Jim wrote:
"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........



Really? We have the sons and daughters of 30,000 former slaves in Canada
as well. Thousands came up here
via the underground railway who we gave freedom to. We have even more
benevolent social programs than you,
but do not have the same problems with gun crime, that should tell you
something.

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

"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.
Good ,now that you have shown the guns create problems instead defence.
There should be no problem with your country going absolute gun free since
guns in
the military and police.Since gun are total barbaric .And you are a
civilized country ,that's above having
a bunch of gun toting loonies around.





----== 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 =----

"Balanced View" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
"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........


Really? We have the sons and daughters of 30,000 former slaves in Canada
as well. Thousands came up here
via the underground railway who we gave freedom to. We have even more
benevolent social programs than you,
but do not have the same problems with gun crime, that should tell you
something.
And as you stated it will be even better when you go absolute gun free.
For all the reasons,you gave for not having any guns ,anywhere.




----== 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:

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

No it isn't. It has almost no culture. What it has is access to vast
amounts of money. Period. However that is a situation that is changing
rapidly in favour of the Chinese and asians.

The oldest culture in te world is probably today found in the Australian
aborigie.

The oldest civilisation is probably found in Iraq. The oldest learned
culture is probably in China. the most established *modern* culture is
in Europe.

The USA features nowhere in the culture stakes. Apat from a few pharses
controibuted to the language of which such as 'busted flush' come to
mind most appropiately.

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

No, it was always gone to hell there, as he reason most people left to
populate America was to get away from it.


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 are not prepared for culture, as you have never experienced it.

May God have mercy on us all.

Indeed. You need it.

"Balanced View" wrote in message
...
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

paranoia implies no threat exists, when one clearly does

cowards,

a coward runs from danger, a man stands up to evil and conquers it. Are
you a man or a mouse?

feeling naked without a
firearm.

They are kinda shiny, and the holster is fine Italian leather....
You do whatever is legal where you live, if you want, and so will I,
OK?!

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


Really? We have the sons and daughters of 30,000 former slaves in Canada
as well. Thousands came up here
via the underground railway who we gave freedom to. We have even more
benevolent social programs than you,
but do not have the same problems with gun crime, that should tell you
something.

Yes, the Democrats and their Klan never made it to Canada?

Jim wrote:
"Balanced View" wrote in message
...

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


paranoia implies no threat exists, when one clearly does


LOL, stats don't back you up, you are paranoid by your own statement.
Paranoia is a tendency on
the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational
suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others

cowards,


a coward runs from danger, a man stands up to evil and conquers it. Are
you a man or a mouse?


Cowards are always fearful of attack, I'm not.
feeling naked without a

firearm.


They are kinda shiny, and the holster is fine Italian leather....
You do whatever is legal where you live, if you want, and so will I,
OK?!



Sex with animals is legal is some places, but it doesn't make it
rational or excuse it.

Jim wrote:
"Balanced View" wrote

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



Really? We have the sons and daughters of 30,000 former slaves in Canada
as well. Thousands came up here
via the underground railway who we gave freedom to. We have even more
benevolent social programs than you,
but do not have the same problems with gun crime, that should tell you
something.


Yes, the Democrats and their Klan never made it to Canada?



Our Conservatives are far left of your Democrats, and there were not
enough drooling morons to keep the Klan going

As soon as you said that the US has almost no culture, it became obvious you
are a complete moron. The US culture may be different than what you like,
but only an idiot would say that we have almost no culture. Our art is
different but it is no less excellent than anywhere else in the world. The
US is a world leader in information which another major part of culture.
While you may think that our manners are less than yours, the truth is that
your belief in that shows that this is not the truth. You are arrogant and
elitist without any reason to be so.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:

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

No it isn't. It has almost no culture. What it has is access to vast
amounts of money. Period. However that is a situation that is changing
rapidly in favour of the Chinese and asians.

The oldest culture in te world is probably today found in the Australian
aborigie.

The oldest civilisation is probably found in Iraq. The oldest learned
culture is probably in China. the most established *modern* culture is in
Europe.

The USA features nowhere in the culture stakes. Apat from a few pharses
controibuted to the language of which such as 'busted flush' come to mind
most appropiately.

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

No, it was always gone to hell there, as he reason most people left to
populate America was to get away from it.


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 are not prepared for culture, as you have never experienced it.

May God have mercy on us all.

