In article ,
Anthony Matonak 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.

These are all sports dating from the year dot where soldiers needed
something to amuse themselves when not fighting. And none of these are
commonly used on the streets for crime.

Perhaps boxing could be changed where they aren't allowed to touch their
opponent.

Absolutely. I doubt you know or care how many are maimed by this barbaric
'sport'. The only object of which is to do so. Totally different from
others where accidental injuries occur.

--
*I like cats, too. Let's exchange recipes.

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

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
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.

Absolutely. I've only ever known one person in the UK who believed you
should be able to carry a gun and he was quite simply mad. Ended up
killing himself.

--
*Dance like nobody's watching.

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

In article ,
Jim wrote:
Or are you some sort of superior being to all your fellow humans?

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

Ah. Incapable of original thought. 'I was only obeying orders, guv.'

I love it when someone quotes 'God's laws'. Seems they claim a direct
link to him - given the bible contradicts just about every 'law' somewhere.

--
*You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me *

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

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:33:18 UTC, "Jim" wrote:

"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.

Sixteen. And that was one of very few incidents - how many in the U.S.
this year alone?

Amish school - four. Virginia Tech - 32.

So that's over double the number, just for this year alone.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

In article ,
Neil Barker wrote:
In article ,
says...

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

You must haved damned big pockets if you can conceal a .22 free pistol.


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

Rhubarb. With lots of custard.

I keep on asking people like you what it was invented for if not killing
man? But they are all strangely quiet on this one while prattling on
about sports etc.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it *

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

In article ,
Neil Barker wrote:
I simply asked you why handgun crime has more than tripled in the years
since handguns were banned in the UK. Your answer to that is ?

And I asked you for your explanation why. But of course got no answer.

--
*The average person falls asleep in seven minutes *

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

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 08:17:03 UTC, Huge
wrote:

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

Tsk. What has an Amishman in Pennsylvania in common with a gang-banger in East
LA?

They use a different kind of gun.

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

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 08:58:53 UTC, Huge
wrote:

On 2007-10-20, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 08:17:03 UTC, Huge
wrote:

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

Tsk. What has an Amishman in Pennsylvania in common with a gang-banger in East
LA?

They use a different kind of gun.

I'm not sure that the Amish use guns at all. They're certainly pacifists and
exempt from serving in the Armed Forces.

Guess so. I was conflating the Amish, and the guy who shot them.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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

"It's a development of throwing things".

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Absolutely. I doubt you know or care how many are maimed by this barbaric
'sport'. The only object of which is to do so. Totally different from
others where accidental injuries occur.

Would you care to list how many Olympic boxers have been "maimed"?

Eeyore wrote:
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.

Haven't heard about that - which one? It sounds perilously close to a
"thought crime".

Andy

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Neil Barker wrote:
I simply asked you why handgun crime has more than tripled in the years
since handguns were banned in the UK. Your answer to that is ?

And I asked you for your explanation why. But of course got no answer.

Well, it seems as if the handgun ban is having no effect on the number
or price of guns available illegally. It was argued by politicians at
the time that handguns in private ownership were the ones that ended up
in the hands of criminals. This was despite their being no evidence to
support the claim. All legally held guns had their serial numbers
registered, so tracing an illegal gun back to the owner who had been
negligent or who had disposed of a weapon illegally should have been
easy. Yet I can recall few, if any, prosecutions of legal owners of
handguns for selling/disposing of their guns to criminals.

The Metropolitan police state that the reason for the increase in gun
crime is the fall in the price of illegally imported weapons. Apparently
it is now possible to buy a handgun for between £200 and £300. The
police claim that the reason for this is that the guns are being
imported from Bosnia.

It would seem that the statement made by those who shoot safely and
legally in the UK that the ban was an over-reaction to a tragic event
that would not reduce the availability of hand guns to criminals was
correct. Since gun crime is high at close to 6000 incidents a year and
is rising, despite there being no legal source of handguns in the UK.

Did you have an alternative explanation?

Eeyore wrote:

I can't recall hearing of anyone being bludgeoned to death with a cricket bat
but I dare say it must have happened sometime.

http://archive.billericayweeklynews....18/202809.html

We have a less violent society here in the UK than you do.

