OK, what the hell has happened to the Brits?

"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
...

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


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.

Famous last words!!


Secondly if I was to be held up the aim is to not get in a fight but to
survive.

That's probably not YOUR aim, but in words of the old cliche, "It takes two
to tango".

Not about being a pascifist, its about being smart and knowing when
to fight and when not to fight.

You're confusing "when" with the ability 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.

You were lucky...that time. Many others are not so fortunate.


FWIW Brits have more chance of being robbed and murdered on vacation in
Florida than we do in our own country.

Care to support that claim? You know you can't. AAMOF, you're in more danger
in your own country than in our worst place (New York). (Other than when
criminals targeted tourists KNOWING that they, unlike the locals, were
DEFINITELY unarmed).

On your hypothesis we should all be
issued with guns on entry to the US to give us a fair chance.

Non-sequitur.


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.

Non-sequitur #2.

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.

Non-sequitur #3.

Damn...is your Public Indoctrination ...I mean Education, System as screwed
up as our?

"Dave" wrote in message
...


Our leadership is a sick joke, that's why he is so matey with your
leadership.
He has no balls at all. He is stupid vain and arrogant - ideal qualities
for
a politician.

Like Winston Churchill.

Like Bush he was elected with less than a majority of the popular vote.

He (Blair) is about the only thing you've done right lately, even with all
his statist faults.

In article , "Dave"
writes:


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.


Not true.

Muggings and especially home invasions are far more prevalent in Britain,
Germany and France than here in the States.

Murders, usually one gang banger shooting another, are the only violent crime
more prevalent here.

Don

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

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Wdtabor" wrote:
It must be niced to be so sure of your superiority over your fellow
citizens.

I said many, not all. Are you telling me you don't feel your judgement
is superior to that of many of your fellow citizens? If so, how then do
you account for the fact that you hold political views that place you in
a minority?

I must point out that operating a car responsibly requires a great
deal more
skill and judgment than operating a handgun.

Requires it, maybe, but does it always get it?

Responsible use of a handgun simply requires leaving it in its holster
until
something so bad happens that anything you do with the gun will be
better.

Well, there's the rub, isn't it? Are we to assume that all gun toters
can judge such situations so nicely?

You might wish to know that civilian "gun toters" are about one SEVENTH as
likely to have a "bad shoot" than their "highly trained" brethren that
tote
guns AND badges.

And you want to put these guys on planes? Madness

What the hell happened to the people who won the Battle of Britain?

Don

Nothing. As demonstrated during the above-mentioned Battle of Britian
and, even more so, by civilian behavior during the Blitz, the Brits
appear to lack the capacity for hysteria that is so well developed
among today's Americans.

Paul

(proud to be an American; less so to be an American of this
generation)

"Paul Hamilton" wrote in message
om...

What the hell happened to the people who won the Battle of Britain?

Don

Nothing. As demonstrated during the above-mentioned Battle of Britian
and, even more so, by civilian behavior during the Blitz, the Brits
appear to lack the capacity for hysteria that is so well developed
among today's Americans.

Paul

(proud to be an American; less so to be an American of this
generation)

Likewise the lack of hysteria when the Irish were bombing our shopping
centers, the center of London etc and had no compunction in killing kids
either. Real heroes they were. Over the troubles we have had a few thousand
killed in many incidents which did not even get onto the horizon in the US
media. That which did tended to be sympathisers for the terrorists.

The British tend to have a wider view on the world. Nearly every person in
the country has a passport (approx 10% of US citizens have a passport) most
have been abroad too. Our newspapers probably feature 50 -60% of news from
around the world.
US "national" newspapers are pretty thin on world news. US regional papers
have even less. For them news from another state is foreign. In Ft Myers
this Christmas, in the NewsPress, the disaster in Iran got two sentences in
the paper of the lines
"Earthquake in Iran, 6.5 on the Richter scale. Its estimated that 20,000
people may have died.

The earthquake in Paso Roubles (rubbles) got about three sentences. The
Mudslide got about the same.

But hey, the crap written when the Vikings lost to Arizona in the final 3
seconds of regular season seems to show a sense of inappropriate values.
Afterall it was only for a place in the playoffs not the Super bowel (sic)
itself.

An observation that's all.

Just a comment Dave...
Yes, the majority in europe have passports and have crossed country
borders... Remember, many of what you call Countries over there we call
Counties here, and we have States bigger than all but the very biggest of EU
Countries and we don't need passports to cross the borders, so there is a
significant difference for US citizens... One fine Sunday this past summer I
took the wife and we flew in a straight line (twin engine plane) for four
and a half hours, had lunch, did some sight seeing, flew four and a half
hours back, and never crossed the state borders...
Also, up to 9/11 we did not need a passport to go to Canada, Mexico, most of
latin america and south america, and all of the carribean that caters to
tourists... I do not have a passport because I have not needed one before..

And as far as colloquialism in the news, I skim a number of EU papers almost
daily, and other than the international news section they are no different
than the USA media... This or that politician caught in bed with someone,
Pictures of bare boobed babes, and page, after page, after page, about
soccer (whatever the hell that is!)

