"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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
Why should carrying cash be a problem?



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

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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
Yes,IRA and so many other Brits were non aggressive or violent.
What were we thinking .....



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

no spam wrote:
Perhaps we shouldn't have given all those guns and bombs to Britain
when Churchill requested them.....
Well 'you' almost certainly gave nothing. And your forbears even less.
Everything the US supplied to the UK before being forced into joining
the
war was paid for - and handsomely.
Ungrateful twit.

No., that's you. We took the brunt of it, you sat back and made a ****ing
PROFIT.

You still have to admit w/o the help of the US the odds are the UK would
have been under German control by 1943.

No. Russian control by 1947.

Actually WE died for YOUR prosperity. YOU only had the fag end of a war
to fight, and a third world country.

There's no way that the UK could
have kept up the fight w/o the supplies the US was sending.

Selling, not sending.



BTW, when you are buying something illegally you usually have to pay a
higher price for it.


Or if you buy it from the USA when there's a war on.

no spam wrote:
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?

Kick them in the balls probably. In a society with no gns, has all yiu
need really. And hwo is a gun going to be any use when such a person
usually comes out of the blue from behind?

Pah!

On 2007-10-26 03:43:47 +0100, "Arnold Walker"
said:


"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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
Why should carrying cash be a problem?


It shouldn't be, but it's not very bright, either.

On 2007-10-26 01:11:57 +0100, Owain said:

Jim wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote
You may feel that owning and brandishing firearms is necessary in the
environment in which you live and that may be the case. It isn't in
the environment in which I live.
Let's hope Abdul leaves you alone, as well as Tyrone and his
gangsta buddies....

We manage without guns quite nicely, thank you. www.johnsmeaton.com
"This is Glasgow, and we'll set about ye"

Owain

.... and he did. Quite effectively.

Andy Hall wrote:

"Arnold Walker" said:
"Eeyore" wrote
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 ?

Why should carrying cash be a problem?

It shouldn't be, but it's not very bright, either.

I've had cash literally 'fall out of my pocket'.

Graham

"Andy Hall" wrote
For tolerating a situation where there is a need to carry around a lethal
weapon as part of everyday life because an employer doesn't make proper
security arrangements, absolutely.

I was referring to you as the idiot.
Why is it always =someone= else's duty to ensure =your= safety?
plonk

"Arnold Walker" wrote in message
...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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
Why should carrying cash be a problem?

He just wishes he'd had it! LOL!
ATM's had not been invented, and credit cards were not universally
accepted. And some folks don't take them at all...



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

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote
For tolerating a situation where there is a need to carry around a lethal
weapon as part of everyday life because an employer doesn't make proper
security arrangements, absolutely.

I was referring to you as the idiot.
Why is it always =someone= else's duty to ensure =your= safety?
plonk

That is why you pay taxes. Notice, apart from the odd plantpot, all the
people from the UK on this thread are firmly against guns and the police
being armed. While the Americans are the opposite. Why? Because our
society doesn't need them for us to walk around safely. If your society
entails that you need a gun to safely go to the shops for some milk, then
start looking at your society and aim to change it at the root level. Aim
for the best.

Jim wrote:

"Arnold Walker" wrote
"Eeyore" wrote
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 ?

Why should carrying cash be a problem?

He just wishes he'd had it! LOL!
ATM's had not been invented, and credit cards were not universally
accepted. And some folks don't take them at all...

I was using an early style of ATM in 1976. How old ARE you ?

Graham

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
"Andy Hall" wrote

For tolerating a situation where there is a need to carry around a lethal
weapon as part of everyday life because an employer doesn't make proper
security arrangements, absolutely.

I was referring to you as the idiot.
Why is it always =someone= else's duty to ensure =your= safety?
plonk

That is why you pay taxes. Notice, apart from the odd plantpot, all the
people from the UK on this thread are firmly against guns and the police
being armed. While the Americans are the opposite. Why? Because our
society doesn't need them for us to walk around safely.

And let's hope that continues to be. Certainly it'll be screwed if widespread
gun ownership happened.


If your society entails that you need a gun to safely go to the shops for some
milk, then
start looking at your society and aim to change it at the root level. Aim
for the best.

They have a horrible violent society.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Jim wrote:

"Arnold Walker" wrote
"Eeyore" wrote
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 ?

Why should carrying cash be a problem?

He just wishes he'd had it! LOL!
ATM's had not been invented, and credit cards were not universally
accepted. And some folks don't take them at all...

I was using an early style of ATM in 1976. How old ARE you ?

Greetings, Graham; I missed you, so I unplonkificated you. :-) I have a
Scot's temper.....
I stand corrected; apparently, ATM's were not used in my city at that
time (mid-late 70's also). I never saw one until some time after that. Sorry
for the mixup.



