Gunner - do you wear protection?
Robert Swinney
Bob Swinney
Gunner
<jud...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Pinging Gunner,
>
>Bob Swinney
>
Which sort of protection?
Safety glasses? Yep (usually).
Welding leathers? Always...well...
A condom? chortle
A concealed weapon? Absolutly.
Whatcha asking?
Gunner
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell
Mark K.
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 12:02:37 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
> <jud...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Pinging Gunner,
> >
> >Bob Swinney
> >
>
> Which sort of protection?
> Safety glasses? Yep (usually).
> Welding leathers? Always...well...
> A condom? chortle
> A concealed weapon? Absolutly.
Bwahaha! Scaredycat lilylivered yellowbelly's so chicken in "the land
of the free" he carries a shooter for "protection"!
M.K.
Peter T. Keillor III
wrote:
<snip bs> plonk.
Geez, Gunner, you sure draw the Brit whack jobs out of the woodwork.
Reminds me of a tale. I was visiting my sister over there about 1980,
seeing the sights. We went down to Portsmouth, and toured the HMS
Victory. I was prepared to render due homage to a great admiral.
Instead, we got this sawed off brit marine who took great delight,
with obvious relish, in stories designed to gross out us tourists --
"If the sailors whittled a longer measuring stick (for hammocks) and
were caught, floggings, salt in the wounds, miserable diet, yak, yak,
yak."
After about 30 min. we were back topside, and he started going on
about the Marines' walk (for shooting ship jumpers), press-ganging,
yadayada. Then he said something to the effect "Why we (like he was
there) even stopped merchant ships and kidnapped their crews to gather
sailors for the Royal Navy!"
I was standing immediately behind him, with my sister at my side.
Having had a belly full of the runt, I said in a loud stage whisper to
my sis "Yeah, they sure did. That's why we had to KICK THEIR ASS in
the War of 1812." The red color went up his neck like a fuse.
Pete Keillor
Gunner
I know a hell of a lot of British ex-pats who came over and are now
rabid hunters and gun collectors. Seems that that strain of freemen,
wasnt totally bred out of the people, or killed off in the wars of the
20th century.
It only seems that way when reading some posters on usenet.
Intrepid
wrote:
>
>
>Bwahaha! Scaredycat lilylivered yellowbelly's so chicken in "the land
>of the free" he carries a shooter for "protection"!
>M.K.
Yes, and your kind would prefer to get down on your knees and beg for
mercy... And get killed\injured\robbed\raped anyway...
I'd prefer to carry...
Intrepid
Peter T. Keillor III
wrote:
>On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:50:26 -0400, Peter T. Keillor III
><keill...@chartermi.net> wrote:
>
>>On 15 May 2004 16:25:41 -0700, mark...@postmaster.co.uk (Mark K.)
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip bs> plonk.
>>
>>Geez, Gunner, you sure draw the Brit whack jobs out of the woodwork.
>>
>>Reminds me of a tale.
<snip>
>
>I know a hell of a lot of British ex-pats who came over and are now
>rabid hunters and gun collectors. Seems that that strain of freemen,
>wasnt totally bred out of the people, or killed off in the wars of the
>20th century.
>
>It only seems that way when reading some posters on usenet.
>
>Gunner
>
>That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
>cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
>there.
> - George Orwell
Agreed. I've been over there several times since. Mostly, I like
them and enjoy the visits. Sure was fun watching that one fry,
though.
You've got to admit you're a lightning rod for the others, and appear
to enjoy it. Well, we all need hobbies.
Pete Keillor
Gunner
<keill...@chartermi.net> wrote:
Its a dirty job, but someone has to do it.
<G>
Gunner
England, I Told You So
by
Larry Pratt
The British Home Office, in its "Practical Guide To Crime Prevention,"
offers what are referred to -- presumably with a straight face -- as
some "sensible precautions."