Indeed. You need it.

Owain wrote:

Balanced View wrote:
Sex with animals is legal is some places,

It is? Where?

Possibly Brazil actually.

Graham

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

"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!!!


I cited evidence. You didn't. The reason you have not cited evidence for
your case is that the evidence is against you. You may not like it, but
those are the facts.

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

The US has more FULL STOP (not period)

Again, I provided proof. You can't.


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.

The US is certainly as good at record keeping as the UK. So are most of the
countries in the western world. That is not a valid excuse for your country
being crime ridden.

"Balanced View" wrote in message
...
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.

No. We are just smart enough to defend ourselves.

"Balanced View" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
"Balanced View" wrote in message
...

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

paranoia implies no threat exists, when one clearly does

LOL, stats don't back you up, you are paranoid by your own statement.
Paranoia is a tendency on
the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational
suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others

You really don't have a clue. The stats do back up that a person should be
willing to defend themselves. In no country are there enough police to
ensure the safety of the citizens. There is plenty of proof that there is
crime in every country in the world. Therefore it is not being paranoid, it
is being diligent.

BTW, just because one is paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get
you.

cowards,

a coward runs from danger, a man stands up to evil and conquers it.
Are you a man or a mouse?


Cowards are always fearful of attack, I'm not.

Anyone with brains enough to come in out of the rain shows fear when there
is cause. Those with courage face it the best that they can regardless of
the danger. A coward does not. That is the difference between the two. I
served with true heroes and I can tell you they were scared. What you are
describing is nothing more than a persone who is too stupid to understand
things. Of course that describes you perfectly.

feeling naked without a

firearm.


They are kinda shiny, and the holster is fine Italian leather....
You do whatever is legal where you live, if you want, and so will I,
OK?!


Sex with animals is legal is some places, but it doesn't make it rational
or excuse it.

Since that is more prevalent outside the US, and even worse it accepted to a
degree in Europe, it is ironic that you would bring it up.

Ron Purvis wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote

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.

The US is certainly as good at record keeping as the UK. So are most of the
countries in the western world. That is not a valid excuse for your country
being crime ridden.

It isn't crime ridden. Especially not ridden with gun crime, which yours IS.

Graham

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:41:00 -0400, "Ron Purvis"
wrote:

As soon as you said that the US has almost no culture, it became obvious you
are a complete moron.

You'll need to expand on that.

The US culture may be different than what you like,
but only an idiot would say that we have almost no culture.

Please enlighten us what your contribution to culture has been over
ther last 1000 years or so when my forefathers landed on these
islands. ...

Our art is
different but it is no less excellent

"No less excellent" That's a phrase to conjur with.

than anywhere else in the world. The
US is a world leader in information

?? The US has "information" that the rest of the world doesn't ??

"Oooooooooooooooooh"

which another major part of culture.
While you may think that our manners are less than yours, the truth is that
your belief in that shows that this is not the truth.

If that has any meaning for you could you please try to express it
some other way. Is English (as it is spoke in England) by any chance
not your first language?

Try using http://www.google.co.uk/language_tools?hl=en

You are arrogant and elitist without any reason to be so.

At least we don't have a village idiot running the show, and as for
his dreck hangers-on ...

HTH

DG

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

"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.


What you don't understand is while the UK is a virtually a gun-less
society, and you, and the other idiots, seem to think that your society is
so much more civilized; you still have murders by criminals using guns. The
gun crimes in the US and the UK are really very similar. They both are
usually committed by criminals who don't own the gun legally are certainly
not using the weapon legally. People legally owning the gun are not going
out and committing crimes.

However they may use it for self defense. Criminals who commit violent
crimes are usually in far better physical shape than their victims, and many
times they have an accomplice. That makes it very difficult for the victim
to defend themselves unless they have a firearm. This is true even in the
UK. What you want is to make sure that the criminals have the upper hand.
Here in the US, we prefer that the victim have a chance.

BTW, I have already provided evidence that the crime rate in the UK is
actually higher than here in the US. We may have more gun related crimes,
but you have more criminals using other weapons.

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:45:14 -0400, "Ron Purvis"
wrote:


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.

The US is certainly as good at record keeping as the UK.

You have proof of this ?

So are most of the countries in the western world.

Not so. Viz most of the countries in Southern Europe. They correlate
quite well with countries in Southern America such as Mexico, Panama,
Chile etc.