Graham

On 2007-10-26 16:58:19 +0100, "Jim" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote
For tolerating a situation where there is a need to carry around a lethal
weapon as part of everyday life because an employer doesn't make proper
security arrangements, absolutely.

I was referring to you as the idiot.
Why is it always =someone= else's duty to ensure =your= safety?


It isn't *always*. In the scenario you described, it clearly is.
It's a ridiculous situation that a nurse feels a need to carry a
firearm for self protection in order that she can do a job of work
caring for others.

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
"Andy Hall" wrote

For tolerating a situation where there is a need to carry around a
lethal
weapon as part of everyday life because an employer doesn't make
proper
security arrangements, absolutely.

I was referring to you as the idiot.
Why is it always =someone= else's duty to ensure =your= safety?
plonk

That is why you pay taxes. Notice, apart from the odd plantpot, all the
people from the UK on this thread are firmly against guns and the police
being armed. While the Americans are the opposite. Why? Because our
society doesn't need them for us to walk around safely.

And let's hope that continues to be. Certainly it'll be screwed if
widespread
gun ownership happened.

If gun ownership by the =wrong= people happened.


If your society entails that you need a gun to safely go to the shops for
some
milk, then
start looking at your society and aim to change it at the root level.
Aim
for the best.

They have a horrible violent society.

Yes, that is in large part true. That's why I live out in the country
and send my children to a private school. Their TV is blocked down to a very
low level, and we do not permit many things in our home that are considered
to be harmless, perhaps even by seemingly harmless people such as yourself.
The 60's radicals have all grown up and spread their bizarre ideas (Hillary
et al) and the black culture has gone from being charming and delightful to
menacing and revolting.
The simple fact of the matter is that the US is in the vanguard of
culture; culture is going to hell, and it's starting here. It will soon come
to a town near you. We in the US are prepared, as well as we can, for what
may come....
May God have mercy on us all.
Jim


Graham

"Jim" wrote in message
t...

They have a horrible violent society.

Yes, that is in large part true. That's why I live out in the country
and send my children to a private school. Their TV is blocked down to a
very low level, and we do not permit many things in our home that are
considered to be harmless, perhaps even by seemingly harmless people such
as yourself. The 60's radicals have all grown up and spread their bizarre
ideas (Hillary et al) and the black culture has gone from being charming
and delightful to menacing and revolting.

But you have always had guns and felt the need to have them, even before the
1960s.

On 2007-10-26 22:16:08 +0100, "Jim" said:

The 60's radicals have all grown up and spread their bizarre ideas (Hillary
et al) and the black culture has gone from being charming and delightful to
menacing and revolting.

It's good to read of harmony and tolerance.


The simple fact of the matter is that the US is in the vanguard of
culture;

Excuse me while I get up from rolling about on the floor laughing.

This is almost as good a party piece as Gordon Gecko's greed speech.
At least that one was close to reality.

culture is going to hell, and it's starting here.

I read once about the great cultures of the historical world - the
Greeks, the Romans and so on. All followed a similar pattern going
from barbaric to civilised to decadent.

Do you think that it's at all possible that yours might have missed out
that important middle stage?


It will soon come
to a town near you. We in the US are prepared, as well as we can, for what
may come....

Do you have your cans of beans, bottles of water and radio in your
fallout shelter?



May God have mercy on us all.
Jim

Survivalists you mean?

On 2007-10-26 22:16:08 +0100, "Jim" said:
the black culture has gone from being charming and delightful to
menacing and revolting.


You mean now that they are no longer keen on being slaves?

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-26 00:22:14 +0100, "Jim" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-25 20:47:45 +0100, "no spam" said:

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 issue that you describe resulted from inadequate security in the
hospital.
It has nothing to do with firearms.

At no point in the narrative does he state that this event occurred
within the hospital building.

Quite right, it doesn't, and I was referring to the organisation, not the
building. If the hospital expects vulnerable employees to work hours and
in places where they may be at risk, there is a duty of care on the
hospital's part to make sure that that risk is minimised. It should not
involve a nurse feeling a need to equip herself like Bonnie Parker.



And yes, it has everything to do with
firearms; she's alive, isn't she???
What a complete F^ck!ng idiot.......

For tolerating a situation where there is a need to carry around a lethal
weapon as part of everyday life because an employer doesn't make proper
security arrangements, absolutely.


Are you incapable of understanding? No where does the person state that the
incident happened in the hospital area. It could have happened well away
from the hospital. Do you really think that an employer should provide
armed security 24 hours a day?

You should also realize that this is a situation that occurs all over the
world. Rape happens in every country in the world. The big difference is
that in the US, people can obtain a weapon to protect themselves much of the
time.

On 2007-10-27 00:16:27 +0100, "Ron Purvis" said:

Are you incapable of understanding?

Perfectly, thank you

No where does the person state that the
incident happened in the hospital area.

Neither did I suggest that it did


It could have happened well away
from the hospital. Do you really think that an employer should provide
armed security 24 hours a day?

