OK, what the hell has happened to the Brits?

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
...

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:15:33 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

I avoid everybody carrying a weapon. And as long as I can decide it
(!)
nobody with a weapon is entering my house, my office or sitting in my
car.
And I turn away from everybody carrying a weapon, I also avoid beeing
too
close to cops carrying a weapon.


What do you do when those that carry guns don't give a damn what you
decide?



aaahh! now comes logic from cold war. Give everybody a nuke, but give me
one nuke more than him.

Seems to have worked out pretty well, no?


or: ... Zombie (The Cranberries)


How profound.

to your question: so I should arm myself and my family and first shoot,
then ask? I don't want to life in such a world. Thank you.


Too late; you already do. Now please tell me the logic in depending on the
goodwill of the lawless and criminal to respect your pascifism. It really
seems to have worked like a charm in the UK where soon after banning
firearms alltogether, gun related crimes went sky-high.

It is all relative and with hand guns being outlawed completely possessing a
gun became a crime. With gun crime being so low any increase looks big.

Funnily enough gun related crime tends to be restricted to the criminals
shooting each other not the public. The main problems in London tend to be
Russian mafia against Albanian mafia, blacks against blacks (Yardies), drug
dealers against drug dealers.
What we don't get are kids killing each other by accident because Dad left
his gun lying about and we don't get wacko kids going into school blasting
everyone in sight and we don't get guys sniping away at the public either.

The police here take a firm view with anyone with what looks like a gun.
They shoot them. The assumption is that as there can be no lawful purpose to
be waving a gun around then shooting dead someone with a gun who refuses to
surrender is legitimate.
Therefore the only ones who need to worry are the nuts who like guns and
criminals. Even a toy gun risks getting the holder shot if the police are
uncertain of the weapon.
Thank fully our police tend to finish gun business with the odd bullet
rather than a shootout.

There was a hostage situation in London last Christmas where the gunman held
a hostage for a week and after he released the hostage the gunman continued
to resist the police. After a couple of more days and with the threat of him
setting fire to the premises the police shot him with one bullet to the
head.

Its that type of police officer I would like as a sky marshal, someone with
restraint and control as well as skill and judgement.

Unfortunately there are probably not enough to go around.

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
...

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:15:33 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

I avoid everybody carrying a weapon. And as long as I can decide it
(!)
nobody with a weapon is entering my house, my office or sitting in
my
car.
And I turn away from everybody carrying a weapon, I also avoid
beeing
too
close to cops carrying a weapon.


What do you do when those that carry guns don't give a damn what you
decide?



aaahh! now comes logic from cold war. Give everybody a nuke, but give
me
one nuke more than him.

Seems to have worked out pretty well, no?


or: ... Zombie (The Cranberries)


How profound.

to your question: so I should arm myself and my family and first
shoot,
then ask? I don't want to life in such a world. Thank you.


Too late; you already do. Now please tell me the logic in depending on
the
goodwill of the lawless and criminal to respect your pascifism. It
really
seems to have worked like a charm in the UK where soon after banning
firearms alltogether, gun related crimes went sky-high.

It is all relative and with hand guns being outlawed completely possessing
a
gun became a crime. With gun crime being so low any increase looks big.

Funnily enough gun related crime tends to be restricted to the criminals
shooting each other not the public. The main problems in London tend to be
Russian mafia against Albanian mafia, blacks against blacks (Yardies),
drug
dealers against drug dealers.
What we don't get are kids killing each other by accident because Dad left
his gun lying about and we don't get wacko kids going into school blasting
everyone in sight and we don't get guys sniping away at the public either.

The police here take a firm view with anyone with what looks like a gun.
They shoot them. The assumption is that as there can be no lawful purpose
to
be waving a gun around then shooting dead someone with a gun who refuses
to
surrender is legitimate.
Therefore the only ones who need to worry are the nuts who like guns and
criminals. Even a toy gun risks getting the holder shot if the police are
uncertain of the weapon.
Thank fully our police tend to finish gun business with the odd bullet
rather than a shootout.


And you see nothing wrong with this scenario? It dosen't strike you as maybe
a bit tyrannical that owning a toy gun may get you shot by a police officer?
You surrender your rights far too easily, and I am afraid that if a majority
of your population feels similarly, you days as a free people are numbered.

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
...

