Andy Hall wrote:

"no spam" said:

Anguish won't bring back the dead.

It might prevent further atrocities, though. Give some of the domestic
security forces arms and they have a habit of firing first and asking
questions afterwards. And their record seems to show often at an innocent
party.

That shows the difference between here and there. Here we have always
looked at government control as a last resort, there it seems as though you
see it as the first. You seem to think that its the government's job to be
a very large nanny to make sure that you neither get hurt nor have the
ability to hurt others.

Not at all.

That's how the government might like it to appear, but the reality is
that most people do their own thing. They simply don't make a big
issue out of it, nor do they consider it necessary to own a gun, or any
other weapon for protection. We've grown out of that quite a long
time ago.

Didn't even have to grow out of it much really.

Graham

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-24 22:07:49 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-24 20:19:59 +0100, Eeyore
said:



Andy Hall wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" said:

Tesco supermarket import ship loads of US, South American, Australian
and South Africa wine. They used southern English ports and trucked
it
up to Manchester where it was bottled in their plant. Now they land
the wine at Liverpool container port, transfer the containers to
smaller ships which sail up the Manchester Ship Canal and off load at
Irlam 2 miles from the bottling plant, taking hundreds of inefficient
trucks off the roads. If they had brains in the first place they
could
have put the bottling plant on the canal cutting in their own lay-by
and take direct from the ship into the plant, avoiding the cost of 2
miles by truck as well.

If the customers had brains they wouldn't be buying wine processed in
this way.

'Processed' in what way ?

Graham

Bulk transport and bottling in a chemical plant.

Matt, as the UK doesn't make much wine at all it needs to be imported.
It is imported in bulk refrigerated containers to preserve the wine and
bottled in the UK. This is highly cost effective being much better than
bottling in the country of origin, which is more weight to transport; the
bottles. This is wine that is meant to be drunk within a year as most
wine bought in shops is.

The objective should be quality and not shipping in bulk for industrial
processing.

Matt they can bottle it in California or in Manchester. It is more energy
efficient to bottle it in Manchester. The quality stays the same. You don't
know about wine Matt.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-24 20:21:57 +0100, "no spam" said:


Anguish won't bring back the dead.

It might prevent further atrocities, though. Give some of the domestic
security forces arms and they have a habit of firing first and asking
questions afterwards. And their record seems to show often at an
innocent
party.

That shows the difference between here and there. Here we have always
looked at government control as a last resort, there it seems as though
you
see it as the first. You seem to think that its the government's job to
be
a very large nanny to make sure that you neither get hurt nor have the
ability to hurt others.

Not at all.

That's how the government might like it to appear, but the reality is that
most people do their own thing. They simply don't make a big issue out
of it, nor do they consider it necessary to own a gun, or any other weapon
for protection. We've grown out of that quite a long time ago.

Michael More said, "there are 1/4 billion hand guns in American homes, and I
can't remember the last time a deer ran through my living room". A classic!
Brilliant!

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote
The "blob" mostly isn't mercury,

What's it alloyed with???


although it will have some
mercury absorbed into it. By end of life, much of the mercury
will have been absorbed into the phosphor, the glass, and the
tube electrodes, where it no longer works, and this is one of
the reasons the lamp gets dimmer (although drop off of the
phosphor efficiency is the main one). But as I said, the total
amount is far too low to be a hazard.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Yep. I was reading that the Rivers Mersey and Seven, would generate
about 6 to 7% of the UK power by tidal means alone...and make some
bridges for free. Then the still introduction of wind farms, onshore and
offshore. High insulation and air-tightness test of home built with
passive solar in design, better town planning to reduce travelling, more
efficient appliances, local Combined Heat & Power generation for
districts, burning of waste and not re-cycling the stuff which uses more
energy to re-cycle, etc, etc.

It all adds up, to reduce fossil and nuclear fuel demand.


Trouble with the tidal stuff is it comes and goes, and blocking off those
rivers would cause major environmental problems too.

We don't need power for a 6 hour(ish) period every 12.5 hours, we need it
in daytime (mostly). A tidal system would make things very hard for the
conventional systems that don't like being turned on and off.

Unless you want use Loch Ness for pumped storage?