No I don't. If the issue was totally unrelated to the activity of
the hospital then there was no point in mentioning it at all, or that
the person is a nurse.

However, if, for example, the hospital expects staff members to put
themselves at risk by virtue of hours worked, possibly having to walk
through places that put them at risk of attack, then it is reasonable
that the hospital assists with arrangements for them between work and
home safely. This should not need to include armed security.



You should also realize that this is a situation that occurs all over the
world. Rape happens in every country in the world.

Of course.


The big difference is
that in the US, people can obtain a weapon to protect themselves much of the
time.

The question then is whether that makes a difference to the outcome in
terms of improving it.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote
For tolerating a situation where there is a need to carry around a
lethal weapon as part of everyday life because an employer doesn't make
proper security arrangements, absolutely.

I was referring to you as the idiot.
Why is it always =someone= else's duty to ensure =your= safety?
plonk

That is why you pay taxes. Notice, apart from the odd plantpot, all the
people from the UK on this thread are firmly against guns and the police
being armed. While the Americans are the opposite. Why? Because our
society doesn't need them for us to walk around safely. If your society
entails that you need a gun to safely go to the shops for some milk, then
start looking at your society and aim to change it at the root level. Aim
for the best.

The truth is that you and the others who feel this way are either misguided
or stupid. It doesn't take long for you to verify that there is the same
crimes happening in the UK as there is in the US. According to
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...pes-per-capita you
can see that the UK is number 13 for rapes in the world, which is only 4
places down from the US. Doesn't seem like you are a whole safer than the US
when you look at the number of rapes per capita. You just gave up the right
for your women to defend themselves. There isn't all that much difference in
the rate of other violent crimes either if you bother to look on the same
site. I mean the UK is only two spots below the US in assaults per capita.

If you look at the burglaries, there is about twice as many per capita in
the UK as the US. That could be because criminals here in the US realize
that there is a bigger chance of getting shot. If you look at robberies, the
US is safer there as well. As a matter of fact, total crimes per capita, the
UK is worse than the US.

What does this all mean? That you and the other elitist out there that think
that there country is so much better than the US are all morons.

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
"Andy Hall" wrote

For tolerating a situation where there is a need to carry around a
lethal
weapon as part of everyday life because an employer doesn't make
proper
security arrangements, absolutely.

I was referring to you as the idiot.
Why is it always =someone= else's duty to ensure =your= safety?
plonk

That is why you pay taxes. Notice, apart from the odd plantpot, all the
people from the UK on this thread are firmly against guns and the police
being armed. While the Americans are the opposite. Why? Because our
society doesn't need them for us to walk around safely.

And let's hope that continues to be. Certainly it'll be screwed if
widespread
gun ownership happened.


If your society entails that you need a gun to safely go to the shops for
some
milk, then
start looking at your society and aim to change it at the root level.
Aim
for the best.

They have a horrible violent society.

Graham

Yet we have less crime as I already gave a link to a site with the actual
per capita numbers for the different countries. Seems more like you have a
horrible violent society than we do. Of course you won't admit it because
idiots like you want to feel superior.

In message , Jim
writes
If your society entails that you need a gun to safely go to the shops for
some
milk, then
start looking at your society and aim to change it at the root level.
Aim
for the best.

They have a horrible violent society.

Yes, that is in large part true. That's why I live out in the country
and send my children to a private school. Their TV is blocked down to a very
low level, and we do not permit many things in our home that are considered
to be harmless, perhaps even by seemingly harmless people such as yourself.
The 60's radicals have all grown up and spread their bizarre ideas (Hillary
et al) and the black culture has gone from being charming and delightful to
menacing and revolting.
The simple fact of the matter is that the US is in the vanguard of
culture; culture is going to hell, and it's starting here. It will soon come
to a town near you. We in the US are prepared, as well as we can, for what
may come....

You really are a retard, aren't you

May God have mercy on us all.

There is no god

HTH
--
geoff

On 2007-10-27 00:41:38 +0100, "Ron Purvis" said:

The truth is that you and the others who feel this way are either misguided
or stupid. It doesn't take long for you to verify that there is the same
crimes happening in the UK as there is in the US. According to
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...pes-per-capita you
can see that the UK is number 13 for rapes in the world, which is only 4
places down from the US. Doesn't seem like you are a whole safer than the US
when you look at the number of rapes per capita. You just gave up the right
for your women to defend themselves. There isn't all that much difference in
the rate of other violent crimes either if you bother to look on the same
site. I mean the UK is only two spots below the US in assaults per capita.

If you look at the burglaries, there is about twice as many per capita in
the UK as the US. That could be because criminals here in the US realize
that there is a bigger chance of getting shot. If you look at robberies, the
US is safer there as well. As a matter of fact, total crimes per capita, the
UK is worse than the US.

What does this all mean? That you and the other elitist out there that think
that there country is so much better than the US are all morons.