There's no evidence to support that claim and indeed much that points in
the other direction. You may deny that there's more violent crime in the
UK than in the USA, but at present the published statistics show you are
wrong.

Jim wrote:
"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 latter.

One gun being waved around is quite enough without some bloody white
supremacist fantasist getting trigger happy.

I'd rather take my chances with a crack crazed gangboy than you, any day..



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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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

Rhubarb. With lots of custard.

I keep on asking people like you what it was invented for if not killing
man? But they are all strangely quiet on this one while prattling on
about sports etc.

Why the fascination with *why* something was invented? With any
invention, uses change, evolve and develop. The original intended use
may or may not survive. I doubt there are many being proscribed viagra
for heat conditions these days.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Eeyore wrote:

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'.


If that is what it makes to get respect, thats what they will use.

I am reminded of chinese saying

"The worst sort of leader, the people fear"
"A better leader, the people love"
"The best leader, the people say 'we did it ourselves'"

We KNOW the USA citizen's self esteem is very low. Its designed that way
by marketing. That's why they grab onto God, or a gun, to make
themselves feel proud of themselves.

When a mans self-esteem is shot to bits, you can sell him penis pills,
cars that help him score chicks, A God that loves him, a president with
porridge for brains......anything. You play on it to keep the flow of
trash products flowing to him.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

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.



I thought Moby Dick was written by an American anyway.

Graham

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Perhaps boxing could be changed where they aren't allowed to touch their
opponent.

Absolutely. I doubt you know or care how many are maimed by this barbaric
'sport'. The only object of which is to do so. Totally different from
others where accidental injuries occur.

Men like fighting, get over it. Ban boxing and they will still do it,
except without gloves. Failing that chose any of the other multitude of
contact fighting "sports".

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Eeyore wrote:

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.

It does;t render it worthless.

That's the point. You can fake the service records, or simply sell it to
an unscrupulous dealer. (are there any others?) the car goes, and if
regularly serviced thereafter will in fact do a reasonable life. It will
however have accelerated wear in the engine.

Modern oils and high usage means that actually it is not that bad a
scenerio. What degrades oil as much as anything is standing aroud cold
getting condensation in the engine: A car that does 500 miles a day or
so, doesn't get that. If its filld ever 10k miles or so with a pint of
new, it will in fact do the miles from NEW.

60K mils is a good point to trade it. It will need its third/fourth set
of tyres, new brakes, new discs, and a new cam belt.


Your ideas sound like a silly troll to me.

I can assure you some people do it that way.


Graham

John Rumm wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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

Rhubarb. With lots of custard.

I keep on asking people like you what it was invented for if not killing
man? But they are all strangely quiet on this one while prattling on
about sports etc.

Why the fascination with *why* something was invented?

Because someone thinks it's a shortcut to declaring that "guns are
inherently evil". Sloppy, lazy thinking IMO. And as demonstrated with
the "debate" about the Olympics holding mutually irreconcilable beliefs
that guns are primarily weapons, but swords, bows, javelins and missiles
are not is possible for some people.

Eeyore wrote:

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 !

West Suffolk, I used to think like you when there were just a half a
dozen. Now the most we have seen in a single herd is 60. Right past the
window. Our terrier's life's delight is to chase them up and down the
woods till he is utterly exhausted.

They have no natural predators, and they do immense damage to woodlands.

There are also substantial herds in the home counties - certainly the
north downs and weald.

It will in fact get to a stage where organised culling will have to be
undertaken, pretty soon.


They taste good too.

Over-rated imho.


You might say so. I disagree. Halfway between beef and lamb.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

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 !

*woosh*

and the ratio of deaths cause by *all* violent attacks is?

My point is that people will kill people. If you give them guns then
that is what they will use. Deny them guns and they will use something
else. Guns are just a better tool for the job in many cases, but the job
still gets done without them.

We have vastly more police officers injured by knife attack than in the
US for example. (and perversely a bullet proof vest is far simpler to
implement than a knife proof one)

- 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.

Who is "you"? Get with the program old chap, I live in the UK.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Eeyore wrote:

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.