That is not a valid excuse for your country being crime ridden.

And it's not a valid excuse for you "Bopping your Bologna" in Grand
Central Park.

Erm, so what about it ?

DG

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:43:02 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Owain wrote:

Balanced View wrote:
Sex with animals is legal is some places,

It is? Where?

Possibly Brazil actually.

****.

Allergic to nuts.

DG

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:06:00 -0500, "Arnold Walker"
wrote:

I bet you have never left the Americas.

Guess he hasn't. ;-)


There are very few actual gun killings in the UK - it used to be a dozen a
year. Its maybe in the one hundred or so now. last time I checked, Detroit
was a dozen a day.
Detroit and many of the northern cities have a gun ban......
As a matter of fact the worse one have gun bans.

Did you get shot before you finished that sentence?

Of course ,civilized folks like your self would never think of
making it a capital offense to do a crime with a gun.In stead of

OTOH maybe you need to replace your keyboard.

strip constitional rights.....there for a reason.

Nope, that can't be it. looks like it's down to you.

Did your mother **** her own brother by any chance ?

DG

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
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.


Your remarks are becoming more idiotic by the post. No one has mentioned
anything about an inanimate buildings. We have always been talking about the
hospital as a corporate entity which means that it is controlled by human
beings. What you don't understand is that the hospital is still not
responsible for providing security anywhere but at the hospital facilities.

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.


There is no way that a hospital can do that. Period. They are not
responsible for providing that kind of security and don't have the resources
to provide it even if they responsible.

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.


If you think that they should do so, then you are delusional. There is an
implied deterrent to people working in bad neighborhoods and at bad times of
the day. That is an unfortunate thing, but it happens. With a hospital, much
of the time it will be in a bad area of town. That is because these areas
are the ones that most need the medical services.


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.


No you didn't. You just made claims that were totally ignorant. If you want
to suggest a way to address the issue, I am all ears. However, make it a
real suggestion. What exactly will the hospital management do and how will
it be paid for. Try and be at least a little bit realistic and logical,
unlike all your other posts on the subject.

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.


It reasonable to introduce each of those because by the requirements of the
job, she would be doing these activities in areas and at times that would be
more dangerous. That is what you don't understand. Having spent a lot of
time in the hospital due to injuries from my military service, I have gotten
to know a lot of nurses. The job that they have does make their life more
dangerous simply because of the times and areas where they will be at.

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.


Again, you are simply not able to understand the real world. Hospitals
simply don't have the resources to provide assistance like this. Most of the
hospitals that are located in bad neighborhoods are in financial trouble. To
think that they could even provide one extra security officer to escort
nurses is just plain stupid.

It is also stupid to say that the hospital WANTS to operate shifts. They
must do that because of the nature of people needing hospital care. Can the
guy who is having a heart attack at 3 am reschedule that heart attack for a
different time? Can the patient who is in intensive care expect that no one
will be there because it is not the primary hours? Please step away from
your computer until you either become an adult or start using your brains.

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?

The criminal has an illegal weapon because they wish the easiest means to
commit their crimes. Even in countries that have basically outlawed
firearms, you have criminals that use them. The UK is very much against
allowing citizens to use handguns. Yet some criminals in the UK use them.



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"


Yes, it depends on your definition of better. Mine is that the citizen is
able to prevent themselves from being a victim, or at least has a chance to
save their life.

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.

I guess all of the UK is a soft target. After all they do have a higher
crime rate than the US. The truth is that if criminals know that they have
just as great a chance of getting hurt or killed as the intended victim,
they are not going to commit the crime.

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.


I will argue the second amendment considerations at a later time, there is
far too much to reply to that part of your post. After all that part has
nothing to do with what has happened in the thread previously.

"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

Actually, it is most likely that you know the attacker, not just that they
are a familly member. Regardless, the facts are that the firearm is a weapon
that can protect the citizen.

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

I guess you should ask this yourself. After all, the UK has more crime than
the US does. I have already provided proof of that.

"Jim" wrote in message
t...

"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........

You are just as stupid as the other guys. There is no more excuse for that
kind of bigotry than the the rabid anti-Americanism that is so prevalent on
this forum.

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

"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.
That is ONE of the things that a gun MAY be designed for. It certainly is
not the sole purpose. More guns are designed for hunting than for anything
else. There are also guns that are designed strictly for sport. Outside of
military. police, or self defense uses, guns are not designed for action
against people, and certainly not to kill people.