What it actually means is that it's easy to pick statistics selectively
to make any argument you wish.

Regarding assaults, one could equally say that ownership of guns makes
little or no difference to outcome.

Using other figures from the same source, one can see that % homicides
with firearms is about 39% in the U.S., the same as Zimbabwe. The UK
doesn't appear in that table. Murders with firearms are 27x
greater in the U.S. per capita. etc.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-27 00:41:38 +0100, "Ron Purvis" said:

The truth is that you and the others who feel this way are either
misguided
or stupid. It doesn't take long for you to verify that there is the same
crimes happening in the UK as there is in the US. According to
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...pes-per-capita
you
can see that the UK is number 13 for rapes in the world, which is only 4
places down from the US. Doesn't seem like you are a whole safer than the
US
when you look at the number of rapes per capita. You just gave up the
right
for your women to defend themselves. There isn't all that much difference
in
the rate of other violent crimes either if you bother to look on the same
site. I mean the UK is only two spots below the US in assaults per
capita.

If you look at the burglaries, there is about twice as many per capita in
the UK as the US. That could be because criminals here in the US realize
that there is a bigger chance of getting shot. If you look at robberies,
the
US is safer there as well. As a matter of fact, total crimes per capita,
the
UK is worse than the US.

What does this all mean? That you and the other elitist out there that
think
that there country is so much better than the US are all morons.

What it actually means is that it's easy to pick statistics selectively to
make any argument you wish.

Regarding assaults, one could equally say that ownership of guns makes
little or no difference to outcome.

Using other figures from the same source, one can see that % homicides
with firearms is about 39% in the U.S., the same as Zimbabwe. The UK
doesn't appear in that table. Murders with firearms are 27x greater
in the U.S. per capita. etc.


What it actually means that you are an idiot that is unwilling to face
facts. You and the other fools make claims that the US is far more violent
and that other countries such as the UK are better because they have a less
violent society that doesn't have firearms. So I show that this is simply
untrue and I back it up with proof. Then you want to discount it because it
doesn't agree with your anti-American bias. Too bad. The facts are the UK is
a more violent and crime ridden society.

The US may have more homicides by firearm, but you have far more by other
means. The reason that we are listed higher on firearms is that it is the
weapon of choice for criminals in the US. In the UK the criminals have
another weapon of choice. Regardless of the weapon of choice, there is more
crime in the UK.

The big difference between the US allowing the firearm for personal
protection is that it is a far more effective deterrent against crime than
the person using a baseball bat, knife, or their own body to defend
themselves. It would be great if there was no crime at all or if the police
could be everywhere to protect us. Of course both of those ideas are
fantasies. They don't occur in real life. The criminals know it is rare for
the police officer to actually be on the spot to protect the people. After
all even in the western world there is going to be an average of one officer
for ever 318 people,
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sxd...6KeiM#PPA88,M1 .
Even worse, you should remember it takes about 5 officers to cover all
shifts for one slot. In other words if they are going to have an officer
patrol one section of town 24x7, it would take about 5 officers to do that.
After all there are 168 hours in a week which is more than 40 a week for 4
officers. Plus you have to cover vacations, sick days, court appearances,
etc. That should tell you that with one officer patrolling an area with more
than 1,500 people, there is not going to be any way for the police actually
be on the spot and prevent crime on a regular basis.

Since the police can't be on the spot to protect the citizens, it
unfortunately is going to come down to what the citizens can do for
themselves. The firearm is the best weapon that a citizen can use to protect
them self.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-27 00:16:27 +0100, "Ron Purvis" said:

Are you incapable of understanding?

Perfectly, thank you


Obviously you don't as evidence by your remars in this post.

No where does the person state that the
incident happened in the hospital area.

Neither did I suggest that it did


Yes you did. When you suggest that the hospital is responsible for the
security, you are suggesting that it is in an area that the hospital could
control.


It could have happened well away
from the hospital. Do you really think that an employer should provide
armed security 24 hours a day?

No I don't. If the issue was totally unrelated to the activity of the
hospital then there was no point in mentioning it at all, or that the
person is a nurse.


The issue is related because a nurse will be changing shifts late at night
and other times when it is most likely that this type of activity would
happen. I am sorry that you were unable to reason this out before this post.

However, if, for example, the hospital expects staff members to put
themselves at risk by virtue of hours worked, possibly having to walk
through places that put them at risk of attack, then it is reasonable that
the hospital assists with arrangements for them between work and home
safely. This should not need to include armed security.


You finally figured out that nurse would have to travel back and forth to
work at times that may have increased chances of them of the staff becoming
a victim. Unfortunately, you have not figured out that many times that nurse
due to her schedule will have to be out into the rest of the communitty at
these times. That means that she would have increased danger at these times
and not be close to the hospital. She might be on the way to grocery store,
changing spots for mass transit, picking up a child from the babysitter,
etc. The hospital would have no reason to provide assistance with security
for any of those. They provide assistance at the hospital and only there.
Nor is it reasonable to assume that they would do anything else.

You should also realize that this is a situation that occurs all over the
world. Rape happens in every country in the world.

Of course.


The big difference is
that in the US, people can obtain a weapon to protect themselves much of
the
time.

The question then is whether that makes a difference to the outcome in
terms of improving it.
The facts are that it does make a difference to the outcome in many if not
most cases. Most homicides that occur by firearm happen when only the
criminal has a firearm. When the citizen has a firearm and is properly
trained in its use, they stand a much better chance of coming through the
criminal incident in good health. According to some reports, simply
brandishing the gun is enough to stop the criminal. In other cases, the
citizen has used the firearm to defend themselves. Either way, it made a
difference for the better.

You should also realize that when states and cities have increased the
restrictions on firearms, it has many times increased the crime rate in that
area. Even when the crime did not increase, it still did not go down
appreciably. If you look at the cities that have the most violent crime in
the US, much of the time they have very restrictive gun control laws. It is
obvious from the data that when the criminal thinks he is going to risk
being shot, they are far less likely to attack that potential victim.

On 2007-10-27 03:56:55 +0100, "Ron Purvis" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

What it actually means is that it's easy to pick statistics selectively to
make any argument you wish.

Regarding assaults, one could equally say that ownership of guns makes
little or no difference to outcome.

Using other figures from the same source, one can see that % homicides
with firearms is about 39% in the U.S., the same as Zimbabwe. The UK
doesn't appear in that table. Murders with firearms are 27x greater
in the U.S. per capita. etc.


What it actually means that you are an idiot that is unwilling to face
facts. You and the other fools make claims that the US is far more violent
and that other countries such as the UK are better because they have a less
violent society that doesn't have firearms. So I show that this is simply
untrue and I back it up with proof. Then you want to discount it because it
doesn't agree with your anti-American bias. Too bad. The facts are the UK is
a more violent and crime ridden society.

So here we have a jumble of emotive statements that are not substantiated.


The US may have more homicides by firearm, but you have far more by other
means. The reason that we are listed higher on firearms is that it is the
weapon of choice for criminals in the US. In the UK the criminals have
another weapon of choice. Regardless of the weapon of choice, there is more
crime in the UK.

That rather depends on what you measure. Of course if you treat a
murder as being equivalently serious to an assault to a burglary and to
dropping a sweetie wrapper in the park with each being dealt with by
production of a firearm to deter the perpetrator then that says its own
thing about proportional response and paranoia.




The big difference between the US allowing the firearm for personal
protection is that it is a far more effective deterrent against crime than
the person using a baseball bat, knife, or their own body to defend
themselves.

I'm sure it is, but that is not a justification.



It would be great if there was no crime at all or if the police
could be everywhere to protect us. Of course both of those ideas are
fantasies. They don't occur in real life. The criminals know it is rare for
the police officer to actually be on the spot to protect the people. After
all even in the western world there is going to be an average of one officer
for ever 318 people,
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sxd...6KeiM#PPA88,M1
.
Even worse, you should remember it takes about 5 officers to cover all
shifts for one slot. In other words if they are going to have an officer
patrol one section of town 24x7, it would take about 5 officers to do that.
After all there are 168 hours in a week which is more than 40 a week for 4
officers. Plus you have to cover vacations, sick days, court appearances,
etc. That should tell you that with one officer patrolling an area with more
than 1,500 people, there is not going to be any way for the police actually
be on the spot and prevent crime on a regular basis.

Since the police can't be on the spot to protect the citizens, it
unfortunately is going to come down to what the citizens can do for
themselves. The firearm is the best weapon that a citizen can use to protect
them self.

It could be if you have allowed there to be a gun culture in the first
place. Undoubtedly if low yield tactical nuclear weapons were
allowed to the average man in the street, you would be making a case
for those as well.

The question really becomes one of whether the average person carries a
gun (or for that matter any other weapon) as part of their daily life
because of a perceived need to defend themselves against criminals, or
whether criminals are carrying such items in order to be able to ply
their trade when their victims are equipped to that level.

It is a matter both of availability and of attitude.

"no spam" wrote in message
news

I was against the excessive restrictions on target shooting.

By banning even the use of hand guns in sport? What a strange form of
opposition.

You appear to be determined not to listen to what I'm saying. I have
never had any
objection to the use of any type of gun in sport.

Graham

So if my sport is 'practical shooting' owing a firearm for that sport is
OK? FYI, practical shooting involves firing large caliber (usually high
capacity semi auto) handguns at targets place at fairly close range.
These guys can fire rounds as fast if not faster than a full auto (machine
gun for you) and still hit targets the size of small dinner plates or
bowling pins.

So what? As long as the firearm is legally owned and used in a legal way,
then it is ok with me. It doesn't matter if the firearm is used in the sport
that you describe, plinking at tin cans, in Olympic competitions, or for
self defense. I am good with it either way.

"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.

I can't believe someone would be so stupid as to say that the sole purpose
is to harm people. The person that said that is obviously a complete moron
who has been brainwashed by the liberals.

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"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.....

That is not the standard issue weapon for officers in most police
departments unless they are on a SWAT team. Most police departments in the
US issue a personal weapon to each officer such as a revolver or a
semi-automatic handgun like the glock. They also usually provide one shotgun
in each marked patrol car.

There are a number of police departments that are experimenting with giving
more firepower to the cops on the beat, but that is not going to go far IMO.
Part of the problem is that many of the city and county councils don't think
that the heavier firepower is appropriate. Second, they don't want to spend
money on it. Much of the police departments in the country are strapped for
cash, so they can't buy the weapons they want.

On 2007-10-27 05:31:50 +0100, "Ron Purvis" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-27 00:16:27 +0100, "Ron Purvis" said:

Are you incapable of understanding?

Perfectly, thank you


Obviously you don't as evidence by your remars in this post.

Let's find out......



No where does the person state that the
incident happened in the hospital area.

Neither did I suggest that it did


Yes you did.

I did not.


When you suggest that the hospital is responsible for the
security, you are suggesting that it is in an area that the hospital could
control.

When the term "hospital" is used, it can refer to the building, or to
the complete operation. Obviously when one says that the hospital
should make arrangements for the safety of its employees it refers to
the complete operation and perhaps the management. Inanimate
buildings are not normally able to make decisions of this nature.





It could have happened well away
from the hospital. Do you really think that an employer should provide
armed security 24 hours a day?

No I don't. If the issue was totally unrelated to the activity of the
hospital then there was no point in mentioning it at all, or that the
person is a nurse.


The issue is related because a nurse will be changing shifts late at night
and other times when it is most likely that this type of activity would
happen. I am sorry that you were unable to reason this out before this post.

Oh I did - completely - and that was my exact point. If the hospital
- meaning the organisation, employer, people running it (just so that
you are not confused) - expects vulnerable staff to do things such as
you suggest, e.g. late night shift changes necessitating them to go
through less than ideal places, such that there is a risk to their
personal safety, then it is reasonable that they should assist that to
be done safely. There are many ways to achieve that that do not
include vulnerable ladies wandering the streets with a gun in their
handbag.

Should the hospital be *generically* responsible for all its employees
24hrs a day? Certainly not. That isn't reasonable. Should they do
something to assist the person's safety from when they leave home to
when they return, having been to work? Yes I think so in circumstances
where there is a substantial risk. Otherwise there is an implied
deterrent to said nurse wanting to work at the place or at possibly
unsafe times and presumably that isn't wanted either.




However, if, for example, the hospital expects staff members to put
themselves at risk by virtue of hours worked, possibly having to walk
through places that put them at risk of attack, then it is reasonable that
the hospital assists with arrangements for them between work and home
safely. This should not need to include armed security.


You finally figured out that nurse would have to travel back and forth to
work at times that may have increased chances of them of the staff becoming
a victim.

I stated that clearly at the outset and suggested an obvious way to
address the issue.


Unfortunately, you have not figured out that many times that nurse
due to her schedule will have to be out into the rest of the communitty at
these times. That means that she would have increased danger at these times
and not be close to the hospital. She might be on the way to grocery store,
changing spots for mass transit, picking up a child from the babysitter,
etc.

Now you are talking about a different situation entirely. There is
no reason to suppose that a nurse, not on duty, is any different or
more vulnerable than anybody else of equivalent size/age/location/etc.

It is therefore not reasonable to introduce all of the other places
that a nurse might go or activities she might undertake into the
specific issue of activity related to her job.



The hospital would have no reason to provide assistance with security
for any of those.

Correct.


They provide assistance at the hospital and only there.
Nor is it reasonable to assume that they would do anything else.

Not true. One could draw a line at providing security only in the
hospital (meaning the building, just so that you do not bcome confused
again). However, the reason that the nurse leaves home and returns
there at times of increased risk is because the hospital (the
organisation this time) wants to operate a shift system with changes at
these times. Given that, it is reasonable that the hospital assists
with the nurses getting safely to and from work.




You should also realize that this is a situation that occurs all over the
world. Rape happens in every country in the world.

Of course.


The big difference is
that in the US, people can obtain a weapon to protect themselves much of
the
time.

The question then is whether that makes a difference to the outcome in
terms of improving it.
The facts are that it does make a difference to the outcome in many if not
most cases. Most homicides that occur by firearm happen when only the
criminal has a firearm.

Then the question is why does the criminal have a firearm? Is it
because the intended victim might as well and he feels a need to
protect himself?

