Steve Firth wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:

Why the fascination with *why* something was invented?

Because someone thinks it's a shortcut to declaring that "guns are
inherently evil".

No - it's those who use them that are evil.

So then you have no objection to guns and rather than banning the thing
you should look to how to control the activities of those who are
"evil".

How do you ban evil people ? Maybe you would shoot them ? Personally, I reckon
removing killing weapons from ready access is a sensible answer.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
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

********.

Just watch certain US TV programmes. Let me see, CSI, CSI Miami, Law and Order
(various flavours), the Shield,

You do understand that all of those are works of fiction?

Are you seriously suggesting the US *isn't* a more violent place than the UK ? I'd
just like to get that right.

'Inspector Morse' is a work of fiction too btw, but I see rather less violence in
that than any of the US programmes I mentioned. The idea of a full-time murder cop
in the UK is ridiculous.

Graham

Neil Barker wrote:

How many deaths resulted from legally held handguns in say 1995, before
the handgun ban ?

You got the wrong date for the handgun ban !

The very reason for it was Dunblane.

" Thomas Hamilton walked into the school armed with two 9 mm Browning HP pistols and two
Smith and Wesson .357 revolvers. He was carrying 743 cartridges."

" As the law stood at the time, the police were unable to revoke Hamilton's firearms
certificate (gun licence) because there were no substantiated grounds to do so."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

Understand now ?

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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

Pump action shotguns are not banned explicitly

They are categorised as 'self-loading'.

No they are not.

Read the ****ing LAW you complete MORON.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

It's a new law.

And it's a bad law, one I hoped had been buried. What a shame that
another knee-jerk law has been passed.

Eeyore wrote:

There's more to it than that. Killing with a gun allows one to mentally
distance oneself from the act of killing since it avoids any need for
personal interaction. Doubly 'cowardly' if you like.

How many people have you killed with a gun?

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

He's talking nonsense. They were banned after Hungerford.

"In the aftermath, the Conservative government passed the Firearms (Amendment)
Act 1988. This confined semiautomatic and pump-action centrefire rifles;
military weapons firing explosive ammunition; short shotguns that had
magazines; and both elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles to the
Prohibited category."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...dom#Hungerford
_massacre

And where does that quote say that pump action shotguns were made
illegal? It mentions pump-action rifles, not shotguns.

You snipped the bit about AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

You're a loathsome **** Firth. Your idea of how to win an argument is to
misrepresent what other people say, misattribute things and run away from arguments
you know you can only lose.

If you're typical of 'shooters' I'm GLAD you've had your winds clipped since honesty
is apparently a concept you can't even remotely grasp.

Grfaahm

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Is a target pistol incapable of killing ?

Is a nice soft comfy cushion incapable of killing?

****WIT.

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The idea that guns were originally invented for sport is
utterly bizarre.

No one has made such a claim,

Yes you have.

Would you care to provide a message ID?

Would you like to **** yourself you lying turd ?

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The original purpose of hand guns was most certainly not target shooting.
Nor hunting.

And?

Good Lord ! You finally accept this point ?

The original purpose of many things is different to the role they have
today. Your "point" is pointless.

**** off GUN LOVER.

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

There's more to it than that. Killing with a gun allows one to mentally
distance oneself from the act of killing since it avoids any need for
personal interaction. Doubly 'cowardly' if you like.

How many people have you killed with a gun?

How many have you dreamed of killing ?

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

It's a new law.

And it's a bad law, one I hoped had been buried. What a shame that
another knee-jerk law has been passed.

It's a bigger pity you can't keep this rubbish off this news group!!!!!!!!!!

JERD

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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".

Using a barrel is a strange way to 'throw' things.

A trebuchet (siege engine) is a development of throwing things. A gun
is NOT.

And you have some reference that confirms your claim above? No, I
thought not.

I think a definition of the word 'throw' would suffice.

A gun PROPELS a bullet. It doesn't THROW it.

Again with the capitals.

Is there something about the word "development" you did not understand?
Prjectile weapons are all related. If you accept that a shot fired from
a stone bow or ballista is a development of throwing then a gun is
simply a development of those weapons, hence also a development of
throwing.

And a gun propels absolutely nothing. Put shot into a gun and it wil go
nowhere, not until one applies a compressed gas by some means.

And once more you have snipped the parts you find too difficult to
answer, I see:

"Were blowpipes used to "kill and maim" people? They have a barrel and
were arguably the first method of slinging a projectile towards
something. Indeed they were originally used for hunting.