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

"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)

Are you really trying to use the words of an actor as evidence for your
case? No wonder you decided on the name of Doctor Drivel.

For the record, I have seen many bullet wounds, just like many other types
of wounds during my time in service. I have also seen bullets used for other
purposes than to kill people.

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

Jim wrote:

"Balanced View" wrote in message
...


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



paranoia implies no threat exists, when one clearly does


LOL, stats don't back you up, you are paranoid by your own statement.
Paranoia is a tendency on
the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational
suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others

You really don't have a clue. The stats do back up that a person should be
willing to defend themselves. In no country are there enough police to
ensure the safety of the citizens. There is plenty of proof that there is
crime in every country in the world. Therefore it is not being paranoid, it
is being diligent.

In a case of reasonable risk yes, but you've made it seem the risk is
far worse than it actually is.
BTW, just because one is paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get
you.


cowards,

a coward runs from danger, a man stands up to evil and conquers it.
Are you a man or a mouse?


Cowards are always fearful of attack, I'm not.


Anyone with brains enough to come in out of the rain shows fear when there
is cause.
When it rains you use an umbrella, not a circus tent, when you swat
flies you use a flyswatter, not a baseball bat.
Those with courage face it the best that they can regardless of
the danger.

True enough
A coward does not. That is the difference between the two. I
served with true heroes and I can tell you they were scared.
To be scared when you now your going to be exposed to certain death
under fire is one thing, to be
expecting to be attacked or shot at everyday is paranoid, probability
does not bear out your concerns.
What you are
describing is nothing more than a persone who is too stupid to understand
things. Of course that describes you perfectly.


What I know from traveling all over Europe, the USA and Canada is that
I've never had to resort to the use
of a weapon, or been attacked, mugged etc.. Nor never felt any fear of it.

feeling naked without a


firearm.


They are kinda shiny, and the holster is fine Italian leather....
You do whatever is legal where you live, if you want, and so will I,
OK?!



Sex with animals is legal is some places, but it doesn't make it rational
or excuse it.


Since that is more prevalent outside the US, and even worse it accepted to a
degree in Europe, it is ironic that you would bring it up.



That stereotype is American Bill Billy, not European. "Squeal like a
piggy boy"

"Jim" wrote in message
t...

"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. :-)


Like I said, it is not a standard weapon that is not a weapon that is in
common use in police forces outside of SWAT teams.

BTW, if your friend is a sniper, he doesn't use a M16, and certainly not at
400 yards. They would use a sniper rifle for that and not an assault riffle.
They are designed for different purposes.

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.

Ron Purvis wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
t...

"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........


You are just as stupid as the other guys. There is no more excuse for that
kind of bigotry than the the rabid anti-Americanism that is so prevalent on
this forum.



Anti Americanism? Hardly. Why is it every time some insanity occurring
in the USA is discussed it is called Anti American?
To most of the civilized world some Americans obsession with attack from
strangers and xenophobia is seen as very strange
and backward.

In message , Derek Geldard
writes
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:06:00 -0500, "Arnold Walker"
wrote:

I bet you have never left the Americas.

Guess he hasn't. ;-)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/200...y-speak-englis
h-in-londo-45dbed5.html


--
geoff

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

You are just as stupid as the other guys. There is no more excuse for that
kind of bigotry than the the rabid anti-Americanism that is so prevalent on
this forum.

a) it's not a forum, it's a newsgroup

b) it's not rabid, it's just the natural dislike of Septics


--
geoff

In message , Ron Purvis
writes
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. :-)


Like I said, it is not a standard weapon that is not a weapon that is in
common use in police forces outside of SWAT teams.

BTW, if your friend is a sniper, he doesn't use a M16, and certainly not at
400 yards. They would use a sniper rifle for that and not an assault riffle.
They are designed for different purposes.

Jim's a fantasist

Don't confuse his dreams with reality


--
geoff

On 2007-10-28 23:58:28 +0000, "Ron Purvis" said:

No one has mentioned
anything about an inanimate buildings. We have always been talking about the
hospital as a corporate entity which means that it is controlled by human
beings.

Exactly.



What you don't understand is that the hospital is still not
responsible for providing security anywhere but at the hospital facilities.

That's a matter of opinion and also depends on what the security
arrangements actually are.

