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 |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message ... Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than the legal mechanics of private gun ownership. I believe that to be only a recent (i.e. past century) issue. Until WW2 I think it was legal for UK residents to own firearms, but as someone else said they were mainly long-barrelled weapons for sport or hunting. The hand gun has no other purpose than to shoot other people. Being a Brit myself, I actually wish we did have the right to bear arms, at least on our own property, and the legal back up to use them if necessary. But, (and this is where I give the US population credit they deserve but very often don't get), is that I don't believe the UK population has the respect for those weapons tha they deserve. They've just not been part of our social landscape. If they were to legalise the ownership of hand guns tomorrow in a similar manner to US laws, gun crime and accidental shootings would (I believe) go through the roof as the current generation overcame the novelty value of owning a "piece". Si |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 04:08:39 GMT, "tim gueguen" wrote:
"Evan Brennan" wrote in message om... "tim gueguen" wrote in message news:PCAic.247951$oR5.203713@pd7tw3no... "Evan Brennan" wrote in message ... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... Most criminals know that shooting cops is a really BAD idea. Yet around 150 are killed and 230 injured in the US every year and US cops are armed while British police typically are not. I prefer things our way. Your way didn't work too well in Northern Ireland. You mean that place they sent the Army into. Good point. The US Army certainly does not patrol my neighborhood, city or state. No need to. Because no part of the US has had a bunch of terrorist bombers running around blowing things up for years. If say one of the militia groups had engaged in a sustained and effect campaign of terror in Michigan you'd see soldiers patrolling the street there as well. The US has been fortunate that its terrorists have either been relatively limited in their actual activities, or have proven ineffectual at anything beyond simple crime, like the Order in the mid '80s. The US has never had a terrorist group as operationally effective as the IRA or the Red Brigades. tim gueguen 101867 And we never will. We live under the rule of law, and have an armed citizenry that will not tolerate such madness. Al Minyard |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:14:00 +1200, Kerryn Offord wrote:
Alan Minyard wrote: On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:47:53 +1200, Kerryn Offord wrote: Jim Yanik wrote: SNIP Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as the police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.The police failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so. Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their crimes. SNIP This is simply attempted murder. The target was no threat and was departing, but the householder shot him anyway (that makes it vindictive). If the householder had just shot the guy in the chest when he first confronted him.... It seems to come down to a difference in attitudes. Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest bit of property). Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different). Of course, now that NZ has given up defending itself you will be awfully grateful when rough men with guns show up to carry the burden. Confusing humanity for an unwillingness to defend oneself in a game for fools. Al Minyard What makes you say NZ has given up defending itself? There is a world of difference between defending yourself, which NZers have no problem with, and shooting as a first response... and also not being careful about where you are shooting (today's news story about 4 Iraqi school children being shot by US forces when they rushed out of school to look at the Humvee that had been blown up.... is this the kind of defending we are expected to be grateful for?) NZs defence force is about 12000 from a population of ~4 million (0.3% of pop) This equates to a USA (pop ~300 million) or 900,000.... Ok, so relatively speaking, we are under protected (there is one regular infantry battalion per 2 million..so does the US have 150 infantry battalions? OTOH... most enlist for more than a single 4 year tour (average more experienced soldiers....) Well, you have no air force, no real navy, no effective army, I would say that is pretty much the definition of defenseless. NZ has given up its status as a respectable nation. Cowards. Al Minyard |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
"Simon Robbins" wrote in message ... "Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message ... Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than the legal mechanics of private gun ownership. I believe that to be only a recent (i.e. past century) issue. Until WW2 I think it was legal for UK residents to own firearms, but as someone else said they were mainly long-barrelled weapons for sport or hunting. The hand gun has no other purpose than to shoot other people. It still is legal to own long arms, shotgun certificates arent that hard to get and even rifles can be had as long as they arent military assault weapons. As a child of the 50's weapons brought back as trophies from WW2 were not uncommon. The father of one school friend had at least 2 german machine pistols as well as a Luger. Being a Brit myself, I actually wish we did have the right to bear arms, at least on our own property, and the legal back up to use them if necessary. But, (and this is where I give the US population credit they deserve but very often don't get), is that I don't believe the UK population has the respect for those weapons tha they deserve. They've just not been part of our social landscape. If they were to legalise the ownership of hand guns tomorrow in a similar manner to US laws, gun crime and accidental shootings would (I believe) go through the roof as the current generation overcame the novelty value of owning a "piece". In rural areas shotguns are commonplace and the stringent regulations regarding their storage are the result of 2 factors 1) Accidental discharges of 'unloaded' weapons 2) Theft There was a period in the 70's when rural farms were the source of firearms for city based villains, far from protecting their owners from burglary they attracted unwelcome attention. Keith |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Minyard" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 04:08:39 GMT, "tim gueguen" wrote: And we never will. We live under the rule of law, and have an armed citizenry that will not tolerate such madness. Are the WTC bombing , the Oklahoma City Bombing and the events of Sept 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks supposed to be examples of successful US counter terrorism ? Fact is the US was protected by little more than geography. In 1996 I visited Washington DC and was astounded at how LITTLE security there was with not even the most basic precautions in place. I was able to wander around the Capitol with no scannning or check of bags going in. Planting a dozen IRA style thermite bombs would have been trivial. Keith |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Keith Willshaw wrote:
Fact is the US was protected by little more than geography. In 1996 I visited Washington DC and was astounded at how LITTLE security there was with not even the most basic precautions in place. I was able to wander around the Capitol with no scannning or check of bags going in. Planting a dozen IRA style thermite bombs would have been trivial. I'm not certain that was a bad thing. Perhaps surprising when coming from a location with terror activity, but not necessarily from a domestic POV. Once upon a time, a new President would open up the White House to the citizenry and you could go shake his hand (and perhaps try to get a job with the new administration). Security issues deep sixed that quite a while ago. Parking in front of the WH, or even driving down PA Ave is now history as well, and on and on it goes. One either under-reacts or over-reacts. Can't really say which response is preferable, but it is certainly understandable that with limited resources, you spend money where it will hopefully have the best effect, and filling US airports with soldiers or aircraft flights with undercover sky marshals, in a non-terror environment doesn't seem a spectacular waste of money to me. Of course the WTC cost $billions and after the fact, even a modest application of better security would have more than paid for itself. It's tough keeping a balanced perspective on what needs to be done. The terrorists have all the advantages. SMH |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
|
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Harding wrote in news:408d9b76@news-
1.oit.umass.edu: Of course the WTC cost $billions and after the fact, even a modest application of better security would have more than paid for itself. Just some decent border security would have helped. IIRC,some of those 9-11 guys had overstayed their visas. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Yanik wrote: SNIP The US military is prohibited by LAW from operating inside the US. (Posse Comitatus,IIRC) Bsides,the police SWAT teams,FBI and BATF-troop are all very close to military capabilities.Now the National Guard (considered today's militia) could be deployed. Although,IMO,they are merely part of the ordinary US military. Which makes one wonder a bit about Delta and SEAL 6. They were counter terrorism units, but where were they supposed to operate? They couldn't operate in the US, and a lot of other countries wouldn't let them through, let alone operate in their country. Were they available for the olympics (LA and Atlanta)? Or was that solely an FBI (et al) thing? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |