Scotland: Ban on sale of swords
Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum)
of our own government to destroy our cultural traditions and to strip
citizens of their freedom and liberty!
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=637&id=1180732006
Michael Martin - HLF
Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum)
http://www.himalayan-imports.com/kami.html
Michael Martin - HLF
tedo...@hotmail.com
Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum) wrote:
White folk of the British Isles should either foment a revolution, a
miliary coup perhaps, or simply organize and carry-out a mass suicide.
What degeneracy!
ted
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum) wrote:
"However, it is understood that exceptions will be made for weapons
required for religious, cultural or sporting purposes."
Hmmm....
38
A wayfarer should not walk unarmed,
But have his weapons to hand:
He knows not when he may need a spear,
Or what menace meet on the road.
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy
You're an idiot.
Nik
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
landno...@hotmail.com
treated as a child by the government who are put in place to serve US.
Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum)
landno...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Vote for the BNP next time, they will restore the right not to be
> treated as a child by the government who are put in place to serve US.
The BNP is an extreme right wing collectivist outfit, modelled on the
historical German Nazi Party (NSDAP). The various factions of the U.S.
Nazi Party / KKK / other white supremacists frequently give lipservice
to the 1st and 2nd Amendments. But it was their idol, Adolf Hitler, who
stripped the German people of their right to be armed and who outlawed
freedom of speech. Both fundamental rights have been denied to the
German citizens to the very day! Considering this, I am rather
sceptical when representatives of Nazi outfits promise to restore ou
civil rights they have taken from us 70 odd years ago! Sorry mate, but
I simply see no reason why I should trust the BNP any more than the
thugs from Labour, LibDem or the Tories!
Michael Martin - HLF
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy
>Vote for the BNP next time
Not bloody likely...the BNP are a bunch of racist bastards.
PPCB
allan connochie
<> Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum) wrote:
> > This is yet another outragious attempt being made by the vile tyranny
> > of our own government to destroy our cultural traditions and to strip
> > citizens of their freedom and liberty!
> > http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=637&id=1180732006
> >
> > Michael Martin - HLF
Why? Exceptions are to be made for swords when used for cultural, religious
or sporting reasons. Hence our cultural traditions shouldn't be affected.
Allan
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
And what does that mean, precisely?
Who, or what 'official' body, is going to issue govt approved
certificates permitting the purchase of such weapons?
Who gets to decide what is a 'legitimate reason'?
If it's anyone, then the law is totally redundant - hey! I'm a 27th
grade superninja, and here's the certificate I printed out for myself
this morning - so give me a sword.
And it gets worse when 'religious' reasons are to be cited. Who gets to
decide on legitimate religious practices? Is there to be a list of
officially recognised religions complete with 'ruling bodies'?
FFF
Dirk
Telmey
connochie" <al...@EASYNET.CO.UK> wrote :
Does that mean you can have them for racist, sectarian and do those
two make it a sports.......... if you chase your victim?
Tel.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> Learn how to make your own knives.Check
> http://www.himalayan-imports.com/kami.html
>
> Michael Martin - HLF
>
I rather think the govt is going to lose this one. Ditto drugs - even
people in prison can get hold of them. Still, doesn't stop the govt
making peoples lives a misery by trying.
FFF
Dirk
allan connochie
"Telmey" <telmey哦ntlworld.moc> wrote in message
news:3gv9e29es5n3746ir...@4ax.com...
Well what the measure is supposed to counter is the sight on our news
reports of gangs of sword weilding youths chasing each other through the
streets before taking lumps out of each other. The original post suggested
the move was against our cultural traditions etc. I'd challenge that. It may
not go down well with certain folks in other parts of the world but it is a
fact that culturally Britain has been more restrictive as far as personal
weapons go. The idea is generally accepted here (though I know it is
disputed elsewhere but we're looking at the British point of view) that the
restriction of firearms is a benefit to keeping gun crime low. Following
that logic then making swords harder to come by should at least help
Scotland (more particularly Glasgow and environs) in its fight against the
blade culture.
There must be opposition to the move of course but personally speaking I've
not come across much. As far it goes it is important that people who have
swords for genuine cultural, religious, collecting or sporting reasons
whould be allowed and I can imagine that they want to make sure they are
allowed to do so. Apart from that as far as I can see there is no problem.
Allan
Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum)
allan connochie wrote:
> Well what the measure is supposed to counter is the sight on our news
> reports of gangs of sword weilding youths chasing each other through the
> streets before taking lumps out of each other. The original post suggested
> the move was against our cultural traditions etc. I'd challenge that. It may
> not go down well with certain folks in other parts of the world but it is a
> fact that culturally Britain has been more restrictive as far as personal
> weapons go. The idea is generally accepted here (though I know it is
> disputed elsewhere but we're looking at the British point of view) that the
> restriction of firearms is a benefit to keeping gun crime low. Following
> that logic then making swords harder to come by should at least help
> Scotland (more particularly Glasgow and environs) in its fight against the
> blade culture.
>
> There must be opposition to the move of course but personally speaking I've
> not come across much. As far it goes it is important that people who have
> swords for genuine cultural, religious, collecting or sporting reasons
> whould be allowed and I can imagine that they want to make sure they are
> allowed to do so. Apart from that as far as I can see there is no problem.
>
>
> Allan
What's known as "gun control" in the U.S. was virtually unknown in most
European countries, including U.K., up to about 80 to 100 years ago.
European governments only started to introduce sweeping anti-gun laws
in the first quarter of the 20th century. They got away with doing so,
since unlike in the U.S., the 'right to be armed' has never been
enshrined in any European constitution (Britain even hasn't got her own
constitution to the very day!) Switzerland is the only European country
officially still giving some vague lipservice to the right of citizens
to be armed. But this right is only enshrined in Swiss law, and not in
the Swiss constitution. Therefore it's a rather weak right and can be
revoked at any time with a majority vote of the Swiss parliament.
Gun or knife control is as alien to us Europeans as to U.S. citizens.
The only difference is that Americans, or at least some factions of
the U.S. population, still start kicking ass when the Feds try to
undermine and revoke some of their traditional rights and freedom,
while here in any European country the governments seem to enjoy a free
hand to do whatever they like without having to worry too much about a
public backlash. Sadly, Europeans have developed to slave mentality,
submitting themselves completely to the will of our corrupt politicians
and government institutions. Therefore I am not surprised that nobody
in Scotland is prepared to stand up against this outragious law.
And I actually dispute the fact that societies where ordinary citizens
are stripped of their right to be armed are safer than those countries
where this right still exists. Gun crime has been on a steady increase
in the U.K. inspite of a total ban on private ownership of handguns
that was enforced in the mid 1990's. Britain has not become a safer
place wthout legally owned firearms, as the government
propagandapromised us then. Far from it!
Michael Martin
bowman
> Well what the measure is supposed to counter is the sight on our news
> reports of gangs of sword weilding youths chasing each other through the
> streets before taking lumps out of each other.
So now they will move to hurley sticks and bicycle chains; as usual banning
the incidentals does nothing to correct the basic problem.
Falcon
> allan connochie wrote:
>
>> Well what the measure is supposed to counter is the sight on our news
>> reports of gangs of sword weilding youths chasing each other through the
>> streets before taking lumps out of each other.
>
> So now they will move to hurley sticks and bicycle chains; as usual
> banning the incidentals does nothing to correct the basic problem.
Which is that some of those who have them use them to kill or maim people.
Yes, I can see it's a bloody tricky problem.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
'Blunt Instruments' I expect we will see new panicked newpaper articles
screaming for a ban on their sale.
Moronic sheep get the government they deserve.
Scotland doubly so.
FFF
Dirk
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:4klvtnF...@individual.net:
> using sharp instruments - such as swords, machettes and knives.
ie knives.
No excuse for selling knives with points, is there?
Or even sharp knives come to that.