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:15:33 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

I avoid everybody carrying a weapon. And as long as I can decide
it
(!)
nobody with a weapon is entering my house, my office or sitting
in
my
car.
And I turn away from everybody carrying a weapon, I also avoid
beeing
too
close to cops carrying a weapon.


What do you do when those that carry guns don't give a damn what
you
decide?



aaahh! now comes logic from cold war. Give everybody a nuke, but
give
me
one nuke more than him.

Seems to have worked out pretty well, no?


or: ... Zombie (The Cranberries)


How profound.

to your question: so I should arm myself and my family and first
shoot,
then ask? I don't want to life in such a world. Thank you.


Too late; you already do. Now please tell me the logic in depending on
the
goodwill of the lawless and criminal to respect your pascifism. It
really
seems to have worked like a charm in the UK where soon after banning
firearms alltogether, gun related crimes went sky-high.

It is all relative and with hand guns being outlawed completely
possessing
a
gun became a crime. With gun crime being so low any increase looks big.

Funnily enough gun related crime tends to be restricted to the criminals
shooting each other not the public. The main problems in London tend to
be
Russian mafia against Albanian mafia, blacks against blacks (Yardies),
drug
dealers against drug dealers.
What we don't get are kids killing each other by accident because Dad
left
his gun lying about and we don't get wacko kids going into school
blasting
everyone in sight and we don't get guys sniping away at the public
either.

The police here take a firm view with anyone with what looks like a gun.
They shoot them. The assumption is that as there can be no lawful
purpose
to
be waving a gun around then shooting dead someone with a gun who refuses
to
surrender is legitimate.
Therefore the only ones who need to worry are the nuts who like guns and
criminals. Even a toy gun risks getting the holder shot if the police
are
uncertain of the weapon.
Thank fully our police tend to finish gun business with the odd bullet
rather than a shootout.


And you see nothing wrong with this scenario? It dosen't strike you as
maybe
a bit tyrannical that owning a toy gun may get you shot by a police
officer?
You surrender your rights far too easily, and I am afraid that if a
majority
of your population feels similarly, you days as a free people are
numbered.

Nothing wrong with it at all. Guns are illegal. We voted for it, after a
Columbine type incident. We surrendered our licenced sporting guns.
Therefore anyone still with a gun or making out that they were using what
looked like a gun to rob or frighten people must bear the consequences. It
is about personal responsibility and choices.

Having a gun is no big deal. It does not make you a better person. It might
make you feel a bit more secure when there are loads of loonies around with
guns.

Likewise when the chances of meeting someone with a gun is remote do we
worry about being armed? I would only worry if I was mixing with people who
carry guns. As I don't mix with criminals its not an issue.

If our police don't see the need to be constantly armed then why should the
population at large.

Likewise when the chances of meeting someone with a gun is remote do we
worry about being armed? I would only worry if I was mixing with people who
carry guns. As I don't mix with criminals its not an issue.


Oh, you lock yourself up in your castle?

What happens if you encounter a thug with a length of pipe on the way to the
pub?

Which, by the way, if far more likely to happen in London than in Norfolk, VA.

Don


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...

Likewise when the chances of meeting someone with a gun is remote do we
worry about being armed? I would only worry if I was mixing with people
who
carry guns. As I don't mix with criminals its not an issue.


Oh, you lock yourself up in your castle?

What happens if you encounter a thug with a length of pipe on the way to
the
pub?

Which, by the way, if far more likely to happen in London than in Norfolk,
VA.

Give him my wallet (never more than £20 in it). But its never happened yet.

In article , "Dave"
writes:


What happens if you encounter a thug with a length of pipe on the way to
the
pub?

Which, by the way, if far more likely to happen in London than in Norfolk,
VA.

Give him my wallet (never more than £20 in it). But its never happened yet.



If you think that is an acceptable outcome, then I guess your people are beyond
hope.

England will always be our mother country, but it is sad to see Mom grow old
and senile.

Don
--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...

Likewise when the chances of meeting someone with a gun is remote do we
worry about being armed? I would only worry if I was mixing with people
who
carry guns. As I don't mix with criminals its not an issue.


Oh, you lock yourself up in your castle?

What happens if you encounter a thug with a length of pipe on the way to
the
pub?

Which, by the way, if far more likely to happen in London than in
Norfolk,
VA.