You might have been thinking of an armoured personnel carrier with
heavies riding shotgun on the back.

I was thinking more in terms of the hospital contributing towards a
taxi fare home.



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.


There is no way that a hospital can do that. Period.

Of course there is. See above.


They are not
responsible for providing that kind of security and don't have the resources
to provide it even if they responsible.

That depends on what it is.



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.


If you think that they should do so, then you are delusional.

On the contrary.

There is an
implied deterrent to people working in bad neighborhoods and at bad times of
the day. That is an unfortunate thing, but it happens. With a hospital, much
of the time it will be in a bad area of town.

Not necessarily.


That is because these areas
are the ones that most need the medical services.

Why would that be? To deal with all the gunshot injuries?




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.


No you didn't. You just made claims that were totally ignorant. If you want
to suggest a way to address the issue, I am all ears.

However, make it a
real suggestion. What exactly will the hospital management do and how will
it be paid for. Try and be at least a little bit realistic and logical,
unlike all your other posts on the subject.



It reasonable to introduce each of those because by the requirements of the
job, she would be doing these activities in areas and at times that would be
more dangerous. That is what you don't understand.

I understand it completely. You are confusing work and non work
related activity.


Having spent a lot of
time in the hospital due to injuries from my military service, I have gotten
to know a lot of nurses. The job that they have does make their life more
dangerous simply because of the times and areas where they will be at.

Please could you restate that in English.



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.


Again, you are simply not able to understand the real world. Hospitals
simply don't have the resources to provide assistance like this. Most of the
hospitals that are located in bad neighborhoods are in financial trouble. To
think that they could even provide one extra security officer to escort
nurses is just plain stupid.

Who said anything about security officers?


It is also stupid to say that the hospital WANTS to operate shifts. They
must do that because of the nature of people needing hospital care.

That's a statement of the obvious.


The criminal has an illegal weapon because they wish the easiest means to
commit their crimes. Even in countries that have basically outlawed
firearms, you have criminals that use them. The UK is very much against
allowing citizens to use handguns. Yet some criminals in the UK use them.

Your point being?




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"


Yes, it depends on your definition of better. Mine is that the citizen is
able to prevent themselves from being a victim, or at least has a chance to
save their life.

Mine is having an environment where that isn't necessary.



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.

I guess all of the UK is a soft target.

Hardly.


After all they do have a higher
crime rate than the US. The truth is that if criminals know that they have
just as great a chance of getting hurt or killed as the intended victim,
they are not going to commit the crime.

The truth is that if the stakes are raised, they are raised.



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.


I will argue the second amendment considerations at a later time, there is
far too much to reply to that part of your post. After all that part has
nothing to do with what has happened in the thread previously.

Probably best - after you have had a chance to reflect on what it was
originally about.

On 2007-10-29 00:35:15 +0000, geoff said:

In message , Derek Geldard
writes
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:06:00 -0500, "Arnold Walker"
wrote:

I bet you have never left the Americas.

Guess he hasn't. ;-)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/200...y-speak-englis
h-in-londo-45dbed5.html

ROTFL.

Ron Purvis wrote:
As soon as you said that the US has almost no culture, it became obvious you
are a complete moron.

Really? Even Americans I know admit that.

The US culture may be different than what you like,
but only an idiot would say that we have almost no culture.

No., only and idiot would claim you do..unless you want to class Disney,
and McDonalds as 'culture'

In the same way a you talk bout a bacterial culture.. ;-)



Our art is
different but it is no less excellent than anywhere else in the world.

What Art?

Aprt from a few black guys who took the **** out of the white mans music
and found they had invented Jazz..and a couple of decent authors..I cant
think of any US Art at all. Warhol was a total tosser.


The
US is a world leader in information

No it isn't. Its a leader in information technology perhaps, but the
information comes from elsewhere.


which another major part of culture.
While you may think that our manners are less than yours, the truth is that
your belief in that shows that this is not the truth. You are arrogant and
elitist without any reason to be so.

No, I am arrogant and elitist with every reason to be so. ;-)

Ron Purvis wrote:
.. Regardless, the facts are that the firearm is a weapon
that can protect the citizen.

....by killing another citizen..

geoff wrote:
In message , Ron Purvis
writes
It's about freedom, and giving it to all, including former slaves and
their now psychopathic fifth generation of freed children........

