Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

Look, here's the deal - I would rather the lady not be burgled in the first
place - as anyone would. However that's trivial. Consider two options,
either neither the lady nor the burglars has a weapon or on the flip side,
they both do. Who is going to come out the better in a shoot out? The
granny? Certainly not, which is why it would be better that there were no
guns involved.

What makes you think if Reagan's ongoing War On Drugs can't shut down the meth
labs in the national forest behind my house that a War On Firearms is going to
be any more successful? We have the longest undefended borders in the world
here. You're an island. Maybe you can make it work. We can't.

Gun related deaths in the UK weighed in at 23 compared to over 10,000 in the
US for a similar time period. Granted, a large proportion of that 10,000 may
be gang related, or there may be other driving factors which are not so much
of an issue in the UK. I'm just speculating. However you look at it,
10,000's just staggering - that's Vietnam in five years.

Our population is several times yours, and it is spread over an area roughly
the size of Europe. The statistics you want, if you're to be honest with
yourself, are the numbers per. 100,000. I vaguely recall that our murder rate is
higher than yours but lower than the Baltic states. In every other sense, your
own society comes off far worse (which simply means you're passing through a
rough economic and demographic patch). Now. What does that tell you about your
prejudices -- and that's what they are -- regarding my people and *my* society?

This ethos of gun totting scares me rigid, how on earth can it be defended?
In the US the number of states permitting the concealed carriage of weapons
has risen from nine to 31 since 1986. That's just a step in the wrong
direction.

Before you get all worked up in this tearful frenzy over what the poor Americans
are inflicting upon themselves, why don't you -- if you really care -- do a bit
of research as to how many legally carried firearms were employed unlawfully
over the past few years?

And: Your understanding of American gun laws seems to be kind off off-kilter. I
can't *lawfully* wave a shotgun at some prick trying to steal my pickup truck.
That's called felony brandishment, and will earn me jail time. On the other
hand, if the sonofabitch comes inside and tries to harm me, it's reassuring to
know I can stop him cold, although I frankly can't fathom that happening in the
first place. Life here is so safe as to be boring.

You also seem to think that mere possession of a firearm makes an otherwise
ordinary human being susceptible to the equivelant of road rage. And if that
were true, Shasta County would be one of the bloodiest places on earth.

I wholeheartedly agree, but wouldn't you prefer those guys to not have ready
access to guns to facilitate those violent crimes?

How do you prevent that by the mere act of outlawing them? It didn't work for
grass or meth.

Or is it their right to
go about their criminal activities safe in the knowledge that they've a
weapon for self protection? Lunacy!

Here you are going off half-cocked again, and excuse me for calling you on it.
Please do go to the FBI's web site -- again, if you actually care -- and do some
research into how many legally-owned firearms were used in the commission of a
crime in the United States last year, or even in the last decade.

Look, I'm not laying out flame-bait for you. I'm not spewing smug rhetoric. I'm
saying, do what I did a few years ago and challenge your own assumptions. After
I got through looking at what the Centers for Disease Control and the Feds said
about gun crime in America, I felt a lot better as a gun owner. I can't recall
the exact figure off the top of my head, but the number is absurdly low. Single
digits of single digits.

I'm not desperately urging you guys to throw down your guns, shout
hallelujahs and join the British way of life.

I know. I know that.

I'm just fascinated as to why
you so readily defend your right to shoot someone where really no right
should exist.

As a mushy-squishy California LibDem who voted for Gore the last time around, I
have to honestly say that is -- to me -- a dismaying, disquieting, illiberal
sentiment, and I cannot fathom your mindset. We are just going to have to agree
to disagree on that one. Viscerally.

And now, having dispensed my Solomon-like wisdom to all and sundry, I will go
out and flop a slab of fresh tuna on the gas grill and make some fish tacos, and
I will sit on the back porch and eat them in the secure knowledge that despit
our guns and drugs and widespread poverty and petty sleazy white-trash
meannesses that Shasta County is *still* safer than Merrie Olde England.