We should have spent money on Fusion back in the 1960s. We'd probably
have it now, but as it is the politician's can't see beyond the next
election and don't care.

I knew some physicists and it is very much being pursued ASAP; the tech
and materials available just haven't gelled yet. Be patient. How many things
did Edison try as filaments?



Andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-23 23:36:12 +0100, geoff said:

In message , Andy Champ
writes
Unnecessary with just a few barrages but Loch Ness would be a poor
choice for pump storage which is best arranged around a high reservoir
rather than something almost at sea level. (And in the wrong place
anyway. Scotland currently has a surplus of electricity and the
Highlands are far better suited to hydro schemes.)

I was kidding. I know Loch Ness is only 50M up, (and is in fact the
lower part of a pumped storage system already) but I don't know anywhere
that could make a storage scheme big enough.

The real problem is - what do we do about the Chinese coal-fired power
station programme?

Reduce our demand for chinese goods ?

Exactly. In the end it come to our wanting to buy for the cheapest
price.....

The Chinese want to have the same standard of living as the rest of the
world, so they will continue to produce stuff whether the West buys it or
not.....

"no spam" wrote
Ok what else is it good for?

Let's see. . .
Killing critters attacking my livestock.
Killing critters for lunch (everything from small game to large game).

Shot two snakes in the yard today; just like the one my daughter found
in the den last week. Not sure how they're getting in....


Knocking tin cans off fence post.
Calling the dogs (bottle rockets work but pose a fire hazzard in dry
weather)
Improving hand eye coordination.
Winning (or losing ) money (depending on how good of a shot you are)
Putting down injured critters and livestock.
Delivering a coup de grce without wasting meat or damaging the hide.
Preventing crime.
Giving a 90# woman the ability to let two 200# guys know that she REALLY
doesn't have anything that they want to try to take from her.

If a man likes you, ladies, he gives you a diamond ring....
For some men, it's better if the lady has a 9mm Glock instead. A gun is
a girl's best friend. My friend, and his wife, are both alive because of
theirs, in separate incidents I might add.



That is its primary function. It s NOT a target weapon: that is
normally restricted to specialized .22 caliber guns.

Wrong.


Proof by assertion is not alid argument.

Google "Bianchi Cup" or "Practical Shooting" and see if you could shoot
targets as well as these guys. Very few, if any, Olympic shooters can
shoot that well.

FYI, there are also long range pistol target matches as well. You might
want to google "Thompson Center" as well.

"no spam" wrote in message
. net...

NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.

Why is it that the moment the subject of guns comes up, so many people
lose the
power of rational thought?

The sole purpose of a handgun is to kill or main people. They have no
legitimate
role, least of all being carried on the person, in a civilised society.
Of course
it may be that USA doesn't qualify as a civilised society. That would
explain a
lot.

Get real.

Graham

Do you have a wife or sister or niece? Just how would she protect herself
from a possible rapist or mugger? Years ago my sister had started working
as a nurse and was working different shifts in an ER in a hospital in a
not so good area. One night she was approached by a large man who
suggested that she provide him with some physical recreation. Even after
explaining to him that she appreciated to offer of physical recreation she
would have to decline the offer. He retorted that he was going to do
rather bad things to her if continued to decline his offer. At which
point she reached into her purse and used a small handgun to emphasize
just how strongly she was declining his offer. It seems he felt that
there was somewhere else he need to be and he needed to be there in quite
a hurry.

Yes, my wife, who had given birth about two weeks earlier, bumped a
man's car while driving. We all got out at which point he became abusive and
approached =her= menacingly; I retrieved her Colt pistol from her purse and
he left for some odd reason.....

Because of the laws she did not shoot the SOB so some other poor unarmed
woman probably became the object of his physical recreation.

Damn.


I'm sorry of
that but I'm glad that she was so unsafe to carry a firearm.

"no spam" wrote in message
. net...
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.

So you want to give school kids guns to defend themselves?

Perhaps only the school kids who have passed gun safety and
training classes and which have proven to be responsible and
drug free. Oh, and the teachers who have done the same. Maybe
we could start with just the responsible and drug free teachers.

It only takes one person out of an entire classroom shooting back
to stop a massacre.