You are just as stupid as the other guys. There is no more excuse for
that
kind of bigotry than the the rabid anti-Americanism that is so
prevalent on
this forum.

a) it's not a forum, it's a newsgroup

b) it's not rabid, it's just the natural dislike of Septics


"over paid, over sexed and over here"

Nothing has changed ;-)

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Ron Purvis wrote:
. Regardless, the facts are that the firearm is a weapon
that can protect the citizen.

...by killing another citizen..
So when are you going to right this terrible wrong by disarming the military
and police.
To save England from this terrible uncivilized behavior.
Absolute gun ban for safety and well being of England.
Rah,etc.....



----== 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
...


Ron Purvis wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote

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.

The US is certainly as good at record keeping as the UK. So are most of
the
countries in the western world. That is not a valid excuse for your
country
being crime ridden.

It isn't crime ridden. Especially not ridden with gun crime, which yours
IS.

Graham

The facts don't lie. I cited evidence that the UK does have more crime. It
may not be ridden with gun crimes, but it is certainly crime ridden if you
consider the US to be.

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

Jim wrote:

"Balanced View" wrote in message
...

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

paranoia implies no threat exists, when one clearly does

LOL, stats don't back you up, you are paranoid by your own statement.
Paranoia is a tendency on
the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational
suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others

You really don't have a clue. The stats do back up that a person should
be willing to defend themselves. In no country are there enough police to
ensure the safety of the citizens. There is plenty of proof that there is
crime in every country in the world. Therefore it is not being paranoid,
it is being diligent.

In a case of reasonable risk yes, but you've made it seem the risk is far
worse than it actually is.

No, I didn't. There is a chance for it so you take precautions. This is the
same thing as wearing your seat belt in a car. I have never had an injury
from a car ride. Yet it reasonable to assume that at some point that I
might. Therefore it is reasonable and intelligent to wear one. I would not
think it is reasonable to carry a firearm at all times. Yet if you are going
to be out late at night and in an area that has a high rate of violent
crime, I believe that it is reasonable to carry a handgun. If you don't live
in the US, you might not realize that time and locale makes a huge
difference in your chances of being the victim of a violent crime. Overall
Washington D.C. is more than three times the national average of per capita
deaths by firearms. If you go to certain neighborhoods in D.C., that rate
will more than double again. Same with many other inner city areas that have
large problems with gangs and drugs. Going into a place like that, it is
entirely reasonable to carry a firearm.

BTW, just because one is paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to
get you.


cowards,

a coward runs from danger, a man stands up to evil and conquers it.
Are you a man or a mouse?


Cowards are always fearful of attack, I'm not.


Anyone with brains enough to come in out of the rain shows fear when
there is cause.
When it rains you use an umbrella, not a circus tent, when you swat flies
you use a flyswatter, not a baseball bat.
Those with courage face it the best that they can regardless of the
danger.

True enough
A coward does not. That is the difference between the two. I served with
true heroes and I can tell you they were scared.
To be scared when you now your going to be exposed to certain death under
fire is one thing, to be
expecting to be attacked or shot at everyday is paranoid, probability does
not bear out your concerns.
What you are describing is nothing more than a persone who is too stupid
to understand things. Of course that describes you perfectly.


What I know from traveling all over Europe, the USA and Canada is that
I've never had to resort to the use
of a weapon, or been attacked, mugged etc.. Nor never felt any fear of it.

Then you didn't go into the worst areas of either country at times that the
criminals are most prevalent.

feeling naked without a

firearm.

They are kinda shiny, and the holster is fine Italian leather....
You do whatever is legal where you live, if you want, and so will
I, OK?!

Sex with animals is legal is some places, but it doesn't make it
rational or excuse it.


Since that is more prevalent outside the US, and even worse it accepted
to a degree in Europe, it is ironic that you would bring it up.

That stereotype is American Bill Billy, not European. "Squeal like a piggy
boy"

Just because some people have that stereotype doesn't make it true. The
truth is that most Americans are far more conservative when it comes to sex
than in Europe or Asia. Those kind of things are done and accepted far more
overseas than here in the US.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-28 23:58:28 +0000, "Ron Purvis" said:

No one has mentioned
anything about an inanimate buildings. We have always been talking about
the
hospital as a corporate entity which means that it is controlled by human
beings.

Exactly.

What you don't understand is that the hospital is still not
responsible for providing security anywhere but at the hospital
facilities.