"Jay Stranahan" wrote in message
...
Look, here's the deal - I would rather the lady not be burgled in the
first
place - as anyone would. However that's trivial. Consider two options,
either neither the lady nor the burglars has a weapon or on the flip
side,
they both do. Who is going to come out the better in a shoot out? The
granny? Certainly not, which is why it would be better that there were
no
guns involved.

What makes you think if Reagan's ongoing War On Drugs can't shut down the
meth
labs in the national forest behind my house that a War On Firearms is
going to
be any more successful? We have the longest undefended borders in the
world
here. You're an island. Maybe you can make it work. We can't.

This I understand and agree with - it's not the fact that you have guns that
bothers me, it's the readiness with which you use them in situations that
can be resolved through non lethal means.


Gun related deaths in the UK weighed in at 23 compared to over 10,000 in
the
US for a similar time period. Granted, a large proportion of that 10,000
may
be gang related, or there may be other driving factors which are not so
much
of an issue in the UK. I'm just speculating. However you look at it,
10,000's just staggering - that's Vietnam in five years.

Our population is several times yours, and it is spread over an area
roughly
the size of Europe. The statistics you want, if you're to be honest with
yourself, are the numbers per. 100,000.

The US population is several times larger than that of the UK. The number 23
is not several times smaller than 10,000.

I vaguely recall that our murder rate is
higher than yours but lower than the Baltic states.

Nothing to be proud of.

In every other sense, your
own society comes off far worse (which simply means you're passing through
a
rough economic and demographic patch). Now. What does that tell you about
your
prejudices -- and that's what they are -- regarding my people and *my*
society?


The UK does not come off worse in every other sense - so I'm unclear as to
how this ties in with my own prejudices.


This ethos of gun totting scares me rigid, how on earth can it be
defended?
In the US the number of states permitting the concealed carriage of
weapons
has risen from nine to 31 since 1986. That's just a step in the wrong
direction.

Before you get all worked up in this tearful frenzy over what the poor
Americans
are inflicting upon themselves, why don't you -- if you really care -- do
a bit
of research as to how many legally carried firearms were employed
unlawfully
over the past few years?

Of all the crime statistics for the US I've looked at, I have been unable to
find this information. Maybe you can point me in the right direction?

And: Your understanding of American gun laws seems to be kind off
off-kilter. I
can't *lawfully* wave a shotgun at some prick trying to steal my pickup
truck.
That's called felony brandishment, and will earn me jail time. On the
other
hand, if the sonofabitch comes inside and tries to harm me, it's
reassuring to
know I can stop him cold, although I frankly can't fathom that happening
in the
first place. Life here is so safe as to be boring.

Beyond TV, my understanding of US gun law stems entirely from the NG. Which
has, frankly, been quite worrying. If you'd kill a man over the loss of a
few of your personal possessions - e.g. the pick up thief - then surely that
is beyond felony brandishment and so why would a person not be prosecuted
ofr that man's death? If you wouldn't kill that man, then we are agreed.


You also seem to think that mere possession of a firearm makes an
otherwise
ordinary human being susceptible to the equivelant of road rage. And if
that
were true, Shasta County would be one of the bloodiest places on earth.

I wholeheartedly agree, but wouldn't you prefer those guys to not have
ready
access to guns to facilitate those violent crimes?

How do you prevent that by the mere act of outlawing them? It didn't work
for
grass or meth.

I have not stated that outlawing weapons would solve the gun related murder
rate within the US, in fact I've said it's a ludicrous proposal. My original
question was to ask whether it was worrying that guns are so readily
available to both well meaning ODCs and the average criminal alike.


Or is it their right to
go about their criminal activities safe in the knowledge that they've a
weapon for self protection? Lunacy!

Here you are going off half-cocked again, and excuse me for calling you on
it.
Please do go to the FBI's web site -- again, if you actually care -- and
do some
research into how many legally-owned firearms were used in the commission
of a
crime in the United States last year, or even in the last decade.

