![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. . "Jim Doyle" wrote in : Firstly, I'd rather be punched than shot, so I'll happily endure the other non gun crimes in the UK. Except that UK gun laws do NOT prevent criminals from having guns. Prevent, no. Seriously reduce the odds, yes. (And many of those 'guns' are replicas, blank firers, air pistols or dodgy conversions - they all count as "firearms" in the crime statistics. One guy tried to rob a post office using two pieces of gas pipe taped together: that was a 'firearm crime') It only prevents ODCs from having guns(for self-defense).You still could get shot,or knifed,or clubbed,or simply beaten to death by a group or by someone mcuh larger/stronger than you. And being armed would change what, precisely, if you're outnumbered and surprised? Now tell me you're joking; that's just a ridiculous statement. It's never a good thing to shoot anyone. No,I am NOT joking. Are you saying it's better to let a serial murderer or rapist escape than shoot them? How about a terrorist bomber? I think you'll find that you're legally allowed to defend yourself and to prevent crimes, but shooting people in the back as they flee is not generally allowed for either private citizens or police officers. Why do you wish to protect criminals? A few years ago, a Scotsman was working in Texas. He made the mistake of knocking on someone's door to ask for directions: the homeowner shot the guy several times through the door and killed him. Was he a "criminal"? Hey,the criminal is the one who should bear the risks;if they get shot in the commission of a crime,it's their own fault.And not every shot kills,so shooting someone is NOT being "judge,jury and executioner". Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though. You fire a weapon in my direction, you are making a deliberate attempt to kill me, and I *will* take it extremely personally. Firing at someone is "deadly force" and there's no way to weasel around it. Is it correct then that in a free society one person has the right to take the life of another? Even if that guy is caught red handed rifling through your smalls, it's indefensible. If you believe your life to be in danger,or to stop a "forcible felony",yes it is legal to use lethal force. I've been told with a straight face that it's fair and reasonable to shoot and kill trespassers. Someone sets a foot on your lawn and you're allowed to kill them. Same poster claimed that this was entirely right and reasonable. And inside one's home,the "castle doctrine" holds(in most locales);that they are not there for any good purpose,that it's threat to your life.(Although you cannot shoot them in the back,if they are fleeing,then they are not a threat anymore.) See above for the inconsistency. These laws place the onus on the criminal,not the ODC,the way it SHOULD be. True here too: just no need for lots of handguns. Someone breaks into your house, you're allowed to hurt them until they leave, and if they try to come back you can hurt them some more. Just make sure that most of the wounds are in their front, not their back. (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) -- Paul J. Adam |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
: "Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . "Jim Doyle" wrote in : Firstly, I'd rather be punched than shot, so I'll happily endure the other non gun crimes in the UK. Except that UK gun laws do NOT prevent criminals from having guns. Prevent, no. Seriously reduce the odds, yes. (And many of those 'guns' are replicas, blank firers, air pistols or dodgy conversions - they all count as "firearms" in the crime statistics. One guy tried to rob a post office using two pieces of gas pipe taped together: that was a 'firearm crime') But you CAN be killed by a converted blank gun,or a homemade gun,or zipgun,and who know's the difference in what the criminal is pointing at you.Even if it were an unloaded gun,who know's that? Fact is;guns ARE available to criminals in the UK.When you start talking about "odds" of one having a gun,it really doesn't matter.And of course,there are OTHER deadly weapons,some present in your homes,like kitchen knives.Or weapons of opportunity.But that should NOT restrict an ODC from having the best weapon available,a firearm. It only prevents ODCs from having guns(for self-defense).You still could get shot,or knifed,or clubbed,or simply beaten to death by a group or by someone mcuh larger/stronger than you. And being armed would change what, precisely, if you're outnumbered and surprised? Quite often,a group will choose to flee rather than risk getting shot,something life threatening and hard to explain to officials. And being armed still betters YOUR chances against a group,better than any other item or method. Now tell me you're joking; that's just a ridiculous statement. It's never a good thing to shoot anyone. No,I am NOT joking. Are you saying it's better to let a serial murderer or rapist escape than shoot them? How about a terrorist bomber? I think you'll find that you're legally allowed to defend yourself and to prevent crimes, but shooting people in the back as they flee is not generally allowed for either private citizens or police officers. I think you'd find exceptions made for terrorist bombers or serial killers/rapists. Why do you wish to protect criminals? A few years ago, a Scotsman was working in Texas. He made the mistake of knocking on someone's door to ask for directions: the homeowner shot the guy several times through the door and killed him. Was he a "criminal"? I don't know all the circumstances of that incident,so I can't say. Hey,the criminal is the one who should bear the risks;if they get shot in the commission of a crime,it's their own fault.And not every shot kills,so shooting someone is NOT being "judge,jury and executioner". Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though. You fire a weapon in my direction, you are making a deliberate attempt to kill me, and I *will* take it extremely personally. Firing at someone is "deadly force" and there's no way to weasel around it. Sure it's deadly force.So what? It's still not being "judge,jury and executioner".There's more than a good chance that you will not die. The risk should be the criminals,not the ODCs. Is it correct then that in a free society one person has the right to take the life of another? Even if that guy is caught red handed rifling through your smalls, it's indefensible. If you believe your life to be in danger,or to stop a "forcible felony",yes it is legal to use lethal force. I've been told with a straight face that it's fair and reasonable to shoot and kill trespassers. Someone sets a foot on your lawn and you're allowed to kill them. Same poster claimed that this was entirely right and reasonable. Some states allow "defense of property".Although for just setting foot on it seems unreasonable,without futher knowledge of the situation. And inside one's home,the "castle doctrine" holds(in most locales);that they are not there for any good purpose,that it's threat to your life.(Although you cannot shoot them in the back,if they are fleeing,then they are not a threat anymore.) See above for the inconsistency. Well,if the guy turns his back to you and reaches for a weapon,then it would be allowable.It depends on the circumstances. These laws place the onus on the criminal,not the ODC,the way it SHOULD be. True here too: just no need for lots of handguns. Someone breaks into your house, you're allowed to hurt them until they leave, and if they try to come back you can hurt them some more. Just make sure that most of the wounds are in their front, not their back. Well,a handgun is much easier to wield in close quarters than a shotgun,and also can be carried on one's person,concealed.Then they get protection while outside the home. (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) -- Paul J. Adam That just shows how one CAN get shot in LONDON,in -nice- places,and that guns(handguns) ARE available in the UK,regardless of the UK gun laws.Too many Britishers are unwilling to recognize that. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Jim Yanik wrote: "Paul J. Adam" wrote in : SNIP No,I am NOT joking. Are you saying it's better to let a serial murderer or rapist escape than shoot them? How about a terrorist bomber? I think you'll find that you're legally allowed to defend yourself and to prevent crimes, but shooting people in the back as they flee is not generally allowed for either private citizens or police officers. I think you'd find exceptions made for terrorist bombers or serial killers/rapists. SNIP Jim, the not shooting them in the back is just another way of saying, not shooting them once they are no longer a threat (as in they are legging it out of there). Coming up behind someone committing a violent crime (assault).. you'll probably be able to use "reasonable force in the defence of another". (As in the case of the father who whacked the intruder standing in the dark over his daughter's bed... shooting the intruder in the back might present some problems, trying to smash his head in with a cricket bat contains the risks of collateral damage.) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. . "Paul J. Adam" wrote in : Prevent, no. Seriously reduce the odds, yes. (And many of those 'guns' are replicas, blank firers, air pistols or dodgy conversions - they all count as "firearms" in the crime statistics. One guy tried to rob a post office using two pieces of gas pipe taped together: that was a 'firearm crime') But you CAN be killed by a converted blank gun,or a homemade gun,or zipgun, Elsewhere you're claiming that uncertainty of outcome is a good thing - why the change of mind? ![]() and who know's the difference in what the criminal is pointing at you.Even if it were an unloaded gun,who know's that? Even the imitations don't turn up in burglaries. Fact is;guns ARE available to criminals in the UK. Of course, and always have been, but they don't get used for burglary. When you start talking about "odds" of one having a gun,it really doesn't matter. 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? And of course,there are OTHER deadly weapons,some present in your homes,like kitchen knives.Or weapons of opportunity.But that should NOT restrict an ODC from having the best weapon available,a firearm. Thanks, but we like having handguns be rare and unusual. You do it your way, we'll do it ours. And being armed would change what, precisely, if you're outnumbered and surprised? Quite often,a group will choose to flee rather than risk getting shot,something life threatening and hard to explain to officials. Other times, they'll help themselves to your weapon and use it on you. And being armed still betters YOUR chances against a group,better than any other item or method. Not if one or two of the group have guns: outnumbered and outgunned is a bad place to be. I think you'll find that you're legally allowed to defend yourself and to prevent crimes, but shooting people in the back as they flee is not generally allowed for either private citizens or police officers. I think you'd find exceptions made for terrorist bombers or serial killers/rapists. How many of either have you had in your home lately? For that