And craft knives are right out - they are certainly not necessary in
normal life. In fact, they were instrumental in the biggest instance of
terrorist mass murder in history.
BTW, I carry a sharp pointed knife with me at all times quite legally,
as one is allowed to do under English law.
FFF
Dirk
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>
>> Pat Roller wrote:
>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:4klvtnF...@individual.net:
>>>
>>>> Falcon wrote:
>>>>> bowman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> allan connochie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well what the measure is supposed to counter is the sight on our
>>>>>>> news reports of gangs of sword weilding youths chasing each other
>>>>>>> through the streets before taking lumps out of each other.
>>>>>> So now they will move to hurley sticks and bicycle chains; as usual
>>>>>> banning the incidentals does nothing to correct the basic problem.
>>>>> Which is that some of those who have them use them to kill or maim
>>>>> people. Yes, I can see it's a bloody tricky problem.
>>>>>
>>>> Since a vast amount of violence seems to be committed by people using
>>>> 'Blunt Instruments' I expect we will see new panicked newpaper
>>>> articles screaming for a ban on their sale.
>>> The vast majority of the most extreme violence is committed by people
>>> using sharp instruments - such as swords, machettes and knives.
>> ie knives.
>> No excuse for selling knives with points, is there?
>
> is, doesn't it? Machettes don't have much utility in SCotland
> due to its lack of jungle, but they do have a utility with
> the local neds as a weapon. Any particular reason you'd want
> to make it easy for thugs to get their hands on these weapons?
Because it makes it easy for me to get my hands on them. Especially
because I can afford the kind of *real* sword that will cut someone in
half instead of just hacking them up a bit (like most crap imitation
katanas).
Or, in my case, restock if I break one.
And yes, I do have a machete and I do use it for woodland cutting. It is
ideal for lopping off branches too small to make a saw or axe necessary.
I also have a good collection of weapons that may, or actually have,
become illegal over the past few years. Trouble is, I can't recall where
I placed my butterfly knife... Still, I can get another through the post
from a friend in France.
And as an addendum, if I planned to kill someone with a knife I'd use a
butcher knife, not an Evil Rambo Combat Knife, because it is easier to
stick someone fatally with the former than the latter. They also cut
meat much better as well.
FFF
Dirk
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Pat Roller wrote:
> Machettes don't have much utility in SCotland
> due to its lack of jungle, but they do have a utility with
> the local neds as a weapon. Any particular reason you'd want
> to make it easy for thugs to get their hands on these weapons?
Because a thug brandishing a machette is easily cut down by a regular
schmoe packing a concealed .45.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Yet I'm one of the people who will still have complete access to all
that 'banned' weaponry - I'm a martial arts instructor and could also
cite religious reasons.
>> And yes, I do have a machete and I do use it for woodland cutting.
>> It is ideal for lopping off branches too small to make a saw or
>> axe necessary.
>
> So it'll be standard issue in the forestry or council parks and gardens
> departments, who do a lot of that thing, yes?
I've no idea, but I certainly find it handy.
Still, as I said (and from a professional POV) killing someone is better
done with a butcher/kitchen knife than the type that will be banned.
I wouldn't mind betting that your Scottish ban will have absolutely no
statistical effect on killings in Scotland, except perhaps to skew the
stats towards other weapons.
FFF
Dirk
Ian Smith
news:4klvtnF...@individual.net...
Why doubly so for Scotland? Is this country a special case with twice
the usual amount of bad things allocated to it?
R.Peffers.
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4km3isF...@individual.net...
many USA state laws but does that make it a good law?
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
(When replying take pam away from peffers.
Scotland).
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Twice the allocation of crap government.
Pity you don't have the balls to vote for independence.
"Ye can take away our freedom but ye cannae take our grants..."
FFF
Dirk
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> many USA state laws but does that make it a good law?
No laws are 'good' laws.
It's just that some are worse than others.
FFF
Dirk
R.Peffers.
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4km9cmF...@individual.net...
you and probably break your arm in the process if he/she felt like it.
There is nothing clever about the use of weapons, any fool can get them and
any fool can use them. Most of the users are usually fools too.
R.Peffers.
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4kmbk5F...@individual.net...
say too much about it. The mouthy ones are usually cowards attempting to
boost their egos.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> say too much about it. The mouthy ones are usually cowards attempting to
> boost their egos.
I have said nothing about me killing people.
The reference above is to the fact that I have been a martial arts
teacher for more than 25yrs.
FFF
Dirk
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> you and probably break your arm in the process if he/she felt like it.
No.
www.neopax.com
I *am* such a person.
> There is nothing clever about the use of weapons, any fool can get them and
> any fool can use them. Most of the users are usually fools too.
Using the right weapon effectively, does, despite your ignorance, take
skill. As does *not* killing someone with a weapon.
FFF
Dirk
R.Peffers.
up there with the maist donnert.
PLONK!
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
I guess that's one of your Scottish nutters who keeps lists of rules and
regulations for his family to obey.
FFF
Dirk
allan connochie
"bowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
news:1155908...@corp.com...
> allan connochie wrote:
>
> > Well what the measure is supposed to counter is the sight on our news
> > reports of gangs of sword weilding youths chasing each other through the
> > streets before taking lumps out of each other.
>
> So now they will move to hurley sticks and bicycle chains; as usual
banning
> the incidentals does nothing to correct the basic problem.
Of course restricting weapons doesn't reduce the violence but it may well
reduce the degree. The fact remains that no-one not using it for sporting,
cultural or true collecting reasons needs for instance a samurai sword. A
bicylce chain can be used as a weapon but it is not specifically a weapon.
Certain swords and other blades are. It is all a matter of opinion though. I
concede that. My main point was that as far as I can see it's not Scots who
appear to be the main moaners when it comes to control of weapons here. The
thread initially suggests that it's something being foisted on us. It isn't!
Most folk I have spoken too generally support the principle of restricting
the ownership of these weapons.
Allan
allan connochie
"Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum)" <NVN_O...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:1155900908....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
But the fact that the British, and here more specifically the Scots, don't
have the specific right to be armed shows the cultural differences between
the US and Scotland. That was the whole point I was making. The UK of course
does have a constitution and it is daft to suggest otherwise. It is not a US
style single rigid written constitution but it is a constitution just the
same.
Switzerland is the only European country
> officially still giving some vague lipservice to the right of citizens
> to be armed. But this right is only enshrined in Swiss law, and not in
> the Swiss constitution. Therefore it's a rather weak right and can be
> revoked at any time with a majority vote of the Swiss parliament.
> Gun or knife control is as alien to us Europeans as to U.S. citizens.
> The only difference is that Americans, or at least some factions of
> the U.S. population, still start kicking ass when the Feds try to
> undermine and revoke some of their traditional rights and freedom,
> while here in any European country the governments seem to enjoy a free
> hand to do whatever they like without having to worry too much about a
> public backlash. Sadly, Europeans have developed to slave mentality,
> submitting themselves completely to the will of our corrupt politicians
> and government institutions. Therefore I am not surprised that nobody
> in Scotland is prepared to stand up against this outragious law.
The vast majority of people here wouldn't view it that way though. It is
generally accepted that, for instance, restricting the ownership of guns
keeps gun crime down. Hence everyone in society is potentially much safer.
The UK is a crime ridden society yet murders and homicides are far less
common here than they are in the US. Hence though some may argue against
this logic you'll find it hard to persuade the vast majority of Brits that
it isn't a sensible policy.
>
> And I actually dispute the fact that societies where ordinary citizens
> are stripped of their right to be armed are safer than those countries
> where this right still exists. Gun crime has been on a steady increase
> in the U.K. inspite of a total ban on private ownership of handguns
> that was enforced in the mid 1990's. Britain has not become a safer
> place wthout legally owned firearms, as the government
> propagandapromised us then. Far from it!