Round here most people I know have shotguns.

A few I know have rifles.

They are all the best of people. They use them mostly responsibly: I
can't answer for the presumed gamekeeper who shot the the inlaws dogs.
He has to work for a fairly cheerless landowner who throws so many
pheasants on his land you can't move without tripping over one. He was
probably acting under orders. Nothing can be proven.

Rabbit drives and pigeon drives are common. To control numbers on the
new crops.

Sadly fox control and deer control are almost nonexistent: inlaws have
lost so many chickens to foxes that it doesn't bear thinking about.

We have a couple of friends who are fanatical skeet/clay shooters. They
are extremely nice people. It's just a sport to them.

Its like dog ownership: for every sad git n a council estate with a
couple of lethal rottweilers in a cage there are a million black
labradors providing company for people who like that.

I am not in favour of banning weapons per se, but I utterly respect the
laws of licensing and the hoops people must jump through to obtain one.

And no one I know has a handgun, or would want one.

Ther fact is that if someone turns up with a rifle bullet in the, the
police simply go and check the few that exist. Very few rifles are usd
for efarious purpuses..ts an unweldy thng in a non-rural environment.
Sawnoffs ae alwys an issue, but again, the mere fact of pssession is a
very serious crime, likley to net more years in nick than the crime it
might be used to support, and if someone does get killed, its godnight
vienna fo the pretrator. WITH the cultre here as opposed to the states,
its no good saying 'I wos scared, I pulled out my sawnoff thinking he
was going to shoot me'. Its a self perpetuating myth in the USA the
more THEY have guns the more YOU need one to protect yourself from THEM.
Pure marketing BS. Keeps gun sales at huge levels.




Graham

Eeyore wrote:

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.


Cricket bat is not an ideal weapon for bludgeoning. Wrong shape
entirely. A baseball bat is far better.



Graham

Erdemal wrote:

| You both - we all- are filled with the 'culture' of your
| country, this is always amusing to see it.

Agreed. One of my most delightful discoveries as a young person was
that observers from different cultures could all view the same object
or event and each produce a different "flavor" of understanding.

Later, I discovered that by learning new languages I could share in
those different kinds of understanding.

Later still, working with a fairly large assortment of people from
different parts of the world, I found it breathtaking to see how
effectively the group could analyze and produce solutions to complex
technical problems - because each language/culture seemed to provide a
different perspective.

| Did you choose it ? Or was it 'written' on your mind by some
| "Moby-Dick' or 'David Copperfield' ?

I think 'written' by parents, family, teachers, and respected elders
when young, then 'edited' and extended with experience and
observation.

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

I don't think so - rather there was an attempt to keep what was
thought to be good and worthwhile and to discard the harmful, the
worthless, and the unproductive. What survived that sorting process
became the philosophical foundation, and the remainder was invented
(not always in America) as needed.

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

Above the surface, they're like different worlds - but if you look
closely under the surface, they're all built on the same foundation.
At the very core they're probably more alike than the inhabitants are
willing to admit.

| 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.

The firearms would lose importance rapidly, and you'd probably wonder
why on earth you bought more than one. After you got to know your
neighbors, you'd probably begin to forget to lock the doors and to
turn on the alarm - and if you didn't sleep, it'd be because you were
too busy talking. :-)

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

Eeyore wrote:

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'.


Of course.

This government is characterized by knee jerk responses, ideological
legislation and the law of unintended consequences.


But then not one of them has run anything much larger than a nursery
school before becoming politicians, and many of them =- that Benn twit
is a prime example - have been politicians all their lives.


Graham

Neil Barker wrote:
In article ,
says...
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?

Did I say that ?

Nope.

You do realise how awkward and unwieldy a Morini .22 free pistol is ?
Hardly the sort of thing you can conceal, or rapidly reload.

Indeed. Which is why I personally feel they should have been exempted.

Neil Barker wrote:
In article , says...
Neil Barker wrote:

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

Non pump action non sawnoff.,

You clearly don't understand UK firearms law, do you ?

Pump-action shot guns are not banned in the UK, nor are semi-automatic
ones. I possess one, with a 10-shot capacity, held on a section 1
firearms certificate.