Give him my wallet (never more than £20 in it). But its never happened
yet.


'Yet' being the operative word. And what happens when they want your car? Or
your house? Or your girlfriend? Or your daughter? If armed rapists break
into your house and have their way with your wife or daughter, who is going
to protect you then? Or are you going to self-rightously explain to your
loved ones how they need to just comply with the wishes of the criminals,
because you no matter how bad it will be, nothing justifys gun ownership?

And mind you, this scenario is FAR more likely to occour if the criminals
are 100% assured that the people in the house have no way to defend
themselves.

Do you see the problem with abject pascifism? No, probably not. So go ahead
and allow criminals to have their way with you and your family, weather it's
a $20 stickup or a gang rape. And as they rape your daughter or beat you
with baseball bats for whatever little cash you may have, you can rest easy
knowing that your pascifist ideals are intact.

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...

Likewise when the chances of meeting someone with a gun is remote do
we
worry about being armed? I would only worry if I was mixing with
people
who
carry guns. As I don't mix with criminals its not an issue.


Oh, you lock yourself up in your castle?

What happens if you encounter a thug with a length of pipe on the way
to
the
pub?

Which, by the way, if far more likely to happen in London than in
Norfolk,
VA.

Give him my wallet (never more than £20 in it). But its never happened
yet.


'Yet' being the operative word. And what happens when they want your car?
Or
your house? Or your girlfriend? Or your daughter? If armed rapists break
into your house and have their way with your wife or daughter, who is
going
to protect you then? Or are you going to self-rightously explain to your
loved ones how they need to just comply with the wishes of the criminals,
because you no matter how bad it will be, nothing justifys gun ownership?

And mind you, this scenario is FAR more likely to occour if the criminals
are 100% assured that the people in the house have no way to defend
themselves.

Do you see the problem with abject pascifism? No, probably not. So go
ahead
and allow criminals to have their way with you and your family, weather
it's
a $20 stickup or a gang rape. And as they rape your daughter or beat you
with baseball bats for whatever little cash you may have, you can rest
easy
knowing that your pascifist ideals are intact.

Maybe its just that people behave differently here that the risk is so small
that the chances of violent assault are so small that the solutions you
propose are out of proportion to the risk -the first rule of insurance.

Secondly if I was to be held up the aim is to not get in a fight but to
survive. Not about being a pascifist, its about being smart and knowing when
to fight and when not to fight.

I was held up at knive point in South Africa last year by two black youths.
The main aim was to get the guy with the knive as far away from me as
possible. So I let him have the camera and threw 100 rand ( $10) on the
floor. He dropped the camera, which I picked up and then fled empty handed.
No point having a fight.

FWIW Brits have more chance of being robbed and murdered on vacation in
Florida than we do in our own country. On your hypothesis we should all be
issued with guns on entry to the US to give us a fair chance.

And also FWIW Europeans dont fear guns. As was pointed out earlier they are
inanimate objects absolutely useless until a persons picks on up. The fear
is about who can and who has access to guns and their attitute to using
them.
The gun is never the problem its the person.

As for the Americans war on terrorism, they were pretty absent when we were
fighting the Irish terrorists in fact many of them were funding Irish
terrorist organisations. Not exactly a consistent policy.

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...

Likewise when the chances of meeting someone with a gun is remote do
we
worry about being armed? I would only worry if I was mixing with
people
who
carry guns. As I don't mix with criminals its not an issue.


Oh, you lock yourself up in your castle?

What happens if you encounter a thug with a length of pipe on the way
to
the
pub?

Which, by the way, if far more likely to happen in London than in
Norfolk,
VA.

Give him my wallet (never more than £20 in it). But its never happened
yet.


'Yet' being the operative word.

Indeed...as in "...we haven't gotten around to you YET!!".

And what happens when they want your car? Or
your house? Or your girlfriend? Or your daughter? If armed rapists break
into your house and have their way with your wife or daughter, who is
going
to protect you then? Or are you going to self-rightously explain to your
loved ones how they need to just comply with the wishes of the criminals,
because you no matter how bad it will be, nothing justifys gun ownership?

Evasion knows no limits.

"Dave" wrote in message
...

Nothing wrong with it at all. Guns are illegal. We voted for it, after a
Columbine type incident. We surrendered our licenced sporting guns.


Was the vote unanimous?