So by Mr P's bizarre interpretation that a sword is just a knife, then a
pistol is just a blowpipe."

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:

Why the fascination with *why* something was invented?

Because someone thinks it's a shortcut to declaring that "guns are
inherently evil".

No - it's those who use them that are evil.

So then you have no objection to guns and rather than banning the thing
you should look to how to control the activities of those who are
"evil".

How do you ban evil people ?

Who said "ban"? Not I.

Maybe you would shoot them ?

Strawman.

Personally, I reckon removing killing weapons from ready access is a
sensible answer.

Oh I know what you reckon, the fact that it is baloney doesn't seem to
make any difference to you.

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
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

********.

Just watch certain US TV programmes. Let me see, CSI, CSI Miami, Law
and Order (various flavours), the Shield,

You do understand that all of those are works of fiction?

Are you seriously suggesting the US *isn't* a more violent place than the
UK ? I'd just like to get that right.

You have already had the evidence that violent crime is greater in the
UK than in the USA.

'Inspector Morse' is a work of fiction too btw, but I see rather less
violence in that than any of the US programmes I mentioned. The idea of a
full-time murder cop in the UK is ridiculous.

As is your appeal to fictional characters.

OK, I'll see your "Morse" and raise you "Monk" and "Murder She Wrote". I
don't see Tony Shalhoub or Angela Lansbury brandishing weapons around.

Did your fiction-fest have a point, other than to inject a note of
hysterical unreality?

And once again, you have deleted the majority of the points made, so
I'll take that you concede all of them.

Eeyore wrote:

Neil Barker wrote:

How many deaths resulted from legally held handguns in say 1995, before
the handgun ban ?

You got the wrong date for the handgun ban !

No he didn't, he clearly stated tht 1995 was BEFORE the handgun ban.

I apologise for the resort to CAPITALS but it seems to be the only way
you notice things.

The very reason for it was Dunblane.

I don't think it is udner dispute that the handgun ban was a stupid
reaction by weak-minded politicians.

" Thomas Hamilton walked into the school armed with two 9 mm Browning HP
pistols and two Smith and Wesson .357 revolvers. He was carrying 743
cartridges."

" As the law stood at the time, the police were unable to revoke
Hamilton's firearms certificate (gun licence) because there were no
substantiated grounds to do so."

That last paragraph is a lie, there was more than adequate evidence that
Hamilton should not have had a firearms certificate. But the police were
aware of his character:

'A Scotsman News article by Dan McDougall indicated that Detective
Sergeant Paul Hughes, the former head of Central Scotland Police's child
protection unit, wrote a damning report in which he recommended that
Hamilton's gun license be revoked because of his "unsavory character"
and "unstable personality."'

http://preview.tinyurl.com/24e96e

Claims that there was insufficient evidence to revoke his firearms
licence are drivel. A firearms licence could be revoked without
evidence. It merely needs the opinion of a FLO that the person is unfit
to hold a firearm. Handing firearms into the care of unsupervised
children as was alleged is more than sufficient reason.

However it seems likely that the real reason that Hamilton did not have
his licence revoked was his close association with police officers:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/256bm3

In March 2004, Dr. Mick North, parent of deceased Dunblane victim Sophie
North, brought forth new allegations of a possible cover-up. According
to Marcello Mega's article, Dunblane Cover-up, North listed six key
points that the Cullen Inquiry failed to address, which included:

1. The failure to hear evidence from Catherine Kerr, a neighbor of
Hamilton's, who saw him emerge from a gray-colored car outside his home
on the morning of the shootings. The driver has never been traced.
2. The failure to account for Hamilton's exact movements from the
time he left his home to drive to Dunblane Primary School, a 15 minute
journey that took him more than three quarters of an hour.
3. Why an off-duty police officer who was mysteriously at the school
on the morning of the shootings was never called to give evidence.
4. The failure by police to identify Hamilton as a pedophile who was
almost certainly involved in supplying photographs of virtually naked
boys, which he took on camps.
5. The failure to establish who Hamilton's friends in the police
were. A number of witnesses testified that police cars often stopped
outside his home.
6. The failure to investigate links, revealed by three witnesses,
between Hamilton and the Queen Victoria School, a military school at
Dunblane with a small shooting range that Hamilton used and where it is
claimed by a former teacher that boys were abused.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

Understand now ?


I understand that if all your opinion is formed by scantily researched,
badly written consensus articles that it explains a lot about what
appear to be lazy thought patterns on your part.

Eeyore wrote:

How do you ban evil people ? Maybe you would shoot them ? Personally, I reckon
removing killing weapons from ready access is a sensible answer.