When the citizen has a firearm and is properly
trained in its use, they stand a much better chance of coming through the
criminal incident in good health. According to some reports, simply
brandishing the gun is enough to stop the criminal. In other cases, the
citizen has used the firearm to defend themselves. Either way, it made a
difference for the better.

Depending on your definition of "better"




You should also realize that when states and cities have increased the
restrictions on firearms, it has many times increased the crime rate in that
area.

Well obviously. It then becomes a prceived soft target, This is
not an issue that can be addressed on a city and state level. It
requires national attention, not only to availability of firearms -
they are but inanimate objects - but to the attitude of their use at
all.



Even when the crime did not increase, it still did not go down
appreciably. If you look at the cities that have the most violent crime in
the US, much of the time they have very restrictive gun control laws. It is
obvious from the data that when the criminal thinks he is going to risk
being shot, they are far less likely to attack that potential victim.

Maybe, maybe not. To a degree, the argument is academic because
locking the stable door on a horse that bolted in the period the U.S.
Constitution was created and initially amended would be rather
difficult.

The original wording was as follows:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed."

I understand that the American militia movement goes back some time
before that, and that in general every able bodied white male in an
American colony was required to belong to a militia of some sort.
Nonetheless, the characteristics and intent of a militia in this
context approximate to those of a police force - i.e. an organisation
outside of the military with the purpose of enforcing law and order.

The question then becomes one of what was the intent of the Amendment.
It is prefixed with the words "A well regulated Militia being
necessary to the security of a free State" and does not just say
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".
This implies a context between the two.

Therefore to argue, based on these words alone that it means that there
is right to bear arms *regardless* of context is at least a stretch.
I am sure that that argument has been stated both ways many times
before, but of course it is all rather too late.

It is also difficult to reverse a status quo. In respect of guns, it
is debatable whether making individual ownership and holding in the UK
almost impossible has made much of a difference to the already very low
level of gun related crime.

In the U.S. it would be very difficult not only for practical reasons
but because there is not a clear enough majority in favour of the
removal of guns and the gun culture. Alcohol prohibition wasn't
successful in terms of its original aim, bcause there wasn't the
support for it in the population so there is no reason to believe that
legislation seeking to remove individual gun ownership would either if
there is not the support.

In the end one has to look at these situations on a national scale and
taking the attitude of people into account. For example, if one looks
at South Africa, there are very serious levels of certain types of
crime, especially violent crime involving firearms. There are many
reasons for that - opportunity, a very large difference between the
haves and have nots and a lack of effective police control. There is
a thriving industry in personal and property security for the haves.

In most countries of western Europe it is the norm for police and
certain government offficials to be visibly armed, but not for the
average citizen. The contrasts between the haves and have nots are
not in the same order of magnitude as they are in many other parts of
the world, and in that sense the U.S. is not that different to Europe
in these terms. In other words, on an economic basis there is not
such a big difference that it should necessitate the avreage citizen
carrying weapons (any weapons) around as a matter of course.

This does always seem to lead back to attitiude and perception both of
criminals and of their victims than anything else. I am not a
believer in the concept of "society" - it's a much misused label - but
in this case it is an issue of the attitude of society in the broadest
sense.

"Ron Purvis" wrote in message
...

"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.

I can't believe someone would be so stupid as to say that the sole purpose
is to harm people. The person that said that is obviously a complete moron
who has been brainwashed by the liberals.

A guns is designed to kill people.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

The facts are the UK is
a more violent and crime ridden society.

Having experience of both I can say that is bunkum!!!

The US may have more homicides by firearm, but you have far more by other
means.

The US has more FULL STOP (not period)

Of course if you treat a murder as being equivalently serious to an
assault to a burglary and to dropping a sweetie wrapper in the park with
each being dealt with by production of a firearm to deter the perpetrator
then that says its own thing about proportional response and paranoia.

The UK also is very good at record keeping and logs just about everything.
Other countries do not which gives the impression they are crime free.

"Ron Purvis" wrote in message
.. .

That is why you pay taxes. Notice, apart from the odd plantpot, all the
people from the UK on this thread are firmly against guns and the police
being armed. While the Americans are the opposite. Why? Because our
society doesn't need them for us to walk around safely. If your society
entails that you need a gun to safely go to the shops for some milk, then
start looking at your society and aim to change it at the root level.
Aim for the best.

The truth is that you and the others who feel this way are either
misguided or stupid.

I have concluded you a brainwashed total idiot. We have a virtually
gun-less society in which even the police are not armed. In recent laws
tightening up on gun ownership and possession (5 years just for possession),
99% of people were for it and thought it never went far enough. ......and
you want us to reverse all that and drop to your insane levels of a gun
ridden violent society? You are totally mad!!!!

Every American I have met who has made their home in the UK, and there are
many of them, really does appreciate the gun-less society we have.

Ron Purvis wrote:

The question then is whether that makes a difference to the outcome in
terms of improving it.