Regarding how to stay safe at home, it is said: "If you wake to hear
the sound of an intruder, only you can decide how best to handle the
situation. You may want to lie quietly to avoid attracting attention
to yourself, in the hope that they will leave. Or you may feel more
confident if you switch on the lights and make a lot of noise by
moving about. Even if you're on your own, call out loudly to an
imaginary companion -- most burglars will flee empty-handed rather
than risking a confrontation.
"Ring the police as soon as it's safe for you to do so. A telephone
extension in your bedroom will make you feel more secure as it allows
you to call the police immediately, without alerting the intruder."
This same "Guide" suggests the following, "if the worst happens," and
one is actually attacked: "You have every right to defend yourself,
with reasonable force with items you have with you like an umbrella,
hairspray or keys can be used against the attacker. The law however
doesn't allow carrying anything that can be described as an offensive
weapon."
But, of course, in England, individuals are not legally allowed to
decide how best to deal with those who break into their respective
homes. For example, private persons cannot legally own handguns for
protection -- which in the case of repelling a home intruder would be
a defensive weapon.
What is suggested in this "Guide" is neither "practical" nor
"sensible." An umbrella? Hairspray? Keys? Please. This is dangerously
absurd. In America, several studies have estimated that from 1,000,000
(the Clinton Justice Department number) to 2.5 million individuals (a
Florida State University scholar's number) every year use firearms
successfully in self-defense. Proportionately, based on your
population, there is no reason to believe that this would not also be
true if firearms were as easily available in England as (thank God)
they are in my country due to the Second Amendment of our
Constitution.
And there appears to be a stronger need than ever for your government
to allow law-abiding citizens to arm themselves for self-defense if
they so desire. In a recent letter-to-the-editor in the American
newspaper USA Today (February 7, 2000), Jennifer Arney of Shere,
Surrey, England, writes, in part: "After living in England for more
than two years, I know there are no tragic results that come from the
confiscation of guns. I've never felt safer strolling through London,
where the only arms bearers are selected Bobbies."
But, to put it charitably, Ms. Arney seems not to have the slightest
idea what's happening in her part of the world. The BBC's News Online
(January 18, 2000) reported that Home Office statistics reveal "a huge
surge in muggings, amid a worrying rise in violent crime." The number
of robberies (most of them muggings) increased by 19 percent in the
year to September. And the biggest rise in crime was in London which
saw a 22 percent increase -- more than one million offenses.
Overall, the violent crime rate in England now exceeds that of the
U.S. rate according to a joint Oxford University/U.S. Department of
Justice study.
And the "only arms bearers" in London are "selected Bobbies"? Not
exactly. In London last year, there were more than 20 fatal shootings
allegedly linked to the "Yardies," gangsters who have their roots in
Jamaica.
Indeed, according to the January 16 issue of The Times criminals have
an estimated 3,000,000 illegal guns in the country. Once again we see
that gun control works -- against the law abiding only, not the
criminals.
Last July, Tim Westwood, a BBC hip-hop disk jockey, was shot by a man
who opened fire on the car in which he was traveling in South London.
And Amnesty International reports that London is a base for another
gang, the "Tamil Tigers" of Sri Lanka, who extort money from London's
Tamil community and then buy guns and explosives which they give to
terrorists. On the night of August 30, 1999, at the Warren Farm Sports
Center in Southall, UK, two gangs said to work for the "Tigers"
attacked each other with guns and machetes.
In addition, the "Manchester Guardian" has lamented the fact that
their city is now called "Gunchester" with police sources quoted as
saying that guns had become "almost a fashion accessory" among young
criminals on the street. Shootings in the area totaled 41 last year
with three people being shot dead during a 10-day period last summer.
One of these victims was Patrick Logan who was murdered by a hooded
intruder who broke into his home. I guess he forgot to lie still
and/or turn on his lights, yell to a non-existent companion, or call
the police immediately. Or, maybe, he didn't have handy an umbrella,
hairspray or keys.
Your suicidal anti-self-defense lobby is wrong. So-called "gun
control" has not and will not make your country safer. And you're
seeing the truth of this assertion with a vengeance. According to a
U.S. Justice Department victim survey, in 1995 -- the last year for
which complete data was available for both countries -- an individual
in your country is nearly twice as likely to be robbed, assaulted or
have a vehicle stolen, as in America.
There were 20 assaults per 1,000 households in England and Wales but
only 8.8 in the U.S. One article in a major British newspaper (London
Sunday Times, Jan. 11, 1998), calling Britain "the crime capital of
the West," has noted that more than one in three British men has a
criminal record by the age of 40. The question is asked: "Where have
we gone wrong?"
One place you've gone wrong is by denying your citizens the right to
defend themselves, their family and friends and their property with
firearms. This is immoral and stupid. As Colin Greenwood, the Chief
Inspector of the West Yorkshire Constabulary, has correctly observed:
"There is no case... in which [gun] controls can be shown to have
restricted the flow of weapons to criminals, or in any way reduced
crime."
Shortly before your government's last assault on lawful gun owners I
debated a member of Parliament on CNN International. I predicted to
him that your crime rate would increase if the gun confiscation bill
were to pass.
It gives me no pleasure to say: "I told you so." Those of us who favor
the God-given right of self-defense, and the right of private
individuals to keep and bear arms, have argued all along, as the old
saying goes: "That when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have
guns." England has proven that with a vengeance.
Gunner
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/guns/britishcrimerates.htm (see
for graphs)
A Quarter of English are Victims of Crime
By Sean O'Neill
London Telegraph
PEOPLE living in England and Wales are at greater risk of falling
victim to crime than citizens of most other industrialised nations,
according to a study published yesterday.
The International Crime Victims Survey, based on 34,000 telephone
interviews across 17 countries, found that 26 per cent of people -
more than one in four - in England and Wales had been victims of crime
in 1999. The figure for Scotland was 23 per cent and in Northern
Ireland 15 per cent.
Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, said the research confirmed previous
evidence "that levels of victimisation are higher than in most
comparable countries for most categories of crime". Mr Straw said that
although the police and other agencies were working hard to reduce
crime, "no one should be under any illusions about the challenges
ahead".
England and Wales were second only to Australia in the examination of
"victimisation rates", details of which appeared in the Economist.
There was a downward trend in crime levels from previous surveys in
1991 and 1999. People in England and Wales were at greater risk than
anywhere else of having their cars stolen: 2.6 per cent fell victim to
vehicle theft.
The average rate was 1.2 per cent and the Japanese were least likely
to have their cars stolen with a victim rate of just 0.1 per cent.
Theft from cars was highest in Poland, where nine per cent of people
had items stolen from their vehicles. In England and Wales the level
was eight per cent.
The percentage of the population which suffered "contact crime" in
England and Wales was 3.6 per cent, compared with 1.9 per cent in the
United States and 0.4 per cent in Japan. Burglary rates in England and
Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 per cent)
and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry
than England and Wales (2.8 per cent).
The risk of robbery was comparatively low in all the countries
surveyed. Highest rates were in Poland, where 1.8 per cent of the
population said they had been robbed in 1999, followed by Australia
and England and Wales (both 1.2 per cent). By far the lowest robbery
risks were in Japan and Northern Ireland (both 0.1 per cent)
After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime
was in Holland (25 per cent), Sweden (25 per cent) and Canada (24 per
cent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the
middle ranking countries with a 21 per cent victimisation rate.
Portugal, Japan and Northern Ireland, each with 15 per cent, recorded
the lowest overall victimisation rates in the survey which was
conducted by Leiden University in Holland and published by the Dutch
justice ministry.
Mark K.
> On 15 May 2004 16:25:41 -0700, mark...@postmaster.co.uk (Mark K.)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bwahaha! Scaredycat lilylivered yellowbelly's so chicken in "the land
> >of the free" he carries a shooter for "protection"!
> >M.K.
>
>
> Yes, and your kind would prefer to get down on your knees and beg for
> mercy
From whom?
... And get killed\injured\robbed\raped anyway...