Gun crime has substantially increased but it has increased from a very low
base. Compared with the US it is still insignificant and much gun crime here
actually involves replicas.
Allan
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Most people are morons which is why we have the press and politicians we
deserve.
FFF
Dirk
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy
wrote:
>Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:4klvtnF...@individual.net:
>
>The vast majority of the most extreme violence is committed by people
>using sharp instruments - such as swords, machettes and knives.
A young woman in New Zealand had her hand cut off by a loony with a
katana...methamphetamines have a lot to answer for.
Nik
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy
Could you quote the statute please? It probably also exists in New
Zealand law if its present in British law.
Nik
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy
You, sir, are commenting in obvious ignorance. Mr Bruere is a highly
competent martial artist.
>There is nothing clever about the use of weapons, any fool can get them and
>any fool can use them. Most of the users are usually fools too.
Dirk is making serious points but you seem determined to attack straw
men. Why is that please?
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy
Making them sit on the ground whilst passing you their weapon is, to
me, the best and most moral outcome.
In the course of my work I've had cause to deal with people wielding
weapons...in none of those cases did *anyone* end up injured and the
violent tempers were resolved.
I'm proud of that fact.
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy
Robert...you've made up a fair amount of bs to back up your prejudices
because thats what they are. I know Dirk personally and you've got him
quite wrong. Have a look through his site at http://www.neopax.com/
and you will find evidence that contradicts your assertions.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4kmbk5F...@individual.net...
.
>>> And yes, I do have a machete and I do use it for woodland cutting. It is
>>> ideal for lopping off branches too small to make a saw or axe necessary.
>>
>> So it'll be standard issue in the forestry or council parks and gardens
>> departments, who do a lot of that thing, yes?
Yes. Or at least it is in Forestry. It's the standard tool for 'brashing' -
removing the lower 2M or so of small side-branches from young conifirs so
they have less knots present in the final timber. I also used one in
landscaping contracts for years.
Not quite sure if technically it's a 'machete' but it's so close in design
it might as well be.
> I've no idea, but I certainly find it handy.
> Still, as I said (and from a professional POV) killing someone is better
> done with a butcher/kitchen knife than the type that will be banned.
I would agree. The best knife is one your attacker doesn't know you're
carrying.
These big 'Rambo' knives etc., are mainly bravado supports for teenage
****wits who probably wouldn't have a clue how to use them.
I have just moved to a pretty dodgy town and for the first time in over 20
years I've taken to carrying a small sharp-pointed kitchen knife in a
pocket.
I found (when retreat was cut off) that producing this (coupled with a
convincing impression of a completely demented, screaming
'c'mon-then,-make-my-****ing-day' psychopath) often had an amazing effect on
pimply youths sporting blunt, unwieldy Rambo-props.
In this situation the important thing is not how big one's knife is but just
how radio rental one appears to be.
It doesn't *always* work though. I've got an old knife scar on my hip to
prove that this approach is not entirely infallable.
A W-S
Adam Whyte-Settlar
I would agree about them not having the balls but you're wrong about the
grants.
It's much more complicated than it appears and Scotland more than pays it's
way.
It's England that needs it's own parliament and independance but doesn't
want to lose access to Scotland's resources.
It's pretty obvious really - if Scotland really were such a drain on England
why do most English politicians fight tooth and nail to keep her in the
Union.
The Scottish parliament has also been reasonably good for the people of
Scotland - unlike the UK parliament at Westminster.
A W-S
bowman
> Robert...you've made up a fair amount of bs to back up your prejudices
> because thats what they are.
You talking to me? You talking to me?
bowman
> And as an addendum, if I planned to kill someone with a knife I'd use a
> butcher knife, not an Evil Rambo Combat Knife, because it is easier to
> stick someone fatally with the former than the latter.
There was an expression in early 19th century America, "up to the Green
River." Green River made general purpose kitchen knives which were favored
by the trappers and frontiersmen. The Green River logo was near the hilt,
so sticking it into someone's gut that far was a good job.
Personally, I prefer Ontario French knives, available at any department
store. Up to the Ontario on a 8" French is 6" -- 2" further than I can get
with my SpyderCo folder and it's a lot sturdier than my Fairbairn-Sykes
though it doesn't have a classic style.
Scott Lowther
>I have just moved to a pretty dodgy town and for the first time in over 20
>years I've taken to carrying a small sharp-pointed kitchen knife in a
>pocket.
>I found (when retreat was cut off) that producing this (coupled with a
>convincing impression of a completely demented, screaming
>'c'mon-then,-make-my-****ing-day' psychopath) often had an amazing effect on
>pimply youths sporting blunt, unwieldy Rambo-props.
>
>
I'd recommend, instead of the knife, something like a Taurus PT-145.
It's .45 caliber, hold ten rounds, and easily fits in your pocket.
Unlike a knife, in a darkened environment the simple *sound* of the
slide being racked on a good automatic is unmistakable, and will
generally bring the proceedings to an abrupt end. And if worst comes to
it, being .45 it's a true manstopper (especailly with hollowpoints or
black Talon type rounds), and you don't *need* to get into a tussle.
I've put a great many rounds through mine, and it has always ran just
fine. Even has a rail underneath to mount a laser or a tac light; shine
one of these in your assailants face, and *that* could well be adequate.
They'll know what it means, *and* it'll temporarily blind them.
I wouldn't go with anything smaller than .380 caliber. Even 9mm is
questionable... if you're up against soemone on drugs, it just won't be
up to the task.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
news:anwFg.7946$oa1....@news02.roc.ny...
> Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
>
>>I have just moved to a pretty dodgy town and for the first time in over 20
>>years I've taken to carrying a small sharp-pointed kitchen knife in a
>>pocket.
>>I found (when retreat was cut off) that producing this (coupled with a
>>convincing impression of a completely demented, screaming
>>'c'mon-then,-make-my-****ing-day' psychopath) often had an amazing effect
>>on pimply youths sporting blunt, unwieldy Rambo-props.
>>
>
> I'd recommend, instead of the knife, something like a Taurus PT-145.
The traditional legal weapon in the UK is the dear old shotgun.
Great at short/medium range and, unlike the 45s, can also be used for
hunting rabbits at the weekend.
However, in general the UK is a far more civilised country and it's citizens
have never felt so paranoid and insecure as to require more handguns than
head of population.
This goes some way to explaining why most British people do not get
accidentily shot by incompetent gun-owners in their own family - one of the
more common causes of gunshot wounds in the US I understand.
I've nothing against responsible gun-ownership per se. After all the Swiss
have more guns per head than the US and one of the lowest levels of gunshot
fatalities.
But gun-ownership to boost chronic low self-esteem by immature and paranoid
****wits is another matter, as the obscene level of fatalities in the US
illustrates.
Just my opinion.
A W-S
Scott Lowther
>
>The traditional legal weapon in the UK is the dear old shotgun.
>Great at short/medium range and, unlike the 45s, can also be used for
>hunting rabbits at the weekend.
>
>
Depends on the rabbit.
>However, in general the UK is a far more civilised country
>
Snort.
http://www.outlookindia.com/images/london_prophet_cartoon_protest_060206.jpg
Yeah.
>and it's citizens
>have never felt so paranoid and insecure as to require more handguns than
>head of population.
>
>
Ah, yes. "The only reason why someone would want a gun is because they
are paranoid and insecure."
The attitude of someone who has never taken a tommygun, a Mare's Leg and
a Storm to the range and spent an enjoyable afternoon.
>This goes some way to explaining why most British people do not get
>accidentily shot by incompetent gun-owners in their own family - one of the
>more common causes of gunshot wounds in the US I understand.
>
>
So you're saying that gunshot wounds in the US *aren't* mostly caused by
criminality, but by accident. Well, most sports or automotive accidents
are caused bya ccidents, not criminality. Thus, banning guns, sports and
cars due to accidents holds the same logic.