Unbelievable. Ever heard of something called mental health. Or jealousy ?

NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.

Graham

Now you are sounding a little foolish.

More than a little.......


Are you saying that if you KNEW
someone wanted to and had the ability to kill you (say you testified
against his son/brother/fellow gang member) and were allowed by the police
to keep a firearm you would suddenly start shooting people who cut you off
in traffic?

I know many, many people who have grown up with loaded firearms in their
homes (I'm one as well as my kids) and people who have carried firearms
for years and none of them has ever fired a shot outside of hunting or
target shooting. Except for 6 months of my life I have lived in areas
where having firearms in the house is the rule rather than the exception
and I the number of people I'd list as 'unsafe' could be counted on my
fingers. And those 6 months were the only ones where I truely felt the
NEED for a firearm for the protection of myself and my family.

"no spam" wrote in message
news

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

Totally correct. The are not ornaments.

Can you tell me where to take mine to be fixed? They don't seem to be
working that way.
Yes, mine all seem to have the same malfunction; every time I fire it,
no one dies. Why do you suppose that is????

"no spam" wrote in message
news

Anguish won't bring back the dead.

It might prevent further atrocities, though. Give some of the domestic
security forces arms and they have a habit of firing first and asking
questions afterwards. And their record seems to show often at an innocent
party.

That shows the difference between here and there. Here we have always
looked at government control as a last resort, there it seems as though
you see it as the first. You seem to think that its the government's job
to be a very large nanny to make sure that you neither get hurt nor have
the ability to hurt others.
Remember, Winston loves Big Brother.....

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


no spam wrote:
Nope he's correct here. Not only do they have very minimal firearms
training they are given firearms that do not have enough stopping power
and
therefore are trained the fire multiple shots at each target. Note the
fact
that 4 LEOs fired a total of 41 rounds at an unarmed man in NYC.

Interesting point. The armed police here have some seriously heavy duty
guns.

You think so ?

What do you class as "seriously heavy duty guns" ?

My friend the cop here in the USA has a fully automatic M-16 IIRC.....



--
Neil Barker

On 2007-10-25 02:47:41 +0100, "Jim" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-23 23:36:12 +0100, geoff said:

In message , Andy Champ
writes
Unnecessary with just a few barrages but Loch Ness would be a poor
choice for pump storage which is best arranged around a high reservoir
rather than something almost at sea level. (And in the wrong place
anyway. Scotland currently has a surplus of electricity and the
Highlands are far better suited to hydro schemes.)

I was kidding. I know Loch Ness is only 50M up, (and is in fact the
lower part of a pumped storage system already) but I don't know anywhere
that could make a storage scheme big enough.

The real problem is - what do we do about the Chinese coal-fired power
station programme?

Reduce our demand for chinese goods ?

Exactly. In the end it come to our wanting to buy for the cheapest
price.....

The Chinese want to have the same standard of living as the rest of the
world, so they will continue to produce stuff whether the West buys it or
not.....

Have you looked at their trade surplus?

On 2007-10-24 22:42:02 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:

Matt they can bottle it in California or in Manchester.

In the case of California white wines (but not some reds) that is
probably true.


It is more energy efficient to bottle it in Manchester.

It may be, but that isn't the point except in the case of the bulk products


The quality stays the same.

That's probably true in the case of the products you describe.
Garages are starting to sell it to go in washer bottles at this time of
year.

On 2007-10-25 03:02:01 +0100, "Jim" said:

Yes, my wife, who had given birth about two weeks earlier, bumped a
man's car while driving. We all got out at which point he became abusive and
approached =her= menacingly; I retrieved her Colt pistol from her purse and
he left for some odd reason.....

Sounds just like a John Wayne film. Do you usually ride shotgun on
this stagecoach?

What would you have done had he also had a firearm? Shoot out outside
the saloon?

Did it not occur to you that the reason that he approached her was
perhaps because she was the driver? There isn't any excuse for this
type of behaviour on his part, but it certainly doesn't warrant the
involvement of a gun....

Jim wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-23 23:36:12 +0100, geoff said:

In message , Andy Champ
writes
Unnecessary with just a few barrages but Loch Ness would be a poor
choice for pump storage which is best arranged around a high reservoir
rather than something almost at sea level. (And in the wrong place
anyway. Scotland currently has a surplus of electricity and the
Highlands are far better suited to hydro schemes.)