How do you propose doing that?

The removal of access to licensed pistols seems to have had no effect
whatsoever on the price or availability of weapons to criminals.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Eeyore wrote:

Neil Barker wrote:

says...

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.
*Sigh*

What is was invented for and what other legitimate uses an item has now
are not connected. Owning a handgun for target shooting would be a
perfectly legitimate other use of a handgun. They are not, despite what
you would like all and sundry to believe, solely for killing things.

Is a target pistol incapable of killing ?

No, but so what? A bread knife is probably more effective.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Is a target pistol incapable of killing ?

Is a nice soft comfy cushion incapable of killing?

I see you failed to answer the question.

****WIT.

1/10

+ Managed to get the line length down to something reasonable.

- CAPITALS

- Failed to address the points made

- Only base insult, no content.

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The idea that guns were originally invented for sport is
utterly bizarre.

No one has made such a claim,

Yes you have.

Would you care to provide a message ID?

Would you like to **** yourself you lying turd ?

No, I'd like you to provide a message ID or other reference that proves
the allegation that you have made. If you can't, and let's face it we
both know you can't, then it's obvious who is the "lying turd".

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The original purpose of hand guns was most certainly not target
shooting. Nor hunting.

And?

Good Lord ! You finally accept this point ?

The original purpose of many things is different to the role they have
today. Your "point" is pointless.

**** off GUN LOVER.

How many guns do I own, Mr Potty Mouth?

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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

Pump action shotguns are not banned explicitly

They are categorised as 'self-loading'.

No they are not.

Read the ****ing LAW you complete MORON.

I have and as I mentioned, in the part you snipped, pump action shotguns
are neither self-loading nor are they banned "effectively" or otherwise.

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

He's talking nonsense. They were banned after Hungerford.

"In the aftermath, the Conservative government passed the Firearms
(Amendment) Act 1988. This confined semiautomatic and pump-action
centrefire rifles; military weapons firing explosive ammunition; short
shotguns that had magazines; and both elevated pump-action and
self-loading rifles to the Prohibited category."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...dom#Hungerford
_massacre

And where does that quote say that pump action shotguns were made
illegal? It mentions pump-action rifles, not shotguns.

You snipped the bit about AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

Only because it wasn't relevant, or rather that you have failed to
understand it. The quote that I omitted:

"In this Act "self-loading" and "pump-action" in relation to any weapon
mean respectively that it is designed or adapted (otherwise than as
mentioned in section 5(1)(a)) so that it is automatically re-loaded or
that it is so designed or adapted that it is re-loaded by the manual
operation of the fore-end or forestock of the weapon. "

Note it says "mean respectively" so for your education that means as
follows:

"self-loading" - designed or adapted (otherwise than as mentioned in
section 5(1)(a)) so that it is automatically re-loaded

"pump-action" - designed or adapted that it is re-loaded by the manual
operation of the fore-end or forestock of the weapon.

Now do you understand?

And do you understand yet that the prohibited weapons we

semiautomatic RIFLES
pump action RIFLES
military weapons firing explosive ammunition
short shotguns with magazines
and
self loading RIFLES

You're a loathsome **** Firth. Your idea of how to win an argument is to
misrepresent what other people say, misattribute things and run away from
arguments you know you can only lose.

snork

That's funny, in context.

If you're typical of 'shooters' I'm GLAD you've had your winds clipped
since honesty is apparently a concept you can't even remotely grasp.

How many guns do I own?

Eeyore wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

There's more to it than that. Killing with a gun allows one to mentally
distance oneself from the act of killing since it avoids any need for
personal interaction. Doubly 'cowardly' if you like.

How many people have you killed with a gun?

How many have you dreamed of killing ?

None.

Now how many people have you killed with a gun?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Men like fighting, get over it.

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

Even if true (and I dispute that some ever do), there is always another
new generation coming along with something to prove.

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.

Boxing seems relatively mild compared to say K1, caged fighting, various
kick boxing disciplines. I would not have thought most boxers go into a
ring with the intent of crippling their opponent either. Win certainly,
hurt, knock out etc without a doubt. There is obviously the spectre of
serious injury, but that is true of many sports.

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.

Where would you rather they got their kicks? Ringside or streetside?

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Eeyore wrote:

Men like fighting,

Says who ? I think it's utterly gross and a ridiculous throwback to behaving
like wild animals.

You may, however there are countless men indulging in fighting sports,
simulated combat, paint balling etc to make it perfectly clear that you
are not like all men.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.