>But gun-ownership to boost chronic low self-esteem by immature and paranoid
>****wits is another matter, as the obscene level of fatalities in the US
>illustrates.
>
>
Ah, no. But thanks for playing the role of ignorant and arrogant Eurine,
who has a complete lack of understanding of the *vast* cultural
differences within the United States.
Falcon
The thing is that very few people buy Evil Rambo Combat Knives, or swords
for that matter, to cut meat. They buy them knowing that they are weapons.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Ian Smith
Well I do, but apathy, misinformation, and disillusionment with the
democratic process are indeed a problem here. Is Scotland unique in having
more than 1 tier of government? I say this because there is crap government
to be found all over the world, largely staffed by people who couldn't make
it in the private sector (ie. the real world).
Scott Lowther
>The thing is that very few people buy Evil Rambo Combat Knives, or swords
>for that matter, to cut meat. They buy them knowing that they are weapons.
>
>
Correction: they buy them *thinking* they are weapons. The bulk fo the
swords made today serve no purpose than to hang on the wall and either
look pretty or look stupid, depending. However, the notion of banning
something because it's highest purpose is to serve as a decoration seems
devoid of value.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
The major thing wrong with England is London.
Me and the family will probably move to Scotland at some point,
whereupon the first thing we will do in the elections is vote SNP.
Should they win and Scotland gets its independence that would be the
last time I vote SNP. I suspect a lot of Scots might feel that way.
FFF
Dirk
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> democratic process are indeed a problem here. Is Scotland unique in having
> more than 1 tier of government? I say this because there is crap government
> to be found all over the world, largely staffed by people who couldn't make
> it in the private sector (ie. the real world).
I do not understand why the Scots wish to remain under English rule.
It's bad enough for the English being under English rule.
FFF
Dirk
Falcon
> Falcon wrote:
>
>> The thing is that very few people buy Evil Rambo Combat Knives, or swords
>> for that matter, to cut meat. They buy them knowing that they are
>> weapons.
>
> Correction: they buy them *thinking* they are weapons. The bulk fo the
> swords made today serve no purpose than to hang on the wall and either
> look pretty or look stupid, depending. However, the notion of banning
> something because it's highest purpose is to serve as a decoration seems
> devoid of value.
Hi Scott. I'm not sure about that; whether intended for decorative purposes
or not, they can certainly kill and maim. You said: "they buy them
*thinking* they are weapons". You may be right, but if that is true, surely
the potential danger to the public is determined, not by their intended
purpose, but by their perceived purpose at the time of purchase.
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=d&q=sword+attack
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy
>Post.Post.Colonial.Boy wrote:
>
>> Robert...you've made up a fair amount of bs to back up your prejudices
>> because thats what they are.
>
>You talking to me? You talking to me?
Nah...but I could if ye wan me to...
Nik
bowman
> Great at short/medium range and, unlike the 45s, can also be used for
> hunting rabbits at the weekend.
I used to amuse myself hunting jackrabbits with a .357. The rules of
engagement were the weapon had to remain holstered until the rabbit broke
cover and it was no fair shooting when the rabbit stopped and looked back
to see if you were still chasing him.
It was a lot more sporting than the cottontail hunting I did when I was a
kid with a 12 gauge and beagle. I also play golf with a .357 which is far
more enjoyable than smashing at the ball with various blunt weapons. Very
versatile tool.
bowman
> And that's the weapon the local neds prefer to brandish at one
> another?
You brandish what you have at hand. Soap in a sock, if it comes to it.
Lacking swords, perhaps your neds will take up archery -- or has the
longbow already been banned?
Scott Lowther
>Scott Lowther wrote:
>
>
>
>>Falcon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The thing is that very few people buy Evil Rambo Combat Knives, or swords
>>>for that matter, to cut meat. They buy them knowing that they are
>>>weapons.
>>>
>>>
>>Correction: they buy them *thinking* they are weapons. The bulk fo the
>>swords made today serve no purpose than to hang on the wall and either
>>look pretty or look stupid, depending. However, the notion of banning
>>something because it's highest purpose is to serve as a decoration seems
>>devoid of value.
>>
>>
>
>Hi Scott. I'm not sure about that; whether intended for decorative purposes
>or not, they can certainly kill and maim.
>
So can a baseball bat, a tire iron, a pipe wrench or a decorative bust
of Truman. That does not make them weapons, per se.
> You said: "they buy them
>*thinking* they are weapons". You may be right, but if that is true, surely
>the potential danger to the public is determined, not by their intended
>purpose, but by their perceived purpose at the time of purchase.
>
>
Determined by who?
Scott Lowther
>lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote in news:1155920433.456333.154060
>@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>>Pat Roller wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Machettes don't have much utility in SCotland
>>>due to its lack of jungle, but they do have a utility with
>>>the local neds as a weapon. Any particular reason you'd want
>>>to make it easy for thugs to get their hands on these weapons?
>>>
>>>
>>Because a thug brandishing a machette is easily cut down by a regular
>>schmoe packing a concealed .45.
>>
>>
>
>And this happens often in Scotland?
>
>
Thugs brandishing machettes? Apparently it must be major epidemic, or
otherwise they wouldn't be banning machettes. Unless, of course,
Scotlands government is populated by a pack of nanny-staters looking to
consolidate absolute power on the populace.
Scott Lowther
>
>>Yet I'm one of the people who will still have complete access to all
>>that 'banned' weaponry - I'm a martial arts instructor and could also
>>cite religious reasons.
>>
>>
>
>Neither are sufficient reason to possess one.
>
>
Bwaaaa? "Because I want one" is all the reason a person needs to have to
be able to purchase or make *anything.* Societies interests should only
come into play when it comes to how a persons use of an object affects
other people.
"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free."
Falcon
> Falcon wrote:
>
>> Scott Lowther wrote:
>>
>>> Falcon wrote:
>>>
>>>> The thing is that very few people buy Evil Rambo Combat Knives, or
>>>> swords for that matter, to cut meat. They buy them knowing that they
>>>> are weapons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Correction: they buy them *thinking* they are weapons. The bulk fo the
>>> swords made today serve no purpose than to hang on the wall and either
>>> look pretty or look stupid, depending. However, the notion of banning
>>> something because it's highest purpose is to serve as a decoration seems
>>> devoid of value.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Scott. I'm not sure about that; whether intended for decorative
>> purposes or not, they can certainly kill and maim.
>>
>
> So can a baseball bat, a tire iron, a pipe wrench or a decorative bust
> of Truman. That does not make them weapons, per se.
I thought we were talking about swords...
>> You said: "they buy them
>> *thinking* they are weapons". You may be right, but if that is true,
>> surely the potential danger to the public is determined, not by their
>> intended purpose, but by their perceived purpose at the time of purchase.
>
> Determined by who?
oh, sorry, I thought everyone knew what a sword was for. I perfer not to
mess with the dictionary definition.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>> Still, as I said (and from a professional POV) killing someone is
> better
>> done with a butcher/kitchen knife than the type that will be banned.
>
> And that's the weapon the local neds prefer to brandish at one
> another?
From the knives I've seen being carried, they tend to be either kitchen
or Stanley knives, with folding lock blades also being popular. I've
never actually seen or heard of anyone carrying a 'Rambo' knife to a
club or other event.
>> I wouldn't mind betting that your Scottish ban will have absolutely no
>> statistical effect on killings in Scotland, except perhaps to skew the
>> stats towards other weapons.
>
> I have no idea. But making access to them easy for the neds is not an
> option.
The 'neds' don't buy expensive 'Rambo' knives.
They use cheap ones, typically those blades one gets from the local Paki
shop for £1.
FFF
Dirk
Ian Smith
news:ec7iif$kic$1...@news.datemas.de...
Well, I thought it was for transferring the "ownership" of property, but
that use might have slipped into obscurity for the time being.
bowman
> From the knives I've seen being carried, they tend to be either kitchen
> or Stanley knives, with folding lock blades also being popular.