That's a matter of opinion and also depends on what the security
arrangements actually are.

You might have been thinking of an armoured personnel carrier with heavies
riding shotgun on the back.

I was thinking more in terms of the hospital contributing towards a taxi
fare home.


I didn't think of an "armoured personnel carrier with heavies riding
shotgun on the back." Unlike some on this forum, I do have a brain and use
it. What you don't realize is that the additional cost of a taxi fare home
for nurses would be a considerable burden for these hospitals that are in
the inner city and servicing those neighborhoods. They usually bleed money
constantly. Adding any additional costs outside of what they are actually
responsible for is not going to be an option for most of them. Further,
based on the American legal system and the principals that most Americans
believe in, it is not something that the hospital would be responsible for.
Many of us would rather they work on providing better care to a larger
number of indigents and/or cut their costs.

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.


There is no way that a hospital can do that. Period.

Of course there is. See above.

Just because you believe that they can doesn't mean that they can.

They are not
responsible for providing that kind of security and don't have the
resources
to provide it even if they responsible.

That depends on what it is.

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.


If you think that they should do so, then you are delusional.

On the contrary.

There is an
implied deterrent to people working in bad neighborhoods and at bad times
of
the day. That is an unfortunate thing, but it happens. With a hospital,
much
of the time it will be in a bad area of town.

Not necessarily.


That is because these areas
are the ones that most need the medical services.

Why would that be? To deal with all the gunshot injuries?

Partly it is the additional gunshot injuries. After all these are the areas
that have the most crime in the country. There are more gangs, which tend to
have more injuries. These areas also have worse problems with drugs and
alcohol. That tends to increase injuries. It is also the areas where the
poorest people tend to live in more crowded conditions, along with many
illegal aliens. This allows desease to spread more quickly through a
population that has the least ability to go to private doctors for
treatment. This means that they will be coming to the hospital where they
are guaranteed to be seen.

I want to point out that I have nothing against people coming to live in the
US. That is what my grand parents did. I also brought my wife here from
Korea. I also believe that the US should allow far more immigration.
However, I do realize that illegal immigrants are not screened for desease
and that they have more health problems than legal immigrants.

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.


No you didn't. You just made claims that were totally ignorant. If you
want
to suggest a way to address the issue, I am all ears.

However, make it a
real suggestion. What exactly will the hospital management do and how
will
it be paid for. Try and be at least a little bit realistic and logical,
unlike all your other posts on the subject.

It reasonable to introduce each of those because by the requirements of
the
job, she would be doing these activities in areas and at times that would
be
more dangerous. That is what you don't understand.

I understand it completely. You are confusing work and non work related
activity.

I am not confusing anything. You are making the mistake of thinking that if
the person is not accosted on the hospital grounds that they are
automatically safe. This is not the case. There is far more danger doing the
other activities that are impacted by her job. The job forces her to do her
otherwise normal activies at times and locations that become more dangerous.

Having spent a lot of
time in the hospital due to injuries from my military service, I have
gotten
to know a lot of nurses. The job that they have does make their life more
dangerous simply because of the times and areas where they will be at.

Please could you restate that in English.

It was in perfect English. Learn to read.

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.


Again, you are simply not able to understand the real world. Hospitals
simply don't have the resources to provide assistance like this. Most of
the
hospitals that are located in bad neighborhoods are in financial trouble.
To
think that they could even provide one extra security officer to escort
nurses is just plain stupid.

Who said anything about security officers?

No one had mentioned it until I did. That is one of the cheapest ways to
provide additional safety for the staff, so I mentioned.

It is also stupid to say that the hospital WANTS to operate shifts. They
must do that because of the nature of people needing hospital care.

That's a statement of the obvious.


The criminal has an illegal weapon because they wish the easiest means to
commit their crimes. Even in countries that have basically outlawed
firearms, you have criminals that use them. The UK is very much against
allowing citizens to use handguns. Yet some criminals in the UK use them.

Your point being?




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"


Yes, it depends on your definition of better. Mine is that the citizen is
able to prevent themselves from being a victim, or at least has a chance
to
save their life.

Mine is having an environment where that isn't necessary.

Unfortunately, that is not going to happen. I would hope that you agree that
having citizens being able to prevent themselves from being victimized than
one in which they are victims.

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.

I guess all of the UK is a soft target.

Hardly.

