the criminals who may have guns don't want to use them !

You don't seem to be able to understand that our society here isn't so heavily
violence driven.

Graham

Jim wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" 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.....

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.

That's fine if you believe in some god *and* obey his rules.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

You're talking crap.

Graham

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.

Look at how Americans respond to the idea of an 'NHS' for example ! They'll all
suddenly defend the vast amounts they have to pay for health care. 15% of GDP
last time I checked.

Graham

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Guns are used by gangs to establish respect

Ahem ! The word you want is "fear" methinks. Don't make it look 'respectable'.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Javelins were designed as weapons of war and only as weapons of war

Eh ?

They're just a development of spears. And spears are clearly primarily for
hunting.

Graham

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.

Errrr ..... wasn't the raid on Berlin in response to Luftwaffe bombs (later
apparently it turns out inadvertently) dropped on London ?

The Germans didn't spend much time on the radar stations since they hadn't worked
out what they actually were btw. Their own radars looked very different.

Graham

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

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.

I don't recall us ever giving them computer technology actually.


The USA PROFITED from WWII MIGHTILY.

They did OK out of it for sure. That's one big advantage of being out of range of
the guns and bombs.

Graham

Anthony Matonak wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
...
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.

Sure, let us get rid of the javelin and archery sports or make
the spears and arrows out of non-lethal foam rubber. While we're
at it, we'll need the nerf shot put and discus also. Perhaps
boxing could be changed where they aren't allowed to touch their
opponent.

Boxing is a dreadful spectacle. At least most fighting between animals has been
banned.

Graham

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:39:51 +0000
Erdemal wrote:

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.

Compare and contrast - when my home was in the middle of 40 acres
of Co. Kildare we rarely bothered to lock the door. We did have a couple of
dogs but they were pets not guards.

--
C:WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.
Detroit and many of the northern cities have a gun ban......
As a matter of fact the worse one have gun bans.
Of course ,civilized folks like your self would never think of
making it a capital offense to do a crime with a gun.In stead of
strip constitional rights.....there for a reason.


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.




----== 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 =----

On 2007-10-20 06:14:40 +0100, Eeyore
said:



Steve Firth wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

You're talking crap.

Graham

European Treaty.....

are you sure?

At the last count there were a very small number of factors missing
from the EU (I think it was 4-5) which would be needed to give it a
status equivalent to a country, in the same way that the comparison can
be made between the individual states of the U.S. and its federal
system.

On 2007-10-20 06:17:55 +0100, Eeyore
said:



The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.

Look at how Americans respond to the idea of an 'NHS' for example ! They'll all
suddenly defend the vast amounts they have to pay for health care. 15% of GDP
last time I checked.

Graham

Except that the NHS is nothing to be proud of either

On 2007-10-20 06:33:39 +0100, Eeyore
said:



Anthony Matonak wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
...
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.

Sure, let us get rid of the javelin and archery sports or make
the spears and arrows out of non-lethal foam rubber. While we're
at it, we'll need the nerf shot put and discus also. Perhaps
boxing could be changed where they aren't allowed to touch their
opponent.

Boxing is a dreadful spectacle. At least most fighting between animals has been
banned.

Graham

Implying that boxers are vegetables? Actually, come to think of it.......

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
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.

A javelin is simply a development of a spear - and throwing spears at prey
is just about as old as man himself. A sword is also a development of a
basic knife which would have started life as a tool rather than weapon.
You seem to have the idea man has always spent his time solely thinking of
ways to kill other men. When tools were invented other things were more
pressing.

The hammer is a development of the war hammer
(bit of a clue in the name there).

And the war hammer came from where?

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.

It's a development of throwing things.

The only one on the list that it debatably a hunting weapon first is the
bow, but bows were primarily weapons of war.

Again possibly.

But the fact remains the hand gun was invented for the express purpose of
killing people and has no other use.

--
*Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now *

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