I had reason to empty my pockets one evening. The standard issue Buck folder
was dropped into the property envelope without comment, but the Stanley
knife required explanation. I had been opening cartons at work just before
departing for an extended happy hour and it was still in my back pocket.
This was decades before carton knives had gained notoriety so I don't know
what triggered the cop's suspicions.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
>>However, in general the UK is a far more civilised country
>
> Snort.
>
> http://www.outlookindia.com/images/london_prophet_cartoon_protest_060206.jpg
>
> Yeah.
Boy - did you ever pick the wrong example.
The fact that these disgusting slimeballs had the democratic right to carry
out that 'protest march' through the centre of England's Capital city
without being lynched by the general public or beaten to a pulp by the
police *is* the mark of a mature and civilised democracy.
SFAIR the police took photographs to identify certain individuals and any
that were deemed eligible to be prosecuted later were.
Compare and contrast this scenario with a certain protest march in the US
where the trigger-happy gun-toting National Guard opened up on a student
protest march against the carpet-bombing of hundreds of thousands of
civililians in neutral Cambodia.
They shot 13 young students 4 of whom died.
http://www.uiowa.edu/~policult/assets/VietNam/KentState.jpg
Now you tell me - which reaction is the mark of a more civilised country?
Take your time now.
>>and it's citizens have never felt so paranoid and insecure as to require
>>more handguns than head of population.
>>
> Ah, yes. "The only reason why someone would want a gun is because they are
> paranoid and insecure."
I didn't say that - there are plenty of legitimate reasons for owning a gun.
I've owned 4 in the course of my life.
But we were discussing handguns in the context of self-defence in the street
and if you didn't feel insecure why the hell would you be carrying a handgun
in the street?
>
> The attitude of someone who has never taken a tommygun, a Mare's Leg and a
> Storm to the range and spent an enjoyable afternoon.
I have done similar as it happens.
As I mentioned above - I've owned 303's .22's a 4.10 shotgun
and an ordinary shotgun over the years and had losts of fun with them, but
you weren't talking about sports shooting. You were talking about killing
people with .45 handguns.
Specifically killing people with 'a Taurus PT-145' - 'a true man-stopper
(especailly [sic] with hollowpoints').
So lets just stick to the subject shall we?
>>This goes some way to explaining why most British people do not get
>>accidentily shot by incompetent gun-owners in their own family - one of
>>the more common causes of gunshot wounds in the US I understand.
>>
>
> So you're saying that gunshot wounds in the US *aren't* mostly caused by
> criminality, but by accident.
No - *you* have just said that. Tell you what, how about reading what I
write and not trying to put words into my mouth.
What I said was; it [accidental shooting] is " one of the more common causes
of gunshot wounds in the US I understand."
It's right there above in black and white.
But don't take my word for it - here's some of your own US experts on the
subject:
a.. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member or
friend than to be used in self-defense.
a.. The unintentional firearm injury death rate among children ages 14 and
under in the U.S. is nine times higher than in 25 other industrialized
countries combined.
a.. http://www.ctsafekids.org/Fact_Sheets/fact5.htm
But you're right about the first part; in that gunshot wounds in the US
*aren't* mostly caused by
criminality.
In 2003 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were
30,136 gun deaths in the U.S out of this total 11,920 were homicides (40% of
all U.S gun deaths).
> Well, most sports or automotive accidents
> are caused by accidents, not criminality. Thus, banning guns, sports and
> cars due to accidents holds the same logic.
Did you really expect me to respond to that?
Lets try to keep things at least reasonably sensible shall we?
>>But gun-ownership to boost chronic low self-esteem by immature and
>>paranoid ****wits is another matter, as the obscene level of fatalities in
>>the US illustrates.
>>
> Ah, no. But thanks for playing the role of ignorant and arrogant Eurine,
> who has a complete lack of understanding of the *vast* cultural
> differences within the United States.
That's rich coming from a member one of the most willfully parochial and
least-travelled peoples in the entire western world. But I'll overlook it.
I would however like to point out that I quite possibly know more about the
geography and 'vast cultural differences within the US' than you do.
If you like I could now quote you relative gun-death figures by state and
age and creed for example. Could you?
By the way - I live in Australia - the third country I have permanently
lived in within the last 5 years.
A wee tip for you - never try to defend the indefensible.
With regard to the prevailing attitude to sophisticated killing machines -
your country is just sick.
Get over it.
A W-S
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawi...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44e8...@quokka.wn.com.au...
> 30,136 gun deaths .
My apologies. I missed out the vital figure that was to illustrate my point.
This was that; of the 30,136 gun-deaths only 347 were from legal
intervention.
11,920 murdered
347 killed in legitimate self-defence
Like Mencken - whom you quote - I don't have the answers, but we *never
will* have the answers if people don't first accept the facts.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"bowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
news:1156000...@corp.com...
> Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
>
>> Great at short/medium range and, unlike the 45s, can also be used for
>> hunting rabbits at the weekend.
>
> I used to amuse myself hunting jackrabbits with a .357. The rules of
> engagement were the weapon had to remain holstered until the rabbit broke
> cover and it was no fair shooting when the rabbit stopped and looked back
> to see if you were still chasing him.
>
> It was a lot more sporting than the cottontail hunting I did when I was a
> kid with a 12 gauge and beagle. I also play golf with a .357 which is far
> more enjoyable than smashing at the ball with various blunt weapons. Very
> versatile tool.
When I owned a plant nursery and market garden there was no such thing as
'fair' or 'sporting' when it came to rabbits.
The only scenario when the indiscriminate use of bunker-busting and/or
cluster bombs is entirely justified IMO.
A W-S
Scott Lowther
>Scott Lowther wrote:
>
>
>
>>Falcon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Scott Lowther wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Falcon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The thing is that very few people buy Evil Rambo Combat Knives, or
>>>>>swords for that matter, to cut meat. They buy them knowing that they
>>>>>are weapons.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Correction: they buy them *thinking* they are weapons. The bulk fo the
>>>>swords made today serve no purpose than to hang on the wall and either
>>>>look pretty or look stupid, depending. However, the notion of banning
>>>>something because it's highest purpose is to serve as a decoration seems
>>>>devoid of value.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Hi Scott. I'm not sure about that; whether intended for decorative
>>>purposes or not, they can certainly kill and maim.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>So can a baseball bat, a tire iron, a pipe wrench or a decorative bust
>>of Truman. That does not make them weapons, per se.
>>
>>
>
>I thought we were talking about swords...
>
>
INdeed. Most of which are just flat bits of brittle metal.
>
>
>>>You said: "they buy them
>>>*thinking* they are weapons". You may be right, but if that is true,
>>>surely the potential danger to the public is determined, not by their
>>>intended purpose, but by their perceived purpose at the time of purchase.
>>>
>>>
>>Determined by who?
>>
>>
>
>oh, sorry, I thought everyone knew what a sword was for.
>
>
"Potential danger to the public." How do you determine the potential
danger to the public of a flat length of brittle metal? How do you
determine the "potential danger to the public" of a law that will help
to further victimize the law-abiding public?
bowman
> When I owned a plant nursery and market garden there was no such thing as
> 'fair' or 'sporting' when it came to rabbits.
> The only scenario when the indiscriminate use of bunker-busting and/or
> cluster bombs is entirely justified IMO.
Was this in Australia? I think the coyotes solve that problem around here;
they sometimes sound very happy at 3AM. Now the deer...
Actually, I didn't try too hard for the jackrabbits -- anything that can
make a living in the Sonoran Desert deserves a little respect, if not peace
and quiet.
Scott Lowther
>"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>>>However, in general the UK is a far more civilised country
>>>
>>>
>>Snort.
>>
>>http://www.outlookindia.com/images/london_prophet_cartoon_protest_060206.jpg
>>
>>Yeah.