I seem to recall it was us that had[1] a law that says that all able
bodied men must practice their archery on the village green each Sunday?

[1] Not sure if it was ever repealed either - it may still be on the
statute books.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Eeyore wrote:

You got the wrong date for the handgun ban !

The very reason for it was Dunblane.

The major issue about Dunblane which the police and politicians have run
away from is that all the warning signs were there that Hamilton was
about to do something stupid. The warning signs were ignored.

A mechanism existed to remove Hamilton's guns. The opportunity was not
taken.

Because Hamilton had a firearms certificate he was open to scrutiny, and
that scrutiny was lax.

Under current condiditions if someone attempts anything similar there
will be no warnings, because the purchase of guns will be entirely
illegal.

Some blame should attach to how the police handled Hamilton's firearms
applications, but the police escaped censure and over 100 vital
documents relating to the case will not be available for public
inspection until 2097. That's how scared the police are of the public
finding out what their part in the incident was.

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

It's a new law.

And it's a bad law, one I hoped had been buried. What a shame that
another knee-jerk law has been passed.

It looks like a good law to me. As it originally stood a couple of years back
(as criticised by various comedians for example) it was bad but it was revised.

I assume you disagree with people as a matter of course without bothering to
check what you're talking about.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting the US *isn't* a more violent place than the
UK ? I'd just like to get that right.

You have already had the evidence that violent crime is greater in the
UK than in the USA.

There is no such evidence. Clearly you have a very feeble mind.

Graham

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

A gun PROPELS a bullet. It doesn't THROW it.

Again with the capitals.

Necessary to try to get it into your stupid ignorant head.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

Pump action shotguns are not banned explicitly

They are categorised as 'self-loading'. As far as I can see they are effectively

No, they are not self loading. They require manual action to chamber the
next cartridge.

banned. I can't hink of any reason why they shouldn't be.

Limited imagination?

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Steve Firth wrote:

And a gun propels absolutely nothing.

Insanity is a scary thing.

Graham

John Rumm wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

How do you ban evil people ? Maybe you would shoot them ? Personally, I reckon
removing killing weapons from ready access is a sensible answer.

How do you propose doing that?

The removal of access to licensed pistols seems to have had no effect
whatsoever on the price or availability of weapons to criminals.

Because that's another matter entirely that the current law was never designed to
address.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

And where does that quote say that pump action shotguns were made
illegal? It mentions pump-action rifles, not shotguns.

You snipped the bit about AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

A pump action shotgun is not:

1) A centre fire rifle
2) Self loading
3) semi automatic
4) automatic

And is hence not covered by the section you posted.

If you read the first sentence he

http://www.gunrunner.cc/firearms_laws.htm

You will see that what Steve was saying is correct. A shotgun with a
magazine capacity of more than two cartridges can be held on a FAC.

You're a loathsome **** Firth. Your idea of how to win an argument is to
misrepresent what other people say, misattribute things and run away from arguments
you know you can only lose.

If you're typical of 'shooters' I'm GLAD you've had your winds clipped since honesty
is apparently a concept you can't even remotely grasp.

Wahay... incoming toys, take cover.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Steve Firth wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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

Pump action shotguns are not banned explicitly

They are categorised as 'self-loading'.

No they are not.

Read the ****ing LAW you complete MORON.

I have and as I mentioned, in the part you snipped, pump action shotguns
are neither self-loading nor are they banned "effectively" or otherwise.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/1997005.htm

Eeyore wrote:

I can't imagine many people wanting to kill deer as vermin in this country. Unlike
the Americans, we don't seem to have the same urge to kill wild animals.

They are quite yummy though....


--
Cheers,

John.

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

John Rumm wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Men like fighting,

Says who ? I think it's utterly gross and a ridiculous throwback to behaving
like wild animals.

You may, however there are countless men indulging in fighting sports,
simulated combat, paint balling etc to make it perfectly clear that you
are not like all men.

Thank God for that !

Graham

John Rumm wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I can't imagine many people wanting to kill deer as vermin in this country. Unlike
the Americans, we don't seem to have the same urge to kill wild animals.

They are quite yummy though....

Venison is over-rated imho. Lamb or beef are tastier to me.

Graham

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

Hmm. Guns are a very effective way of killing. Little to no skill or
strength needed and can be done from a distance. Most other methods
require close contact - where a stronger fitter opponent might have a
better choice of defence. So basically the choice of a coward.

Yup, true... they could always run them over in their car though...

--
Cheers,

John.

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