I was pointing out the problem with your statement. You don't have a whole
city or state listed as a soft target for a violent crime anymore than you
have all of the UK listed as a soft target.

After all they do have a higher
crime rate than the US. The truth is that if criminals know that they
have
just as great a chance of getting hurt or killed as the intended victim,
they are not going to commit the crime.

The truth is that if the stakes are raised, they are raised.

The truth has been shown repeatedly. If they think they are too likely to be
killed, they are not going to commit the crime.

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.


I will argue the second amendment considerations at a later time, there
is
far too much to reply to that part of your post. After all that part has
nothing to do with what has happened in the thread previously.

Probably best - after you have had a chance to reflect on what it was
originally about.

On 2007-10-29 08:25:36 +0000, "Ron Purvis" said:

I didn't think of an "armoured personnel carrier with heavies riding
shotgun on the back." Unlike some on this forum, I do have a brain and use
it. What you don't realize is that the additional cost of a taxi fare home
for nurses would be a considerable burden for these hospitals that are in
the inner city and servicing those neighborhoods. They usually bleed money
constantly. Adding any additional costs outside of what they are actually
responsible for is not going to be an option for most of them. Further,
based on the American legal system and the principals that most Americans
believe in, it is not something that the hospital would be responsible for.
Many of us would rather they work on providing better care to a larger
number of indigents and/or cut their costs.

..... and in the meantime give all the nurses guns? Should protect
their jobs as well with all the extra .......



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.


There is no way that a hospital can do that. Period.

Of course there is. See above.

Just because you believe that they can doesn't mean that they can.

That depends......


That is because these areas
are the ones that most need the medical services.

Why would that be? To deal with all the gunshot injuries?

Partly it is the additional gunshot injuries. After all these are the areas
that have the most crime in the country. There are more gangs, which tend to
have more injuries. These areas also have worse problems with drugs and
alcohol. That tends to increase injuries. It is also the areas where the
poorest people tend to live in more crowded conditions, along with many
illegal aliens. This allows desease to spread more quickly through a
population that has the least ability to go to private doctors for
treatment. This means that they will be coming to the hospital where they
are guaranteed to be seen.

I want to point out that I have nothing against people coming to live in the
US. That is what my grand parents did. I also brought my wife here from
Korea. I also believe that the US should allow far more immigration.
However, I do realize that illegal immigrants are not screened for desease
and that they have more health problems than legal immigrants.

Possibly, but that's a separate issue




I am not confusing anything. You are making the mistake of thinking that if
the person is not accosted on the hospital grounds that they are
automatically safe. This is not the case. There is far more danger doing the
other activities that are impacted by her job. The job forces her to do her
otherwise normal activies at times and locations that become more dangerous.

So she's working nights and going shopping during the day?





Having spent a lot of
time in the hospital due to injuries from my military service, I have
gotten
to know a lot of nurses. The job that they have does make their life more
dangerous simply because of the times and areas where they will be at.

Please could you restate that in English.

It was in perfect English.

No it wasn't. "gotten" isn't a word in modern English. It is not
correct to end a sentence with the word "at"


Again, you are simply not able to understand the real world. Hospitals
simply don't have the resources to provide assistance like this. Most of
the
hospitals that are located in bad neighborhoods are in financial trouble.
To
think that they could even provide one extra security officer to escort
nurses is just plain stupid.

Who said anything about security officers?

No one had mentioned it until I did. That is one of the cheapest ways to
provide additional safety for the staff, so I mentioned.

Really? You were just saying that this was a major cost.


Mine is having an environment where that isn't necessary.

Unfortunately, that is not going to happen.

It certainly won't unless some changes are made to the environment
where it does. That would be a better goal.



I would hope that you agree that
having citizens being able to prevent themselves from being victimized than
one in which they are victims.

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.

I guess all of the UK is a soft target.

Hardly.

I was pointing out the problem with your statement. You don't have a whole
city or state listed as a soft target for a violent crime anymore than you
have all of the UK listed as a soft target.


So why raise the issue?



After all they do have a higher
crime rate than the US. The truth is that if criminals know that they
have
just as great a chance of getting hurt or killed as the intended victim,
they are not going to commit the crime.

The truth is that if the stakes are raised, they are raised.

The truth has been shown repeatedly. If they think they are too likely to be
killed, they are not going to commit the crime.

Better to avoid the issue in the first place