>>
>>
>
>Boy - did you ever pick the wrong example.
>The fact that these disgusting slimeballs had the democratic right to carry
>out that 'protest march' through the centre of England's Capital city
>without being lynched by the general public or beaten to a pulp by the
>police *is* the mark of a mature and civilised democracy.
>
>
What's on display in that photo is a small but *growing* portion of
British society that is markedly *not* civilized. It's a photo of
Londonistan of the future.
>
>Compare and contrast this scenario with a certain protest march in the US
>where the trigger-happy gun-toting National Guard opened up on a student
>protest march against the carpet-bombing of hundreds of thousands of
>civililians in neutral Cambodia.
>They shot 13 young students 4 of whom died.
>http://www.uiowa.edu/~policult/assets/VietNam/KentState.jpg
>Now you tell me - which reaction is the mark of a more civilised country?
>Take your time now.
>
>
Wow. Had to stretch back nearly 40 years, eh? Well, I guess that's far
less civilized than shooting some guy multiple times in the back of the
head in a subway.
>
>
>>>and it's citizens have never felt so paranoid and insecure as to require
>>>more handguns than head of population.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Ah, yes. "The only reason why someone would want a gun is because they are
>>paranoid and insecure."
>>
>>
>
>I didn't say that - there are plenty of legitimate reasons for owning a gun.
>I've owned 4 in the course of my life.
>But we were discussing handguns in the context of self-defence in the street
>and if you didn't feel insecure why the hell would you be carrying a handgun
>in the street?
>
>
Were you not the one who said you'd carried a knife for self defense,
and had knife scars?
>
>
>>The attitude of someone who has never taken a tommygun, a Mare's Leg and a
>>Storm to the range and spent an enjoyable afternoon.
>>
>>
>
>I have done similar as it happens.
>As I mentioned above - I've owned 303's .22's a 4.10 shotgun
>and an ordinary shotgun over the years and had losts of fun with them, but
>you weren't talking about sports shooting. You were talking about killing
>people with .45 handguns.
>
>
As a last resort, yes. Problem is, most ignorant gun-grabbers don't
understand that the mere *brandishing* of a firearm by a criem victim
will tend to bring the crime to an end. You generally don;t *need* to
kill the criminal... or even fire a shot.
>Specifically killing people with 'a Taurus PT-145' - 'a true man-stopper
>(especailly [sic] with hollowpoints').
>So lets just stick to the subject shall we?
>
>
Indeed. You are apparently more a fan of disemboweling people. I guess
that's much more "civilized."
>
>But don't take my word for it - here's some of your own US experts on the
>subject:
>a.. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member or
>friend than to be used in self-defense.
>
>
WRONG. That's a flat-out lie. Guns are used for self defense in the US
somewhere between 800,000 and 2,000,000 times per year.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
You choose to use blatantly and obviously false statistics. Rather
stomps on whatever arguement it is you're trying to make.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
>
>>"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>>However, in general the UK is a far more civilised country
>>>>
>>>Snort.
>>>
>>>http://www.outlookindia.com/images/london_prophet_cartoon_protest_060206.jpg
>>>
>>>Yeah.
>>>
>>
>>Boy - did you ever pick the wrong example.
>>The fact that these disgusting slimeballs had the democratic right to
>>carry out that 'protest march' through the centre of England's Capital
>>city without being lynched by the general public or beaten to a pulp by
>>the police *is* the mark of a mature and civilised democracy.
>>
>
> What's on display in that photo is a small but *growing* portion of
> British society that is markedly *not* civilized. It's a photo of
> Londonistan of the future.
You just don't get it do you
>
>>
>>Compare and contrast this scenario with a certain protest march in the US
>>where the trigger-happy gun-toting National Guard opened up on a student
>>protest march against the carpet-bombing of hundreds of thousands of
>>civililians in neutral Cambodia.
>>They shot 13 young students 4 of whom died.
>>http://www.uiowa.edu/~policult/assets/VietNam/KentState.jpg
>>Now you tell me - which reaction is the mark of a more civilised country?
>>Take your time now.
>>
>
> Wow. Had to stretch back nearly 40 years, eh? Well, I guess that's far
> less civilized than shooting some guy multiple times in the back of the
> head in a subway.
It certainly is - and I didn't *need* to stretch back further than a few
days - I chose that example specifically out of hundreds I could have used
because you chose a picture of a protest march in the first instance.
You guys just slay me really - you live in one of the most fucked up
societies in the western world and you just love to brag about it.
You're a joke to the civilised world - literally - everywhere I go I here
people laughing at your world-famous ignorance.
>
> Were you not the one who said you'd carried a knife for self defense, and
> had knife scars?
I have just started carrying one a few weeks ago after a gap of over twenty
years because it is justified by the dodgy areas I am temporarily
frequenting.
I carried one for a year or two in my mid-twenties because of the dangerous
circle of people I chose to be around at that time.
That is not even remotely close to being the same thing as living in a
society that has 223 million guns including 77 million hand guns and almost
as many fuckwits. Where over 30,000 people get shot every single year by
people who shouldn't be allowed to handle a sparkler let alone a gun.
And you are trying to defend that - it's so pathetic.
>>You were talking about killing
>>people with .45 handguns.
>>
> As a last resort, yes.
Oh well that's very reassuring - I thought you might be reccomending it as a
first approach to a problem.
> Problem is, most ignorant gun-grabbers don't understand that the mere
> *brandishing* of a firearm by a criem victim will tend to bring the crime
> to an end.
Because fires one of the other 77 million handguns you mean?
>You generally don;t *need* to kill the criminal... or even fire a shot.
>
>> 'a Taurus PT-145' - 'a true man-stopper (especailly [sic] with
>> hollowpoints').
>>So lets just stick to the subject shall we?
>>
>
> Indeed. You are apparently more a fan of disemboweling people. I guess
> that's much more "civilized."
No - it takes skill to disable someone with a short knife blade without
ending up on a manslaughter charge.
Any jumpy immature fuckwit can blow someone's head off from 10 yards and in
the US they frequently do.
You want to take someone out with a knife you got to get in close enough to
smell him.
If you're carrying 'a Taurus PT-145 = a true man-stopper (especailly with
hollowpoints') it's because you've got no balls.
>>a.. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member or
>>friend than to be used in self-defense.
> WRONG. That's a flat-out lie. Guns are used for self defense in the US
> somewhere between 800,000 and 2,000,000 times per year.
And another survey on that page says 108,000 which I notice you didn't
quote.
Very reliable I'm sure.
But in any case the figure I quoted refers to *a gun in the home* - you
really must learn to read before jumping off on wild tangents.
Ie; you are 43 times more likely to shoot a member of your own family than
to shoot an intruder.
If you don't like that statistic take it up with your government - I believe
one of their departments provided it.
However you want to try to dress it up the facts speak for themselves.
In the USA 30,000 people are killed by guns every year.
That's simply shamefull and the certain mark of an uncivilised decaying
society - as is a member trying to excuse it.
A W-S
Falcon
> Falcon wrote:
[...]
>> oh, sorry, I thought everyone knew what a sword was for.
>>
>
> "Potential danger to the public." How do you determine the potential
> danger to the public of a flat length of brittle metal? How do you
> determine the "potential danger to the public" of a law that will help
> to further victimize the law-abiding public?
The "flat piece of brittle metal" in question is a lethal weapon and it was
designed for that purpose. No-one buys one to make dinner. The only people
the law "victimises" are people who want to own lethal weapons. I have no
problem with that. If you want something decorative to hang above the
fireplace, buy a picture of a sword.
Scott Lowther
>"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
>news:Kr_Fg.8133$Oh1....@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
>>Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>However, in general the UK is a far more civilised country
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Snort.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.outlookindia.com/images/london_prophet_cartoon_protest_060206.jpg
>>>>
>>>>Yeah.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Boy - did you ever pick the wrong example.