matter, how many of the low-lifes who break into houses to steal portable valuables moonlight as terrorist bomb-carriers? A few years ago, a Scotsman was working in Texas. He made the mistake of knocking on someone's door to ask for directions: the homeowner shot the guy several times through the door and killed him. Was he a "criminal"? I don't know all the circumstances of that incident,so I can't say. How did the presence of firearms protect him, and how would being armed have helped him? And what crime was prevented by his death? You fire a weapon in my direction, you are making a deliberate attempt to kill me, and I *will* take it extremely personally. Firing at someone is "deadly force" and there's no way to weasel around it. Sure it's deadly force.So what? It's still not being "judge,jury and executioner".There's more than a good chance that you will not die. Thus leaving the ODC open to a lifetime of legal nightmares, apparently. True here too: just no need for lots of handguns. Someone breaks into your house, you're allowed to hurt them until they leave, and if they try to come back you can hurt them some more. Just make sure that most of the wounds are in their front, not their back. Well,a handgun is much easier to wield in close quarters than a shotgun, Where are you keeping it while you're asleep? and also can be carried on one's person,concealed.Then they get protection while outside the home. Protection from what? It seems you guys live in constant dread. (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) That just shows how one CAN get shot in LONDON,in -nice- places,and that guns(handguns) ARE available in the UK,regardless of the UK gun laws. 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? -- Paul J. Adam |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
: "Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . "Paul J. Adam" wrote in : Prevent, no. Seriously reduce the odds, yes. (And many of those 'guns' are replicas, blank firers, air pistols or dodgy conversions - they all count as "firearms" in the crime statistics. One guy tried to rob a post office using two pieces of gas pipe taped together: that was a 'firearm crime') But you CAN be killed by a converted blank gun,or a homemade gun,or zipgun, Elsewhere you're claiming that uncertainty of outcome is a good thing - why the change of mind? ![]() No change of mind;I'm concerned about the ODCs safety,not the criminals. Those homemade weapons are a lethal threat.In the criminals hands,they are intended to give the crook domination of the situation,not for any express purpose of killing,but they still must be regarded as a lethal threat.Point one at a police officer,and they will be judged proper in shooting and killing the holder of the homemade weapon.why should it be any different for an ODC? and who know's the difference in what the criminal is pointing at you.Even if it were an unloaded gun,who know's that? Even the imitations don't turn up in burglaries. Fact is;guns ARE available to criminals in the UK. 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.Appeasement,that's what it is. When you start talking about "odds" of one having a gun,it really doesn't matter. 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.But actually,in parts of the US,attacks by large animals such as bears or cougars is a fair possibility.Deer crash through people windows.Even people's dogs are a potential threat,especially the large,dangerous breeds. Some gangbangers use THEM as weapons,too. And of course,there are OTHER deadly weapons,some present in your homes,like kitchen knives.Or weapons of opportunity.But that should NOT restrict an ODC from having the best weapon available,a firearm. 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. Appease them. And being armed would change what, precisely, if you're outnumbered and surprised? Quite often,a group will choose to flee rather than risk getting shot,something life threatening and hard to explain to officials. Other times, they'll help themselves to your weapon and use it on you. And being armed still betters YOUR chances against a group,better than any other item or method. 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.And at least you will get some of them before they get you,maybe even the ones with the guns.Then the next group will have second thoughts about trying such attacks against others.Nobody wants to get shot,if there's any fair possibility of shooting,the crooks avoid that.It draws too much attention they don't want.It's a fact that criminals fear armed citizens(much more than the police,too.),prison surveys have shown this. I think you'll find that you're legally allowed to defend yourself and to prevent crimes, but shooting people in the back as they flee is not generally allowed for either private citizens or police officers. I think you'd find exceptions made for terrorist bombers or serial killers/rapists. How many of either have you had in your home lately? For that matter, how many of the low-lifes who break into houses to steal portable valuables moonlight as terrorist bomb-carriers? A few years ago, a Scotsman was working in Texas. He made the mistake of knocking on someone's door to ask for directions: the homeowner shot the guy several times through the door and killed him. Was he a "criminal"? I don't know all the circumstances of that incident,so I can't say. How did the presence of firearms protect him, and how would being armed have helped him? And what crime was prevented by his death? You fire a weapon in my direction, you are making a deliberate attempt to kill me, and I *will* take it extremely personally. Firing at someone is "deadly force" and there's no way to weasel around it. Sure it's deadly force.So what? It's still not being "judge,jury and executioner".There's more than a good chance that you will not die. Thus leaving the ODC open to a lifetime of legal nightmares, apparently. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. True here too: just no need for lots of handguns. Someone breaks into your house, you're allowed to hurt them until they leave, and if they try to come back you can hurt them some more. Just make sure that most of the wounds are in their front, not their back. Well,a handgun is much easier to wield in close quarters than a shotgun, Where are you keeping it while you're asleep? Nunya bidness. and also can be carried on one's person,concealed.Then they get protection while outside the home. Protection from what? It seems you guys live in constant dread. (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". That just shows how one CAN get shot in LONDON,in -nice- places,and that guns(handguns) ARE available in the UK,regardless of the UK gun laws. 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". -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... 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? Last year in fact there was a drop of 16% of robberies involving guns and a drop of 13% in homicides involving firearms. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/guncrime/index.html The same source also points out than only 0.5% of crimes reported to the police involve the use,possession or threat of use of firearms A more telling statistic is that of the number of police officers killed and injured by firearms during the course of their duty. In the 10 years between 1992 and 2002 there were exactly 3 police officers killed and 40 seriously injured. The equivalent figures for the USA are 1,533 killed and 23,000 seriously injured. Perhaps this explains why all the coppers I know prefer tight gun control, none of them are armed themselves of course. Keith |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
: "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... 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? Last year in fact there was a drop of 16% of robberies involving guns and a drop of 13% in homicides involving firearms. How about robberies in general? Or homicides in general? Increase or decrease? http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/guncrime/index.html The same source also points out than only 0.5% of crimes reported to the police involve the use,possession or threat of use of firearms A more telling statistic is that of the number of police officers killed and injured by firearms during the course of their duty. In the 10 years between 1992 and 2002 there were exactly 3 police officers killed and 40 seriously injured. Most criminals know that shooting cops is a really BAD idea. The equivalent figures for the USA are 1,533 killed and 23,000 seriously injured. Perhaps this explains why all the coppers I know prefer tight gun control, none of them are armed themselves of course. Keith -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
: "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. Well,just because YOU are so capable,doesn't mean that everyone else is,nor should they be restricted by your self-limitations. delete elephant nonsense. 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. Exactly;one size does not fit all,different people may need differing levels of security. 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. And yet the same thing can still happen again.If the Yardies can get machine guns,and others make,steal or smuggle in guns,the guns ARE available inthe UK. On the other hand, I can see the many criminals who haven't suffered conviction Are there a lot of those in the UK? In the US,most criminals have long histories of crimes. 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. except that it really does not keep them disarmed. Note the Yardies and other gangs having guns in the UK.If they want them,they can get them. 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. But you may not always die.And that's generally the case as its been in the US.It shouldn't be any different where you are. 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? you seem to think that evey shootout results in everyone dead.It doesn't happen that way. 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? Many of those owning such guns do not have carry permits,and cannot carry them in public,but their homes are much less attacked.The worst places for gun violence in the US are largely where gun control is the strictest. 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. YMMV. (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? It might make you more concerned with what goes on around you.Maybe. 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.) It would not surprise me to find that the UK gov't has classed some crimes as other crimes,skewing the data. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
*White* Helicopters??!!! | Stephen Harding | Military Aviation | 13 | March 9th 04 07:03 PM |
Taiwan to make parts for new Bell military helicopters | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 28th 04 12:12 AM |
Coalition casualties for October | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 16 | November 4th 03 11:14 PM |
Police State | Grantland | Military Aviation | 0 | September 15th 03 12:53 PM |
FA: The Helicopters Are Coming | The Ink Company | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 10th 03 05:53 PM |