I was kidding. I know Loch Ness is only 50M up, (and is in fact the
lower part of a pumped storage system already) but I don't know anywhere
that could make a storage scheme big enough.

The real problem is - what do we do about the Chinese coal-fired power
station programme?

Reduce our demand for chinese goods ?

Exactly. In the end it come to our wanting to buy for the cheapest
price.....

The Chinese want to have the same standard of living as the rest of the
world, so they will continue to produce stuff whether the West buys it or
not.....

A lot is now sold internally.

Graham

Jim wrote:

Yes, my wife, who had given birth about two weeks earlier, bumped a
man's car while driving. We all got out at which point he became abusive and
approached =her= menacingly; I retrieved her Colt pistol from her purse and
he left for some odd reason.....

Exactly, you have a society that relies on aggression and violence.

Graham

Jim wrote:

"no spam" wrote
Ok what else is it good for?

Let's see. . .
Killing critters attacking my livestock.
Killing critters for lunch (everything from small game to large game).

Shot two snakes in the yard today;

Yet another reason we don't need guns in the UK.

We have no dangerous snakes here.

Graahm

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-25 03:02:01 +0100, "Jim" said:

Yes, my wife, who had given birth about two weeks earlier, bumped a
man's car while driving. We all got out at which point he became abusive
and
approached =her= menacingly; I retrieved her Colt pistol from her purse
and
he left for some odd reason.....

Sounds just like a John Wayne film. Do you usually ride shotgun on this
stagecoach?

What would you have done had he also had a firearm? Shoot out outside
the saloon?

Did it not occur to you that the reason that he approached her was perhaps
because she was the driver? There isn't any excuse for this type of
behaviour on his part, but it certainly doesn't warrant the involvement of
a gun....

And did the man leave without getting the damage the PP's wife did to his
car sorted out? In which case the PP has demonstrated that people having a
gun do abuse it for personal gain.

chees,
clive

Clive George wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
"Jim" said:

Yes, my wife, who had given birth about two weeks earlier, bumped a
man's car while driving. We all got out at which point he became abusive
and approached =her= menacingly; I retrieved her Colt pistol from her purse

and he left for some odd reason.....

Sounds just like a John Wayne film. Do you usually ride shotgun on this
stagecoach?

What would you have done had he also had a firearm? Shoot out outside
the saloon?

Did it not occur to you that the reason that he approached her was perhaps
because she was the driver? There isn't any excuse for this type of
behaviour on his part, but it certainly doesn't warrant the involvement of
a gun....

And did the man leave without getting the damage the PP's wife did to his
car sorted out? In which case the PP has demonstrated that people having a
gun do abuse it for personal gain.

I'm curious as what "approached =her= menacingly" means in practice.

Graham

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-25 03:02:01 +0100, "Jim" said:

Yes, my wife, who had given birth about two weeks earlier, bumped a
man's car while driving. We all got out at which point he became abusive
and
approached =her= menacingly; I retrieved her Colt pistol from her purse
and
he left for some odd reason.....

Sounds just like a John Wayne film. Do you usually ride shotgun on this
stagecoach?

What would you have done had he also had a firearm? Shoot out outside
the saloon?

Did it not occur to you that the reason that he approached her was perhaps
because she was the driver? There isn't any excuse for this type of
behaviour on his part, but it certainly doesn't warrant the involvement of
a gun....

When a very large man begins to go all psycho on a small woman who has
given birth recently, and is not the least bit deterred by her husband
standing nearby, something is wrong. Very wrong. Fortunately, we were never
able to find out just exactly what.
This is in the same neighborhood where a man on PCP was running about
naked and it took 9 policemen to subdue him and get handcuffs on him.
I'm glad you live in a world where no dangerous loonies run about free,
but some of us do not....

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-24, no spam wrote:
Sounds entirely rational to me. It is indeed the handguns that are
the
problem and there
can be no valid reason for those as anything other than an
anti-person
weapon.