Cheers, eh wot ... Denny

"Dave" wrote in Afterall it was only for a
place in the playoffs not the Super bowel (sic)
itself.

An observation that's all.

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"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.

????!

I've been to the UK -- home of the soccer riot -- several times, and I can
assure you that it's not all tea and crumpets over there, despite the facade
you all try to put on. There is just as much crime, the streets are just as
dirty, the air is just as polluted and the people and culture are every bit
as violent as anything you can find in the USA (and I grew up and currently
live in New York City). Period.

The difference is that you people are all beginning to believe your own
bull**** about the sophistication and high-mindedness of your society. This
of course serves to no ones advantage more than the criminal element, who,
while you all walk around patting each other on the back for that utopian
accomplishment of 'banning guns', the criminals gleefully bask in their
newfound freedom to take whatever they need from you.

You said it yourself, if a criminal with a pipe asked for your wallet, you'd
gladly hand it over. To you, it's only 20 pounds, but to the criminal, it's
a great way to make a living. Do that a mere 4 or 5 times a day, and he's
doing alright for himself, especially compounded with the welfare he's
undoubtably on.

So you see, you've managed to create a wonderful new criminal class.

And by the way, any society in which a large number of citizens beat each
other into a bloody pulp on a regular basis over a sporting event (much less
soccer) has no right to call themselves 'nonviolent'.

When was the last time anyone was killed at a baseball game?


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.


But again, you are leaving that choice -- one of your very survival -- in
the hands of a criminal. If you are unable to defend yourself, and he knows
that for a 100% fact, then like it or not, HE is the one calling the shots,
not you. Even if you cheerfully comply with every single demand he makes,
there is no guarantee that he won't kill you or your family just for the
hell of it. You have removed any option for fighting back, and have adopted
pasifism by default.

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.


So you got mugged by two incompetant criminals. And in most situations, the
best move is probably to just give the guy the lousy $10 and hope he chokes
on it. BUT, your country has eliminated any means for the citizenry to
defend itself against anything at all, thus swinging the doors wide open for
criminals to take advantage of the population in ways far more numerous and
egregious than a random petty theft.


FWIW Brits have more chance of being robbed and murdered on vacation in
Florida than we do in our own country.

That is simply not true.


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.

Well, yes, that is in fact true. However, all you have done by making guns
illegal is to ensure that the only people who don't have them are the
law-abiding citizens. Criminals who are going to commit a crime anyway
simply disregard the gun laws as well.

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.


That is not exactly the same thing, although I would probably say that if
the level of Irish terrorism was, today, at the same level it was in the
80's, the American attitude towards it would be far, far different, as 9/11
has changed everything.

????!

I've been to the UK -- home of the soccer riot -- several times, and I can
assure you that it's not all tea and crumpets over there, despite the
facade
you all try to put on. There is just as much crime, the streets are just
as
dirty, the air is just as polluted and the people and culture are every
bit
as violent as anything you can find in the USA (and I grew up and
currently
live in New York City). Period.

The difference is that you people are all beginning to believe your own
bull**** about the sophistication and high-mindedness of your society.
This
of course serves to no ones advantage more than the criminal element, who,
while you all walk around patting each other on the back for that utopian
accomplishment of 'banning guns', the criminals gleefully bask in their
newfound freedom to take whatever they need from you.

You said it yourself, if a criminal with a pipe asked for your wallet,
you'd
gladly hand it over. To you, it's only 20 pounds, but to the criminal,
it's
a great way to make a living. Do that a mere 4 or 5 times a day, and he's
doing alright for himself, especially compounded with the welfare he's
undoubtably on.

So you see, you've managed to create a wonderful new criminal class.

And by the way, any society in which a large number of citizens beat each
other into a bloody pulp on a regular basis over a sporting event (much
less
soccer) has no right to call themselves 'nonviolent'.

When was the last time anyone was killed at a baseball game?


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.


But again, you are leaving that choice -- one of your very survival -- in
the hands of a criminal. If you are unable to defend yourself, and he
knows
that for a 100% fact, then like it or not, HE is the one calling the
shots,
not you. Even if you cheerfully comply with every single demand he makes,
there is no guarantee that he won't kill you or your family just for the
hell of it. You have removed any option for fighting back, and have
adopted
pasifism by default.

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.


So you got mugged by two incompetant criminals. And in most situations,
the
best move is probably to just give the guy the lousy $10 and hope he
chokes
on it. BUT, your country has eliminated any means for the citizenry to
defend itself against anything at all, thus swinging the doors wide open
for
criminals to take advantage of the population in ways far more numerous
and
egregious than a random petty theft.


FWIW Brits have more chance of being robbed and murdered on vacation in
Florida than we do in our own country.

That is simply not true.


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.

Well, yes, that is in fact true. However, all you have done by making guns
illegal is to ensure that the only people who don't have them are the
law-abiding citizens. Criminals who are going to commit a crime anyway
simply disregard the gun laws as well.

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.


That is not exactly the same thing, although I would probably say that if
the level of Irish terrorism was, today, at the same level it was in the
80's, the American attitude towards it would be far, far different, as
9/11
has changed everything.


Great post Thomas....................