You surprise me. I have never applied for a license, so I don't know the
details, but I had been informed that pump action weapons and automatic
weapons were unlicensable except to the armed forces and the police.

Care to educate us as to he levels of licensing? Or do you just want to
appear superior
?



Next.

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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

"It's a development of throwing things".

Thanks for confirming gun lovers have had their brains removed.

--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film*

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

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
I simply asked you why handgun crime has more than tripled in the years
since handguns were banned in the UK. Your answer to that is ?

And I asked you for your explanation why. But of course got no answer.

Well, it seems as if the handgun ban is having no effect on the number
or price of guns available illegally. It was argued by politicians at
the time that handguns in private ownership were the ones that ended up
in the hands of criminals. This was despite their being no evidence to
support the claim. All legally held guns had their serial numbers
registered, so tracing an illegal gun back to the owner who had been
negligent or who had disposed of a weapon illegally should have been
easy. Yet I can recall few, if any, prosecutions of legal owners of
handguns for selling/disposing of their guns to criminals.

The Metropolitan police state that the reason for the increase in gun
crime is the fall in the price of illegally imported weapons. Apparently
it is now possible to buy a handgun for between £200 and £300. The
police claim that the reason for this is that the guns are being
imported from Bosnia.

It would seem that the statement made by those who shoot safely and
legally in the UK that the ban was an over-reaction to a tragic event
that would not reduce the availability of hand guns to criminals was
correct. Since gun crime is high at close to 6000 incidents a year and
is rising, despite there being no legal source of handguns in the UK.

Did you have an alternative explanation?

Thanks for confirming it has nothing to do with the ban. As you and others
implied. You might speculate the ban has had no effect on illegally held
guns - but that would be just speculation. I might speculate the problem
would have been much worse without the ban.

--
*A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Anthony Matonak 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.

These are all sports dating from the year dot where soldiers needed
something to amuse themselves when not fighting.

TRAIN themselves.
What better way to encourage power and accuracy of e.g. archery than by
making a competition up and giving away przes. For the cost of the prize
everybody practices like mad without being ordered or coerced.


And none of these are
commonly used on the streets for crime.

Perhaps boxing could be changed where they aren't allowed to touch their
opponent.

Absolutely. I doubt you know or care how many are maimed by this barbaric
'sport'. The only object of which is to do so. Totally different from
others where accidental injuries occur.

Indeeed. I have very mixed feelings about boxing. I admire those who do
it, and despise those who watch it. Even myself on occasion.I have
decided that its possibly the lesser of two evils. It does indeed give a
few people without many other options in life, a few more options, but
the price they pay is very high.

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Perhaps boxing could be changed where they aren't allowed to touch
their opponent.

Absolutely. I doubt you know or care how many are maimed by this
barbaric 'sport'. The only object of which is to do so. Totally
different from others where accidental injuries occur.

Men like fighting, get over it.

Make that *some* men. Most grow out of it - and quickly.

Ban boxing and they will still do it, except without gloves.

There's a difference between a fight in hot blood and boxing.

Failing that chose any of the other multitude of contact fighting
"sports".

Totally different. Setting out to cripple your opponent on most contact
sports is a foul.

Have you ever been to a boxing match, John? I've worked at several. And
the behaviour of the crowd is if anything worse than the boxers. Dregs of
'humanity' baying for blood. It should have no place in a civilised
society.

--
*Two many clicks spoil the browse *

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

Neil Barker wrote:
In article ,
says...

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.

ROTFLMAO !

The 'recommended' device for eradication of vermin is most certainly
NOT a shotgun. The government publishes a list of different 'vermin'
and lists the approved calibres for their humane dispatch. You won't
see 'shotgun' on many at all.

Typically .22 for small vermin such as rabbits, .22-250 / .223 for fox
and generally .243 upwards for deer.


Thank you. I couldn't remember what the calibers were.

Deer, you may not realise, can be classes as 'vermin'. Anyone trying to
dispatch a deer with a shotgun needs their head examing and certificate
removing from them. The only way to kill a deer with a shotgun, apart
from at point-blank range which is simply not viable, is using solid-
slugs - which are not available to section-2 certificate holders.