Right. An "anti-person-who wants to kill me" weapon.
Eeyore, things are rather pleasant in the hundred acre wood, but
here
in
the real world people want to kill you and take your stuff. I like my
things
in my house, my wife not raped, my kids alive, and my blood =inside= my
body.....

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

In the UK I think I can confidently say NEVER.

Been busy so I haven't been reading for a few days so I'm a
Johnny-come-lately here but. . .

Has not the 'home invasion' burglaries, i.e. burgling the home when it is
occupied, on the rise in the UK?

Higher than the US and rising, yes.

Perhaps they read this ng and know about all the unarmed victims just
waiting to be convinced they exist.

--
"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]

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

"Neil Barker" wrote in message
...

What do you class as "seriously heavy duty guns" ?

My friend the cop here in the USA has a fully automatic M-16
IIRC.....

Indeed.

I don't really class an MP-5 in 9mm as 'seriously heavy duty guns'.

Yeah, that's a nice one, but no powerhouse.


--
Neil Barker

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-25 03:02:01 +0100, "Jim" said:

Yes, my wife, who had given birth about two weeks earlier, bumped a
man's car while driving. We all got out at which point he became abusive
and
approached =her= menacingly; I retrieved her Colt pistol from her purse
and
he left for some odd reason.....

Sounds just like a John Wayne film. Do you usually ride shotgun on
this stagecoach?

What would you have done had he also had a firearm? Shoot out outside
the saloon?

Did it not occur to you that the reason that he approached her was
perhaps because she was the driver? There isn't any excuse for this
type of behaviour on his part, but it certainly doesn't warrant the
involvement of a gun....

And did the man leave without getting the damage the PP's wife did to his
car sorted out?

He was clearly not in his right mind. Do you have any idea of how many
folks out there do NOT want the police called to the scene of an accident?

In which case the PP has demonstrated that people having a
gun do abuse it for personal gain.

Actually, the vehicle was a company car from the $20,000,000 corporation
she owned. Company car, company insurance, company gas, company body work
etc. The business was an auto dealership. I had the cash in my pocket to
=replace= the car he was driving; that's why I carried guns. No skin off my
nose to pay any amount he wanted. Or just give him a new car. But he was
going insane and fast..... Big fella too.
Sorry to burst your PC liberal bubble.


chees,
clive

Jim wrote:

I had the cash in my pocket to =replace= the car he was driving; that's why I
carried guns

Why would anyone want to carry that much CASH ?

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

I had the cash in my pocket to =replace= the car he was driving; that's why I
carried guns

Why would anyone want to carry that much CASH ?

I got the impression he was driving that *little* car rather than the OP
carrying that *much* cash.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Personal ownership (which is what's dangerous) is not required for
target
shooting.

You're wrong there as well, and you obviously know nothing about target
shooting.

What's wrong with a club keeping the gun ?

Graham

How about the fact that my target shooting happens in my back yard which
means I'd have to drive about an hour to town to get the weapon, drive an
hour home, shoot for a while, drive an hour to town to return the weapon the
another hour drive home. That's four hours driving time for what is usually
less than 30 min of shooting.

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

You can keep trotting that falacious line out from here to eternity. I
and others will also continue to tell you that there are perfectly
legitimate other reasons for owning handguns - target shooting being one
of them.


That is really the ONLY reason IMHO.

And you wouldn't use a colt 45 for target shooting, would you?.

I do, a Colt Goverment Modle 45 ACP and would (will when I talk the wife
into getting me one for my birthday use a 45 Long Colt)

Research 'pratical shooting'. In this shooting a 9 mm is usually considered
a 'minor' round.


In fact, tell me what you WOULD use a colt 45 for, apart from threatening
people? And showing it off to your Kan buddies..;=-)

Sorry, I don't know Senator Byrd so I can't show anything to him. My
mother-in-law just gave me a very nice old 22 rifle after her husband
passed, I'd love showing that thing off!




So, to say they have no other use than killing people is simply
incorrect. But, to say otherwise wouldn't help your weakening case now,
would it ?

I have many things I use my handguns for and killing people isn't even on
the list.


I'm with you all the way on target pistols, but I have to agree with Dave,
that, them aside, a handgun has no valid legal use that I can see. Outside
of armed response by police etc.

And you wouldn't use a colt 45 for target shooting, would you?.