>>>The fact that these disgusting slimeballs had the democratic right to
>>>carry out that 'protest march' through the centre of England's Capital
>>>city without being lynched by the general public or beaten to a pulp by
>>>the police *is* the mark of a mature and civilised democracy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>What's on display in that photo is a small but *growing* portion of
>>British society that is markedly *not* civilized. It's a photo of
>>Londonistan of the future.
>>
>>
>
>You just don't get it do you
>
>
Perhaps I'm having trouble determining how "wusses being taken over and
pushed around by barbarians" equates to "civilized."
>You guys just slay me really - you live in one of the most fucked up
>societies in the western world and you just love to brag about it.
>You're a joke to the civilised world - literally - everywhere I go I here
>people laughing at your world-famous ignorance.
>
>
That's fine. Laugh all the way to dhimmitude. Y'all have already laughed
your way to "subject" status.
And nice choice of terminology... "slay me." Heh.
>
>
>>Were you not the one who said you'd carried a knife for self defense, and
>>had knife scars?
>>
>>
>
>I have just started carrying one a few weeks ago after a gap of over twenty
>years because it is justified by the dodgy areas I am temporarily
>frequenting.
>
>
So, you are yourself paranoid an insecure. Also likely in violation of
the law. You make yourself a criminal in order to back up your paranoia.
>I carried one for a year or two in my mid-twenties because of the dangerous
>circle of people I chose to be around at that time.
>
>
Paranoid and insecure then, too.
>That is not even remotely close to being the same thing as living in a
>society that has 223 million guns including 77 million hand guns and almost
>as many fuckwits. Where over 30,000 people get shot every single year by
>people who shouldn't be allowed to handle a sparkler let alone a gun.
>And you are trying to defend that - it's so pathetic.
>
>
Defending self-defense is "pathetic." So, so very civilized of you.
>
>
>>>You were talking about killing
>>>people with .45 handguns.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>As a last resort, yes.
>>
>>
>
>Oh well that's very reassuring - I thought you might be reccomending it as a
>first approach to a problem.
>
>
I'm sure you did. Many people who are truly ignorant about firearms or
even basic discipline have trouble with that.
>
>
>>Problem is, most ignorant gun-grabbers don't understand that the mere
>>*brandishing* of a firearm by a criem victim will tend to bring the crime
>>to an end.
>>
>>
>
>Because fires one of the other 77 million handguns you mean?
>
>
Was that sentence in English?
>
>
>>You generally don;t *need* to kill the criminal... or even fire a shot.
>>
>>
>>
>>>'a Taurus PT-145' - 'a true man-stopper (especailly [sic] with
>>>hollowpoints').
>>>So lets just stick to the subject shall we?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Indeed. You are apparently more a fan of disemboweling people. I guess
>>that's much more "civilized."
>>
>>
>
>No - it takes skill to disable someone with a short knife blade without
>ending up on a manslaughter charge.
>Any jumpy immature fuckwit can blow someone's head off from 10 yards and in
>the US they frequently do.
>
>
Rather more common to get stabbed. And yet, you promote the carrying of
knives.
>You want to take someone out with a knife you got to get in close enough to
>smell him.
>If you're carrying 'a Taurus PT-145 = a true man-stopper (especailly with
>hollowpoints') it's because you've got no balls.
>
>
Snort.
>
>
>>>a.. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member or
>>>friend than to be used in self-defense.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>WRONG. That's a flat-out lie. Guns are used for self defense in the US
>>somewhere between 800,000 and 2,000,000 times per year.
>>
>>
>
>And another survey on that page says 108,000 which I notice you didn't
>quote.
>Very reliable I'm sure.
>
>But in any case the figure I quoted refers to *a gun in the home* - you
>really must learn to read before jumping off on wild tangents.
>Ie; you are 43 times more likely to shoot a member of your own family than
>to shoot an intruder.
>
>
And now you change the story. "A gun in the home is 43 times more likely
to kill a family member or friend than to be used in self-defense" has
been mutated by the magic of ignorant ideology to "you are 43 times more
likely to shoot a member of your own family than to shoot an intruder."
As you would learn if you cared to, "self defense" with a firearm does
not always - in fact, does not often - require shooting an intruder.
>However you want to try to dress it up the facts speak for themselves.
>In the USA 30,000 people are killed by guns every year.
>
>
Would you prefer they was pushed outta windows, little girl?
>That's simply shamefull and the certain mark of an uncivilised decaying
>society
>
>
Snort. Well, if you define "civilized" as "unable and unwilling to
defend onesself or ones family," I suppose so.
Scott Lowther
> No-one buys one to make dinner. The only people
>the law "victimises" are people who want to own lethal weapons. I have no
>problem with that. If you want something decorative to hang above the
>fireplace, buy a picture of a sword.
>
>
Ah. So, your vision of what should compromise home decor overrules all
others by force of law, because *you* choose to live in fear.
Falcon
> Falcon wrote:
>
>> No-one buys one to make dinner. The only people
>> the law "victimises" are people who want to own lethal weapons. I have no
>> problem with that. If you want something decorative to hang above the
>> fireplace, buy a picture of a sword.
>
> Ah. So, your vision of what should compromise home decor overrules all
> others by force of law, because *you* choose to live in fear.
I think floral wallpaper and chintz curtains ought to be scheduled as an
offence against taste and decency, if that's what you mean.
Scott Lowther
It's certainly in character. Many of those who have a stunning ignorance
about the utility of weaponry for legitimate self-defense and a stunning
ignorance regarding the ability of criminals to not only make weapons
out of non-weapons, but to actually *dis-obey* *the* *law,* often obsess
over fashion and wallpaper and suchforth. Form over function rules, it
seems.
Falcon
> Falcon wrote:
[...]
>> I think floral wallpaper and chintz curtains ought to be scheduled as an
>> offence against taste and decency, if that's what you mean.
>>
> It's certainly in character. Many of those who have a stunning ignorance
> about the utility of weaponry for legitimate self-defense and a stunning
> ignorance regarding the ability of criminals to not only make weapons
> out of non-weapons, but to actually *dis-obey* *the* *law,* often obsess
> over fashion and wallpaper and suchforth. Form over function rules, it
> seems.
Sorry? I thought you point was their decorative merits. Now they are for
self-defence? So you *have* determined that they are bought as weapons after
all. Not need for me to determine anything, after all. Well, we *are*
getting somewhere. Are you anti gun control too? They make lovely wall
decorations too.
Scott Lowther
Scott Lowther wrote:Falcon wrote:[...]I think floral wallpaper and chintz curtains ought to be scheduled as an offence against taste and decency, if that's what you mean.It's certainly in character. Many of those who have a stunning ignorance about the utility of weaponry for legitimate self-defense and a stunning ignorance regarding the ability of criminals to not only make weapons out of non-weapons, but to actually *dis-obey* *the* *law,* often obsess over fashion and wallpaper and suchforth. Form over function rules, it seems.Sorry? I thought you point was their decorative merits.
Scott Lowther
>Scott Lowther <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in
>news:PnGFg.7958$oa1....@news02.roc.ny:
>
>
>
>>Pat Roller wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote in news:1155920433.456333.154060
>>>@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pat Roller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Machettes don't have much utility in SCotland
>>>>>due to its lack of jungle, but they do have a utility with
>>>>>the local neds as a weapon. Any particular reason you'd want
>>>>>to make it easy for thugs to get their hands on these weapons?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Because a thug brandishing a machette is easily cut down by a regular
>>>>schmoe packing a concealed .45.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>And this happens often in Scotland?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Thugs brandishing machettes?
>>
>>
>
>Cutting down someone brandishing a machette with a .45..
>
>
IF thugs brandishing machettes is a problem, perhaps you shoudl start
thinking of solutions. As history continues to show, weapon-control laws
jsut make crime worse. So.. consider other possibilities.
