"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
Of course, and always have been, but they don't get used for burglary.

Because they know they are safe,protected by UK's laws against self-
defense,at the expense of the citizenry.

Or because they can't afford guns, because if they had that sort of cash
they wouldn't be out burgling or nicking car stereos. And because if they
*had* a gun they'd use it for something more lucrative.

Appeasement,that's what it is.

If you think any intruder in my house is safe, then come and try to break
in. Stop trying to tell us what life's like here.

Are you carrying elephant repellant, Jim? You *could* be trampled to
death by a herd of rogue elephants at any time, you know. I can sell
you, for just $5,000 cash, a guaranteed anti-elephant formula that
will protect you.

Admittedly, you might consider "the odds" of elephant-related death
rather low, but can you afford to take chances with your safety?

well,now you're talking nonsense.

No, not at all! Why, it's terrifying - *terrifying* - how lethal those
elephants are.

"AN ELEPHANT CRUSHED MY SISTER TO DEATH", Daily Mirror, 23 April 2004

"Andrea Taylor, 20, suffered fatal internal injuries after she was attacked
by the rampaging elephant in April last year."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1325367.stm)

" Jerry Finley, an American, was visiting the zoo with his 14-year-old
daughter and seven-year-old son on October 20 last year. He said that Mr
Robson appeared to know that the elephant was out to kill him from the
moment she knocked him to the ground. "I believe that the elephant attacked
with intent to kill the man, the attack was continuous and never stopped
once it had started," Mr Finley told the court. "The guy never had a
chance."

"The four-tonne Asian elephant named Kumara struck Richard Hughes, 34, with
her trunk and then butted him as he was forced against a wall. Mr
Hughes...died in hospital nine days later."

"The owner of Seven Star Circus and two trainers were arrested and charged
with negligence after a chained elephant grabbed a 10-year-old boy with her
trunk, threw him to the ground, and trampled him to death."

"An elephant at a circus killed a 10-year-old boy after knocking him down
during a circus performance."

"One of the elephants, Frieda, had killed Joan Scovell, 47, of New London,
Conn., in 1985 by grabbing the woman with her trunk and throwing her down to
the ground in a parking lot of the New London Mall."

"An elephant... trampled two men to death before being shot and killed by
police."

"Tyke, an elephant with Circus International, killed her trainer and stomped
and injured a circus groom and a dozen spectators. Tyke had run amok just
before her performance, breaking out of the arena and leading police on a
chase down several city blocks until they shot her to death with almost 100
bullets. This was the second elephant incident at the circus in as many
weeks."

"An elephant crushed a man to death by pinning him against a trailer"


So, Jim, what measures are you taking against elephant-related death? Your
chance of being killed by an elephant are on a par with my being shot to
death by a criminal (both well under one in a million): I'll change my
lifestyle
if you change yours

But actually,in parts of the US,attacks by
large animals such as bears or cougars is a fair possibility.

Yep, there's a thread on the subject elsewhere. If I were living in the US
I'd eagerly investigate the options for acquiring a firearm or two: mostly
for entertainment but with security in mind. Different place, different
needs.

Thanks, but we like having handguns be rare and unusual. You do it
your way, we'll do it ours.

yes,keep those criminals safe,while your citizens suffer crimes.

I'm not quite sure how proliferating firearms is going to help the
situation. Most British citizens aren't familiar with firearms, don't
particularly want them around and don't see why they should spend
significant sums on buying, properly securing, and becoming proficient with
a weapon when they have no particular need. One reason the 1997 handgun ban
passed easily was that very few people owned and shot them, and the
political pressure was all to ban those horrid nasty implements of Death.

On the other hand, I can see the many criminals who haven't suffered
conviction yet considering this would be Christmas come early, buying
weapons for resale to those less able to legally purchase. (One presumes
that background checks, limits on purchases, and any attempt to track
weapons once sold would be considered as unfair and unreasonable in the UK
as they would in the US)

End result? Unarmed citizens, but the Bad Guys have even freer access to
weapons. Not sure why this is supposed to help. Presumably some ODCs will
then buy weapons, but isn't that a little late?


Folks like me who *did* happily pay up to turn a few hundred rounds a week
into .45-calibre holes in paper were a rarity.

Appease them.

No, keep them disarmed as a rule.

Not if one or two of the group have guns: outnumbered and outgunned is
a bad place to be.

You're STILL better off than being unarmed.

Why? Dead is still dead.

And at least you will get some
of them before they get you,maybe even the ones with the guns.

And this makes you "less dead" how, precisely?

Then the
next
group will have second thoughts about trying such attacks against
others.

And this helps *you* how, precisely? Meanwhile that gang now have more
weapons to play with.

If these armed gangs aren't deterred by one in four USAians owning firearms,
what level of ownership is needed before they stop their rampages?

Meanwhile we're largely bereft of such gangs and like things that way.

Thus leaving the ODC open to a lifetime of legal nightmares,
apparently.

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

My attitude precisely, but then others claim the advantage of "shoot early,
shoot often" is that dead men can't sue. (Which appears to suppose that
killing strangers on suspicion is viewed with enthusiasm...)

Where are you keeping it while you're asleep?

Nunya bidness.

I just remember the rules I learned in the Army: I don't think my wife would
appreciate sharing our bed with a firearm of any type.

(And for the endless whines about Jill Dando - she was shot in the
back of the head on her doorstep, caught completely unawares. She
could have had a MAC-10 in each hand and it wouldn't have made the
slightest difference)

Well,so she was caught unawares;that's the result of a false sense of
security that the UK residents have,from their "gun control".

So having more weapons means we get to be perpetually paranoid?

Give her a gun. Give her two guns. Give her a hundred guns. What's the
difference? No matter how heavily armed she was or was not, she was killed
on her doorstep by an assailant she never saw.

You seem to be advocating that more weapons will make us safer, which means
we'll all be much more paranoid... doesn't compute, Jim. Either being armed
makes us safer, or it makes us more alert and aware, but you don't go to
higher alert states because the risk level dropped.

And how "being armed" is far from the panacea quoted. Note also that
this incident was five years ago - haven't you had any other examples
to cite?

Why,what's changed in the last 5 years? Nothing.But UK gun crimes have
risen every year,I believe,despite gun "control".

Yeah, I think we had 23 killed last year as opposed to 17 in 1999. That's
*how* much more dangerous than the US?

(Remember, Jim, someone using a banana in his pocket as a 'gun' is a firearm
crime in the UK. Be careful what you're claiming.)

--
Paul J. Adam