Why not ? Dealing with recoil is part of the target shooting skill
set.


In fact, tell me what you WOULD use a colt 45 for, apart from
threatening people?

Target shooting. I have done - plus all manner of other different
handguns in various calibres.

The Desert Eagle was the most fun, but for elegance and practicality,
I'd take a Sig P226 in 9mm.


And showing it off to your Kan buddies..;=-)

"Kan" ??

--
Neil Barker
Liberal can't spell Kansas.
Twit probably means Klan..... After all, you'd have to be an insane
racist to own a gun, right?

The racist are on the other side. IIRC, New York's first gun control law
(the Sullivansp? law) was passed to keep the Irish from being able to own
firearms. In the South the laws were written to keep the blacks from being
able to shoot the lynchers.

Even today the laws are used to make sure that the poor underclass (read
intercity minorities) as easy targets for criminals.

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

Could you please tell that to two of my dogs? I can't get them to stop
trying to kill each other when ever they are both out of their pens. Both
are among the most loveable mutts you have ever seen until they see each
other.

You might also want to go into the woods and tell each buck deer that he
must not fight with his fellow bucks.

BTW, I think dog fighters should have their hands tied, stripped, their
lower parts covered in animal blood and dropped into a pen full of rats.
Some people say I'm too nice of a guy.

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.

Then why are they banned in most cities? IIRC, carrying a sword has been
illegal in the UK for several hundred years.

Men like fighting,

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

Graham

You do have to admit that humans are a violent at their core. Look how fast
we can go from a 'civilized' people to killing those that don't
look/think/pray/whatever like us. I give you the former Yugoslavia as an
example. The race/religious riots in France a while back is also a small
example. The best known example is Germany from 1900-1945. History if full
of examples where humans have done some of the most inhumane things that you
can think of.

How much time does it take to turn a civilized 18 y.o. into someone who has
no problem with ramming a bayonet into another 18 y.o.? I'll give you a
hint, just a few weeks.

Are you arguing that US police officers have no weapons training?

Minimal.

Then you are telling lies.

Nope he's correct here. Not only do they have very minimal firearms
training they are given firearms that do not have enough stopping power
and
therefore are trained the fire multiple shots at each target. Note the
fact
that 4 LEOs fired a total of 41 rounds at an unarmed man in NYC.

Interesting point. The armed police here have some seriously heavy duty
guns.

Graham

You need some education. IIRC, you armed police use the same 9X19 mm round
that most police in the US use. It is minor powered round. Again relying
on memory the 9X19 mm round is roughly equivalent in energy as the old .38
Special.

I'm not sure but I'd be willing to bet that your police are not allowed to
used hollowed point rounds (which are mostly useless at handgun velocity) or
even soft lead point rounds which means that a lot of the rounds energy is
loss because of over penetration (i.e. the round passes all the way though
the target).

I admit I'm a bit bias because I'm in the big bullet crowd.

Nope he's correct here. Not only do they have very minimal firearms
training they are given firearms that do not have enough stopping
power and
therefore are trained the fire multiple shots at each target. Note
the fact
that 4 LEOs fired a total of 41 rounds at an unarmed man in NYC.

Interesting point. The armed police here have some seriously heavy duty
guns.

You think so ?

What do you class as "seriously heavy duty guns" ?

My friend the cop here in the USA has a fully automatic M-16 IIRC.....

I think you are recalling wrong. He may have one, if he lives in the right
state AND has a class III permit, but I don't think any PD in the US has
full auto weapons outside of a few MP5's.

Full auto is stupid anyway. Look at the nut cases in the 'North Hollywood
shoot out'. They had full auto weapons, fired hundreds (thousands?) of
rounds and hit almost no one. Unless you have a bipod or tripod after the
first 2 or 3 rounds the recoil has pulled you off target. I would much
rather face some nut firing a full auto from the shoulder than one with a
bolt action scoped rifle.

IMO, burst fire (3-5 rounds with each trigger pull) is nothing more than
trying to replace marksmanship with gimmickry.

We don't have them, even the police are not armed here.

That is of course ********, as the family of Jean Charles de Menezes
will testify.

The police are NOT armed look at them in the streets. If there are guns
involved in a situation the armed response team will be called.