The facts are that it does make a difference to the outcome in many if not
most cases. Most homicides that occur by firearm happen when only the
criminal has a firearm. When the citizen has a firearm and is properly
trained in its use, they stand a much better chance of coming through the
criminal incident in good health. According to some reports, simply
brandishing the gun is enough to stop the criminal. In other cases, the
citizen has used the firearm to defend themselves. Either way, it made a
difference for the better.

The facts are your chances are poor of being attacked are not by a total
stranger, most die by the hand of their
spouse,boyfriend/girlfriend/family member
You should also realize that when states and cities have increased the
restrictions on firearms, it has many times increased the crime rate in that
area. Even when the crime did not increase, it still did not go down
appreciably. If you look at the cities that have the most violent crime in
the US, much of the time they have very restrictive gun control laws. It is
obvious from the data that when the criminal thinks he is going to risk
being shot, they are far less likely to attack that potential victim.

Then you have to ask yourself why your country has slipped to this sad
level. It's not about guns, it's "your dog eat
dog and the devil take the hindmost" society

"Ron Purvis" wrote in message
...

"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.

I can't believe someone would be so stupid as to say that the sole purpose
is to harm people.

"I hate handguns. Handguns are used to shoot people and as long as they are
around, people will shoot each other. That's a simple fact. I've seen a
bullet wound and it was a mess. It was on a shoot and it scared me. Bullets
have a nasty habit of finding their target and that's what's scary about
them.""I hate handguns. Handguns are used to shoot people and as long as
they are around, people will shoot each other. That's a simple fact. I've
seen a bullet wound and it was a mess. It was on a shoot and it scared me.
Bullets have a nasty habit of finding their target and that's what's scary
about them."

.....Daniel Craig (James Bond actor 007 license to kill)

"Ron Purvis" wrote
Since the police can't be on the spot to protect the citizens, it
unfortunately is going to come down to what the citizens can do for
themselves. The firearm is the best weapon that a citizen can use to
protect them self.
Went out and did some practice shooting in the yard today; my son and I
can both nail a 12" box at 25 yards, his /a .40 S&W semi-auto, and me w/a
S&W .357 magnum. None of my neighbors complained, no police were called etc
etc.
In America, we have the guts to stand up and fight to the death for what
is ours; the rest of the world? Unofficial Frenchmen....

"Ron Purvis" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"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.....

That is not the standard issue weapon for officers in most police
departments unless they are on a SWAT team.

He is the SWAT sniper; he can make a child kidnapper's head explode like
a firecracker at 400 yards. :-)

Most police departments in the
US issue a personal weapon to each officer such as a revolver or a
semi-automatic handgun like the glock. They also usually provide one
shotgun in each marked patrol car.

There are a number of police departments that are experimenting with
giving more firepower to the cops on the beat, but that is not going to go
far IMO. Part of the problem is that many of the city and county councils
don't think that the heavier firepower is appropriate. Second, they don't
want to spend money on it. Much of the police departments in the country
are strapped for cash, so they can't buy the weapons they want.

"Balanced View" wrote in message
...
Ron Purvis wrote:

The question then is whether that makes a difference to the outcome in
terms of improving it.

The facts are that it does make a difference to the outcome in many if
not most cases. Most homicides that occur by firearm happen when only the
criminal has a firearm. When the citizen has a firearm and is properly
trained in its use, they stand a much better chance of coming through the
criminal incident in good health. According to some reports, simply
brandishing the gun is enough to stop the criminal. In other cases, the
citizen has used the firearm to defend themselves. Either way, it made a
difference for the better.

The facts are your chances are poor of being attacked are not by a total
stranger, most die by the hand of their
spouse,boyfriend/girlfriend/family member
You should also realize that when states and cities have increased the
restrictions on firearms, it has many times increased the crime rate in
that area. Even when the crime did not increase, it still did not go down
appreciably. If you look at the cities that have the most violent crime
in the US, much of the time they have very restrictive gun control laws.
It is obvious from the data that when the criminal thinks he is going to
risk being shot, they are far less likely to attack that potential
victim.
Then you have to ask yourself why your country has slipped to this sad
level. It's not about guns, it's "your dog eat
dog and the devil take the hindmost" society


It's about freedom, and giving it to all, including former slaves and
their now psychopathic fifth generation of freed children........

Jim wrote:
"Ron Purvis" wrote

Since the police can't be on the spot to protect the citizens, it
unfortunately is going to come down to what the citizens can do for
themselves. The firearm is the best weapon that a citizen can use to
protect them self.

Went out and did some practice shooting in the yard today; my son and I
can both nail a 12" box at 25 yards, his /a .40 S&W semi-auto, and me w/a
S&W .357 magnum. None of my neighbors complained, no police were called etc
etc.
In America, we have the guts to stand up and fight to the death for what
is ours; the rest of the world? Unofficial Frenchmen....



Sounds more like you're all paranoid cowards, feeling naked without a
firearm.