"Jay Stranahan" wrote in message
...
Beyond TV, my understanding of US gun law stems entirely from the NG.

No wonder you're all worked up. Go to Google and type in 'Centers For
Disease
Control' and 'FBI' and go look at the data, instead of fencing with
anonymous
strangers on Usenet and watching reruns of Miami Vice.

I have done exactly that and now have a much better appreciation of the
situation - yet this has not changed my views one bit... wonder why?


I think my point was valid, and certainly not half-cocked. That
statement
was in reply to the suggestion that, as is the right of any US citizen,
a
criminal can legally carry a weapon.

Oh for Christ's sake.... (rolls eyes). That's not true. Felons cannot
legally
own firearms (not that that prevents them. They're *felons*. Duh). At
least not
in the great state of California, and I seriously doubt they can
*anywhere.*

You can be as patronising as you wish. In response to your reply above - we
are not born with 'criminal'/'law abiding citizen' emblazoned on our
foreheads, no. So beyond having a criminal record, what is there to stop the
'soon-to-be' crims? With all the will in the world, this background security
checking system cannot be water tight.

You
are speaking from prejudice and your prejudice is based on ignorance, and
if it
annoys you for me to point it out and call it by its proper name, I'm not
completely sorry. Because you've said a couple of things below that I find
seriously offensive.

No offence intended. As far as my prejudices extend, no - I'm not prepared
to accept that I've watched too many US cop dramas and have this picture
painted in my head that is so far from the truth. Prejudiced I may be, but
these are borne of a number of posts made within the last 48 hours and the
genuine (I believe them to be) feelings that the authors have expressed.


It's the flagrant willingness to kill,

No, it's a total willingness to defend onesself in one's home. You used to
have
the same ethos in your own society. You have successfully argued yourself
out of
it, and only time will tell whether this was any sort of an improvement.

coupled with such a low regard for
the gravity of murder, that really gets me.

Were these the two statements to which you took offence? I was not intending
to label you personally as the type of chap who would readily murder a man
for the possession of material goods - so calm down dear. A number of posts
to this ng alone, within the last 48 hours, have demonstrated - on both
counts - that this is the case. -

'I am prepared to murder someone if the situation is right (or wrong) - and
I'm not too fussed of the outcome.'

That's paraphrasing, granted, but I'd argue is the crux of many a statement
made within this thread. I could list them should you like.


Prejudice again, and this one angers me.

Rubbish.

If I defend myself with lethal force,
it's only because I wish to avoid dying in my own living room. I have no
desire
to harm any human being. No normal man does. I am not dehumanizing the
violent
intrusive asshole who might hypothetically barge his way into my house at
night.
I simply want to not be at his mercy. He's certainly not there to do me
any
favors. The reason he might be armed is not because of any Yankee gun
kul-chore,
but because criminals, by de facto goddam definition, DO NOT OBSERVE THE
LAW.
This is true in London as well as Redding (CA, population 78,000). Why
would any
reasonable individual place himself at the mercy of lawless, violent men?

Understand this - I can see why you and the other posters here own a weapon.
Really, I do. We have, however, established that a criminal within the UK
presents a very different - but real nonetheless - danger. ****ty people do
exist within the UK - that I'll admit to. The issues with which I am having
trouble trying to comprehend is this:

Firstly (and most importantly): Some - not all, but some - of you are
prepared to kill a man over some petty crimes - things that can be such an
insignificant event in the grand scheme of life. Furthermore - they believe
it's doing the public a great service, and do not wish to be accountable for
murder, in fact they can't even see a reason for being accountable.

Secondly: Of those of you not falling into the above category, you are
prepared to sit back and just accept that your neighbour (above) has a gun
and is willing to use it with little regard for the consequences. You are
defending that person's right to own a weapon and ultimately empowering him
with deadly force. Can you not see the conundrum?

What's the rate of hot burglaries in Britain?

Higher than the US. What about the US domestic/non-domestic burglaries
compared to the UK? 3-year averaged violent crime rates? Property crime (as
it is known in the US)? It's not such a clear distinction between the two
countries as you would seemingly like.

What's happened to your rates of
violent crime, gun crime, since you chopped every legally-owned handgun on
your
island into scrap? They've gone up severalfold.

Granted, the rates have increased whereas the US has remained at a fairly
steady state, if not decline. A large factor in the increase of violent/gun
related crime within the UK has been due to the steady leak of arms from the
Baltic states into the UK in the late 90's.

The annual death rate remains at a little above a score - an increase as you
suggest, but twenty is nothing compared to ten thousand within the US. I'll
take 23 in 60,000,000 over 10,000 in 250,000,000 any day.

Why? Because the lawless took
heart at the way their prospective victims were disarming themselves?
No... no,
that's the standard macho NRA line, and I don't buy it. I think it's
because
you've hit a rough demographic and economic patch, and banning legally
owned
weapons -- predictably -- didn't make any dent in it. You treated a
symptom. The
disease rages merrily onwards.

The banning of handguns within the UK was not brought about by how you
suggest - to get the UK out of a rough demographic and economic patch. It
was carried though on a wave of public pressure after the murder of a
primary school class and their teacher in Dunblane. The UK public questioned
the need for its citizens to have ready access to firearms - and the country
decided, er... nope.

Are you familiar with the events at Dunblane?


despit
our guns and drugs and widespread poverty and petty sleazy white-trash
meannesses that Shasta County is *still* safer than Merrie Olde
England.

Controversial.

What's controversial about the facts? Unless you find them so
counterintuitive
to your prejudices that you discard them out of hand.

Throw away comment that you were not intended to kick-off over. Besides, the
facts aren't stacked in your favour as much as you would like to suggest.

You can say what you please in reply, but I see I'm not doing any good by
bouncing the marbles of statistical fact off the sidewalk of your
prejudice. So
I'll stop.

Pettiness prevails. Again with this prejudice - pots and kettles. I'm ready
to accept - and challenge - my prejudices.

BTW, not having been a Usenet poster since the dawn of time - I still think
it inappropriate to edit a post to which you are replying - or at least not
include the full text as it was intended - it would seem to indicate an
unwillingness to address the points of the original post.

Jim Doyle