What happens if the bad guys start shooting before the "special units"
arrive? WTF????

Guns are so rare it is not worth the police having them. The chances of
the police running into a man with a gun and being shot is so slight. So
few criminals are armed with guns. 5 years just for possession of a gun.
One did get shot a year or so back in Bradford. Just unlucky they walked
into a hold up and didn't know it. Even if they had guns they would have
been shot. This sort of event is very, very rare. So rare it is not worth
arming police as it would be a total overreaction.


Aren't things changing? The last I read more and more UK police are
carrying firearms because if the increase in violent crime. Not necessarily
violent gun crimes but all kinds. An unarmed Bobby (do they still call them
that?) doesn't have much of a chance against a couple of pipe wielding
thugs.

Sounds entirely rational to me. It is indeed the handguns that are
the
problem and there
can be no valid reason for those as anything other than an
anti-person
weapon.

Right. An "anti-person-who wants to kill me" weapon.
Eeyore, things are rather pleasant in the hundred acre wood, but
here
in
the real world people want to kill you and take your stuff. I like my
things
in my house, my wife not raped, my kids alive, and my blood =inside= my
body.....

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

In the UK I think I can confidently say NEVER.

Been busy so I haven't been reading for a few days so I'm a
Johnny-come-lately here but. . .

Has not the 'home invasion' burglaries, i.e. burgling the home when it is
occupied, on the rise in the UK?

Higher than the US and rising, yes.

Seems that gun control in the UK has made families much safer.

The handgun ban of 1998 basically did ****-all to "take handguns off
the streets" and politicians know it.

Ah but it made people feel safer in their beds.

Not from what I've read. The people today are scared the criminals now are
going to just kick in the door, knowing that the people have no way to stop
them.

Yes, my wife, who had given birth about two weeks earlier, bumped a
man's car while driving. We all got out at which point he became abusive
and
approached =her= menacingly; I retrieved her Colt pistol from her purse
and
he left for some odd reason.....

Sounds just like a John Wayne film. Do you usually ride shotgun on this
stagecoach?

What would you have done had he also had a firearm? Shoot out outside
the saloon?

Did it not occur to you that the reason that he approached her was perhaps
because she was the driver? There isn't any excuse for this type of
behaviour on his part, but it certainly doesn't warrant the involvement of
a gun....

I ask you the same thing.


Do you have a wife or sister or niece? Just how would she protect herself
from a possible rapist or mugger? Years ago my sister had started working
as a nurse and was working different shifts in an ER in a hospital in a not
so good area. One night she was approached by a large man who suggested
that she provide him with some physical recreation. Even after explaining
to him that she appreciated to offer of physical recreation she would have
to decline the offer. He retorted that he was going to do rather bad things
to her if continued to decline his offer. At which point she reached into
her purse and used a small handgun to emphasize just how strongly she was
declining his offer. It seems he felt that there was somewhere else he need
to be and he needed to be there in quite a hurry.

Because of the laws she did not shoot the SOB so some other poor unarmed
woman probably became the object of his physical recreation. I'm sorry of
that but I'm glad that she was so unsafe to carry a firearm.

I'm curious as what "approached =her= menacingly" means in practice.

Graham

What about my question?

Do you have a wife or sister or niece? Just how would she protect herself
from a possible rapist or mugger? Years ago my sister had started working
as a nurse and was working different shifts in an ER in a hospital in a not
so good area. One night she was approached by a large man who suggested
that she provide him with some physical recreation. Even after explaining
to him that she appreciated to offer of physical recreation she would have
to decline the offer. He retorted that he was going to do rather bad things
to her if continued to decline his offer. At which point she reached into
her purse and used a small handgun to emphasize just how strongly she was
declining his offer. It seems he felt that there was somewhere else he need
to be and he needed to be there in quite a hurry.

Because of the laws she did not shoot the SOB so some other poor unarmed
woman probably became the object of his physical recreation. I'm sorry of
that but I'm glad that she was so unsafe to carry a firearm.

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.

If you check a lot of private arms were 'borrowed' by the UK at the start of
the war which were never returned. Well not a lot when viewed in the number
of arms sold/given by the government but a lot when you look at the number
of weapons in private hands at the time.