Indeed. Round here shotguns are strictly for the birds. Occasionally
rabbis and rats, but a 22 is the preferred weapon for bunnies.

Due to teh fact taht the hunting is banned* and very few people own
larger caliber weapons, the deer and the foxes get off scot free.

*although ther are still large hound packs and regular hunting meets. I
guess they must be 'drag' hunting and if they happen to find a live
fox..well. shrug Dogs will do what dogs will do eh? ;-)

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Neil Barker wrote:
In article ,
says...

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

You must haved damned big pockets if you can conceal a .22 free pistol.


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

Rhubarb. With lots of custard.

I keep on asking people like you what it was invented for if not killing
man? But they are all strangely quiet on this one while prattling on
about sports etc.

I totally agree. The handgun was primarily a weapon of interpersonal
combat to replace the sword, or a big stick.

with the development of the rifle, its military use is almost nil.

I have to think long and hard for any way in which one can be used other
than to threaten the life of a human being. Game won't let you get close
enough for it to be a reliable hunting weapon, and if you CAN get close
eonugh to use one, chances are there is a better weapon to use. e.g.
captive bolt pistol.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I thought Moby Dick was written by an American anyway.

With a christian name like Herman of course. Melville was born in New York.

--
*I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe*

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

Andy Hall wrote:

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.


Except that the NHS is nothing to be proud of either

I wouldn't be that unkind to it.

Remove the influence politicians have on it with their constant meddling and I dare
say it would be fine. Let the nurses run it in fact ! That might at least ensure the
hospitals are kept properly clean.

Graham

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

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.

It does look rather like that, doesn't it ?

Graham

clot wrote:
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?

Immense use.
I think this is where you take too narrow a view society.

Like royalty for the middle clases, they provide aspirational targets
for he less well heeled: What Posh and Becks do, is live the lifestyle
that a large section of Britain would, if they too 'won the pools'. In
so dong they provide immense entertainment and object lessons for those
who cannot afford to live like that.

I am slightly socialist by leaning, but a pragmatist when it comes to
society. I do not believe that a society without differences in
lifestyles and incomes is a healthy one.

If 20 men want to get over a 20ft high wall, the sensible approach is
not to all stand at the bottom and whine that 'its too high' and the
'government should do something' You get yur thickest and burliest to
stand at the bottom, your less thick and less burly to stand on their
shoulders, and your lightest and most albe person to climb up and jump
over trailing a rope..

The MISTAKE is to think that any of these could have done it without ALL
of the others.

And that the one guy who didn't partake because he was a nerdy weak
geek, was in fact the one who suggested the method in the first place.

Society needs aspirations, and targets, and if it takes a little
inequality to get it, I am all for it.

MOST of 19th century science, literature, an indeed waht we would class
as advances to civilisation was done by people who had private incomes.

You might try to replacee that with state funded research, but that then
begs the question of what research to fund.

OTOH you might approach the Beckahms for a cheque, and if it strikes
their fancy, get one.

A lot less bureaucratic and more efficient approach.



All those that have aspirations
for "professional football" should be sent out in Douglas Adams' first
spaceship!


Why? its a skill. Possibly a more relevant one than telephone sanitising.

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

It is to answer that question, that largely I feel they should be
allowed to have them.


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

Why? they harm almost no ne, and provide something of interest to
discuss ad wtch:In a life dominated by bland fiction, at least what
happens on the pitch is (mostly) real.

Neil Barker wrote:

says...
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.

As Steve says, you do like shifting the goalposts, don't you ?

I simply asked you why handgun crime has more than tripled in the years
since handguns were banned in the UK. Your answer to that is ?

I've yet to see those numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if it virtually all
related to 'yardy' drug crime and related activity. Certainly it seems to
involve a lot of blacks. It's likely the ban has had no effect on that. And yes,
that where the law falls down.

Introduce some SERIOUS mandatory penalties (long automatic jail sentences) for
simple possession of an illegal gun and damn well enforce it is what I'd like to
see.

Graham

Neil Barker wrote:

says...
Neil Barker wrote:

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 ?

Irrelevant.

Totally relevant except you've now snipped the context.

Graham