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. Obviously if attempting to break the
law, he's in the wrong, and I am unsure of the legalities of carrying a
weapon in such a situation. Up until that point of breaking the law, a
criminal is defended by the US constitution to carry arms. That is lunacy.
There is nothing, as far as I am aware, in your 2nd amendment that says you
must be a well-meaning chap with 2.4 kids.

Look, I'm not laying out flame-bait for you. I'm not spewing smug
rhetoric. I'm
saying, do what I did a few years ago and challenge your own assumptions.
After
I got through looking at what the Centers for Disease Control and the Feds
said
about gun crime in America, I felt a lot better as a gun owner. I can't
recall
the exact figure off the top of my head, but the number is absurdly low.
Single
digits of single digits.

I am not intentionally obtuse, and I sincerely hope that I have not given a
bigoted impression. Over the last 24 hours I have read and appreciated a
large number of well composed and logical arguments, many of which counter
my opinions of gun crime and ownership. As a result, I can now see why you
would keep a gun for home and personal protection - resulting from the US
gun culture which is simply not an issue in the UK. I've respect for Dan,
who clearly has his head screwed on straight - having worked with the NRA to
promote gun awareness and safety, he's said guns aren't the shortcut answer
to everything. Ticks in boxes. Yet other posters have demonstrated a
shocking disregard the life of a fellow human being, albeit a dirty 'badguy'
criminal.

It's the flagrant willingness to kill, coupled with such a low regard for
the gravity of murder, that really gets me.

I'm not desperately urging you guys to throw down your guns, shout
hallelujahs and join the British way of life.

I know. I know that.

I'm just fascinated as to why
you so readily defend your right to shoot someone where really no right
should exist.

As a mushy-squishy California LibDem who voted for Gore the last time
around, I
have to honestly say that is -- to me -- a dismaying, disquieting,
illiberal
sentiment, and I cannot fathom your mindset. We are just going to have to
agree
to disagree on that one. Viscerally.

I'll tell the crusaders to unpack their bags.

And now, having dispensed my Solomon-like wisdom to all and sundry, I will
go
out and flop a slab of fresh tuna on the gas grill and make some fish
tacos, and
I will sit on the back porch and eat them in the secure knowledge that
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.

Jim Doyle

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 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
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.

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.

Prejudice again, and this one angers me. 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?

What's the rate of hot burglaries in Britain? 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. 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.

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.

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.

"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

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"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.

Even with a gun ban,there's nothing to stop him from obtaining an illegal
gun,either homemade,or smuggled,or stolen from legal sources. What you are
seeking is "prior restraint",and laws don't work that way.they provide for
punishment AFTER a crime's been committed.And people intending to commit
crimes do not obey laws;the very definition of "criminal".Even in the
UK,those who -want- guns can get them.Your crooks just don't see the need
as they are well protected by your restrictive self-defense laws,that only
restrict law abiding citizens,or ODCs.They can burgle with near
impunity,especially if they choose their victims to be weak.As long as they
are not identified,they can escape and not get caught.

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.

Using the best tool for the job,a gun.A tool that nearly everyone can use
equally,and with the least risk to themselves.And one that greatly
increases the risk for the criminal.

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.'

Well,you again try to emotionalize with the term "murder",which does not
apply in self-defense.If one is trying to "citizen's arrest" the
criminal,and he resists,then it's not murder,either.


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.

well,some of us do not consider some thefts to be "petty crime".We work
hard to own some items,and the crooks have no right to them,or to be safe
while trying to take them illegally.

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?

Your neighbor could have a gallon of petrol and want to burn your house
down with you in it,too. Or they might want to run you down with their
auto,or maybe stab you with their knives,or club you with a cricket bat.
Are you so afraid of your neighbors?

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.

But much of that is from criminal-criminal shootings,generally drug-
related.And there's no evidence that returning gun ownership in the UK
would result in a dramatic increase in gun violence,just as there was no
decrease in such violence when your gun control laws were enacted.Your
society is just more peaceable than ours,and it's not because of the guns.