>
>
>>Apparently it must be major epidemic, or
>>otherwise they wouldn't be banning machettes.
>>
>>
>
>Indeed. So please tell us how you would 'easily' cut him
>down given that the preferred method of attack by the ned is to
>innocently walk past and whack you from behind? Or are you one of
>these daft American gun nuts who think thugs go face to face like
>a gun fight in street on TV Westerns?
>
>
It's amusing that that's the limit of your reasoning ability.
>
>
>>Unless, of course,
>>Scotlands government is populated by a pack of nanny-staters looking to
>>consolidate absolute power on the populace.
>>
>>
>
>Just keeping tabs on the knife wielding loons and gun nuts - as any
>decent law-abiding society would do.
>
"Knife weilding loons" like people with steak knives making supper? Ah,
but I SUPPOSE "gun nut" in socialist-speak is "anybody who has a gun and
who isn't an agent of the state."
Scott Lowther
>Scott Lowther <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in
>news:lrGFg.8105$Oh1....@news01.roc.ny:
>
>
>
>>Pat Roller wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Yet I'm one of the people who will still have complete access to all
>>>>that 'banned' weaponry - I'm a martial arts instructor and could also
>>>>cite religious reasons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Neither are sufficient reason to possess one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Bwaaaa? "Because I want one" is all the reason a person needs to have
>>
>>
>to
>
>
>>be able to purchase or make *anything.*
>>
>>
>
>On the contarary, when it comes to lethal weapons, anyone citing 'Because
>I want one' are the last to get one.
>
>
Perhaps that's the case. But in a decent law-abiding society, the last
people to get lethal weapons would be those who believe that decent law
abiding citizens should not have them.
>>Societies interests should only
>>come into play when it comes to how a persons use of an object affects
>>other people.
>>
>>
>
>Societies interests come to the fore when the risk to society outweighs
>the 'because I want one' mentality of a few loons when it comes to
>weapons.
>
>
Societies interests are best served by not trampling on the rights of
the individual. Or do you think all the Muslims shoudl be locked up, too?
>
>
>>"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free."
>>
>>
>
>Bwahahaha! Somebody's been watching too many movies and swallowing
>NRA paranoia propaganda.
>
>
"Paranoia propaganda" is an interesting notion coming from someone who
lives in such stark terror that he thinks that his fellow man should be
stripped of basic human rights in order to make him feel slightly safer.
--
-------
The fact hat I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Scott Lowther
>Scott Lowther <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in
>news:AlGFg.7957$oa1....@news02.roc.ny:
>
>
>
>>Falcon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi Scott. I'm not sure about that; whether intended for decorative
>>>purposes or not, they can certainly kill and maim.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>So can a baseball bat, a tire iron, a pipe wrench or a decorative bust
>>of Truman. That does not make them weapons, per se.
>>
>>
>
>Utility: Playing a game; changing a tyre; fixing a leak; decorative.
>Tell us what the utility is of a 'Rambo' knife, machette or
>samurai sword is in Scotland, please?
>
>
You have just determined that "playing a game" and "decoration" are
"utilities." These are luxuries rather than vital for survival. These
are things to make you feel happier. This reasoning applies to poorly
constructed "Rambo" knives and shotguns and Glocks.
>>>You said: "they buy them
>>>*thinking* they are weapons". You may be right, but if that is true,
>>>surely the potential danger to the public is determined, not by their
>>>intended purpose, but by their perceived purpose at the time of
>>>purchase.
>>>
>>>
>>Determined by who?
>>
>>
>
>Determined by risk assessment. If its a risk to the public and has no
>utility it should be removed.
>
Ah. Like video games and music videos and hymnals and amusement parks
and sports cars and vacations overseas and toys and porn and booze and
recreational drugs and paintings and pets and meat and soda and candy
and smokes and fireworks and...
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Scott Lowther
>Scott Lowther <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in
>news:r55Gg.8007$oa1....@news02.roc.ny:
>
>
>
>>Falcon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Sorry? I thought you point was their decorative merits.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>No. Their "point" is that they are inert items.
>>
>>
>
>Nope. Their 'point' is that they have the potential to cause harm
>in certain circumstances.
>
What doesn't?
> Plus they have zero utility.
>
High-priced fashion accessories.
> As such they
>represent a risk to the public and therefore have to be controlled
>in such a way that the risk is diminished to as small as practical.
>As there utility is zero, the simplest solution is to either strictly
>control them or ban them altogether.
>
>
Wow. Just... wow. Please, stay in Europe.
bowman
> Indeed. So please tell us how you would 'easily' cut him
> down given that the preferred method of attack by the ned is to
> innocently walk past and whack you from behind?
Er, could you translate 'ned' into Standard American? Are they robbers? Or
just psychpaths?
bowman
> Societies interests come to the fore when the risk to society outweighs
> the 'because I want one' mentality of a few loons when it comes to
> weapons.
I want one, I don't want him to have one. Same shit, different day.
bowman
> Perhaps that's the case. But in a decent law-abiding society, the last
> people to get lethal weapons would be those who believe that decent law
> abiding citizens should not have them.
Wasn't there something about Diana Feinstein carrying, presumably to protect
herself against her disgruntled, disarmed constituents?
Scott Lowther
>Pat Roller wrote:
>
>
>
>>Indeed. So please tell us how you would 'easily' cut him
>>down given that the preferred method of attack by the ned is to
>>innocently walk past and whack you from behind?
>>
>>
>
>Er, could you translate 'ned' into Standard American? Are they robbers? Or
>just psychpaths?
>
They are apparently naughty people who commit horrible acts of criminal
violence, and who will obey weapons laws. Quite a remarkable class of
individual, it seems.
Scott Lowther
>Scott Lowther wrote:
>
>
>
>>Perhaps that's the case. But in a decent law-abiding society, the last
>>people to get lethal weapons would be those who believe that decent law
>>abiding citizens should not have them.
>>
>>
>
>Wasn't there something about Diana Feinstein carrying, presumably to protect
>herself against her disgruntled, disarmed constituents?
>
Yes. She had a concealed carry license in California, no less (a virtual
impossibility for Regular Peons). But she got rid of it when news broke,
and just had to live with the government-paid guards armed with MP-5's
and the like.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Charles Ellson
>Pat Roller wrote:
>
>> Indeed. So please tell us how you would 'easily' cut him
>> down given that the preferred method of attack by the ned is to
>> innocently walk past and whack you from behind?
>
>Er, could you translate 'ned' into Standard American? Are they robbers? Or
>just psychpaths?
>
http://www.glasgowsurvival.co.uk/people/people.html
HTH
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: cha...@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
bowman wrote:
>
> Pat Roller wrote:
>
> > Indeed. So please tell us how you would 'easily' cut him
> > down given that the preferred method of attack by the ned is to
> > innocently walk past and whack you from behind?
>
> Er, could you translate 'ned' into Standard American? Are they robbers? Or
> just psychpaths?
More like a petty sociopath with delusions of
competency.
Deirdre
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>
>> Falcon wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Scott. I'm not sure about that; whether intended for decorative
>>> purposes or not, they can certainly kill and maim.
>>>
>> So can a baseball bat, a tire iron, a pipe wrench or a decorative bust
>> of Truman. That does not make them weapons, per se.
>
> Utility: Playing a game; changing a tyre; fixing a leak; decorative.
> Tell us what the utility is of a 'Rambo' knife, machette or
> samurai sword is in Scotland, please?
>>> *thinking* they are weapons". You may be right, but if that is true,
>>> surely the potential danger to the public is determined, not by their
>>> intended purpose, but by their perceived purpose at the time of
>>> purchase.
>> Determined by who?
>
> Determined by risk assessment. If its a risk to the public and has no
There goes mountain climbing and hill walking.
Every year rescue crews are put in danger of their lives simply because
a few 'ramblers' want some 'fun'.
FFF
Dirk