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?


Yes,and such events STILL can happen in the UK. I note that the Yardies
have machine guns,and people still make homemade guns;that's why UK is
banning replica guns,and people can and do drive back from Eastern Europe
with guns bought there,where they are plentiful.I suspect that one can find
guns for sale in most UK cities,if you know where or who to go to.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Jay Stranahan wrote:

SNIP
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
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.


This only applies to convicted felons.. nothing to stop someone who has
never been convicted from legally owning and carrying a firearm in the
course of his 'employment'... there might be problems if he is caught in
the act while armed... but maybe he shoots his way free and continue as
a non felon.


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.

No, its a willingness to kill. I can defend myself in my house without
having a gun. Using a gun for self defence implies you are prepared to
use it. If you are prepared to use a firearm, then you are prepared to
kill... you can't guarantee that a shot will not kill...

SNIP

Kerryn Offord wrote in
:



Jay Stranahan wrote:

SNIP
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 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.


This only applies to convicted felons.. nothing to stop someone who
has never been convicted from legally owning and carrying a firearm in
the course of his 'employment'... there might be problems if he is
caught in the act while armed... but maybe he shoots his way free and
continue as a non felon.


If they commit a felony crime,they ARE a felon,merely one that has not been
caught,tried and convicted yet.And there ARE laws against the improper use
of firearms.Now if a police officer confronts such an armed criminal,and he
resists arrest,and the officer shoots the crook,it's NOT murder.It's NOT
judge,jury,and executioner,either.Why should it be any different for the
ODC?



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.

No, its a willingness to kill. I can defend myself in my house without
having a gun. Using a gun for self defence implies you are prepared to
use it. If you are prepared to use a firearm, then you are prepared to
kill... you can't guarantee that a shot will not kill...

SNIP



Well,so WHAT if a criminal in your home gets killed?
It just makes people that much safer.And it helps insure that your hard-
earned possessions and perhaps even your lives stay in your hands.

Just because YOU think you can defend yourself in your home without
firearms does not mean others are so capable,or that they should bear such
risks because of how YOU feel.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

In article ,
on Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:54:45 +1200,
Kerryn Offord attempted to say .....


This only applies to convicted felons.. nothing to stop someone who has
never been convicted from legally owning and carrying a firearm in the
course of his 'employment'... there might be problems if he is caught in
the act while armed... but maybe he shoots his way free and continue as
a non felon.


If someone wants to kill you what makes you think they have to have a gun to
do it ?

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Tank Fixer wrote:

In article ,
on Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:54:45 +1200,
Kerryn Offord attempted to say .....


This only applies to convicted felons.. nothing to stop someone who has
never been convicted from legally owning and carrying a firearm in the
course of his 'employment'... there might be problems if he is caught in
the act while armed... but maybe he shoots his way free and continue as
a non felon.



If someone wants to kill you what makes you think they have to have a gun to
do it ?


No reason, but in this thread its been suggested that the guy breaking
into your house is illegally carrying a weapon.....


Probably more people die from application of a blunt instrument than die
from firearms (lets restrict this to individual cases of murder, not the
rampages such as Rwanda... where machetes find a niche)

Kerryn Offord wrote in
:



Tank Fixer wrote:

In article ,
on Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:54:45 +1200,
Kerryn Offord attempted to say .....


This only applies to convicted felons.. nothing to stop someone who
has never been convicted from legally owning and carrying a firearm
in the course of his 'employment'... there might be problems if he is
caught in the act while armed... but maybe he shoots his way free and
continue as a non felon.



If someone wants to kill you what makes you think they have to have a
gun to do it ?


No reason, but in this thread its been suggested that the guy breaking
into your house is illegally carrying a weapon.....


Or he could pick up some item from your home to use as a weapon.
Even his bare hands can kill.
Or worse,you could be crippled,paralyzed from the neck down.


Probably more people die from application of a blunt instrument than
die from firearms (lets restrict this to individual cases of murder,
not the rampages such as Rwanda... where machetes find a niche)





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net