You might stand the risk of getting raped in the US but not over here
in the civilised world.
>
> I'd prefer to carry...
Must be sad living in a country where you don't feel safe without a
gun.
M.K.
>
>
> Intrepid
Mark K.
> On 15 May 2004 16:25:41 -0700, mark...@postmaster.co.uk (Mark K.)
> wrote:
>
> <snip bs> plonk.
>
> Geez, Gunner, you sure draw the Brit whack jobs out of the woodwork.
So your ilk carry guns to protect yourselves from normal
americans/each other. Who are the "whack jobs"?
> Reminds me of a tale. I was visiting my sister over there about 1980,
> seeing the sights. We went down to Portsmouth, and toured the HMS
> Victory. I was prepared to render due homage to a great admiral.
> Instead, we got this sawed off brit marine who took great delight,
> with obvious relish, in stories designed to gross out us tourists --
> "If the sailors whittled a longer measuring stick (for hammocks) and
> were caught, floggings, salt in the wounds, miserable diet, yak, yak,
> yak."
>
> After about 30 min. we were back topside, and he started going on
> about the Marines' walk (for shooting ship jumpers), press-ganging,
> yadayada. Then he said something to the effect "Why we (like he was
> there) even stopped merchant ships and kidnapped their crews to gather
> sailors for the Royal Navy!"
>
> I was standing immediately behind him, with my sister at my side.
> Having had a belly full of the runt, I said in a loud stage whisper to
> my sis "Yeah, they sure did. That's why we had to KICK THEIR ASS in
> the War of 1812." The red color went up his neck like a fuse.
You'd get a whack in the gob if you said that today, colonial boy.
M.K.
>
> Pete Keillor
Intrepid
wrote:
>
>From whom?
Whom do you think...?
>... And get killed\injured\robbed\raped anyway...
>
>You might stand the risk of getting raped in the US but not over here
>in the civilised world.
England? Civilized? Surely you jest...
>>
>> I'd prefer to carry...
>
>Must be sad living in a country where you don't feel safe without a
>gun.
>M.K.
Far sadder to live in the fantasy world that you do, and not see the
reality around you. But fear not, it is simply a matter of time before
the bad guys catch up to you, too...
And, in closing, I live in Kanada, where the violent crime rates are
also on the increase, thanks to "gun control"...
I will waste no more time, nor bandwidth on you. It is painfully clear
that you are blinded by your own folly, and expect your government and
your (mostly unarmed) police to protect you 24\7.
I wish you luck...
Intrepid
John Ings
<keill...@chartermi.net> wrote:
>That's why we had to KICK THEIR ASS in the War of 1812."
"We" being the US and Napoleon. But the Brits burned the White House
to the ground first, and if they hadn't had another war to fight on
the other side of the pond...
Robert Swinney
sic the dogs on you. I wanted you to contact me, off-group. I have some
information re. your recent post on RFDs. Please contact me if you are
interested.
Bob Swinney
"Robert Swinney" <jud...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8e-dnex1L5r...@comcast.com...
> Pinging Gunner,
>
> Bob Swinney
>
>
Mark K.
> On 16 May 2004 01:34:02 -0700, mark...@postmaster.co.uk (Mark K.)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >From whom?
>
> Whom do you think...?
>
>
> >... And get killed\injured\robbed\raped anyway...
> >
> >You might stand the risk of getting raped in the US but not over here
> >in the civilised world.
>
> England? Civilized? Surely you jest...
It's civilised enough so men do not have to fear rape.
>
> >>
> >> I'd prefer to carry...
> >
> >Must be sad living in a country where you don't feel safe without a
> >gun.
> >M.K.
>
>
> Far sadder to live in the fantasy world that you do, and not see the
> reality around you.
The reality being that I would rather a drunk idiot was not allowed to
carry/own a weapon than not be sure that he wasn't "carrying".
> But fear not, it is simply a matter of time before
> the bad guys catch up to you, too...
In GB very few "bad guys" carry guns and those that do mostly shot
each other.
>
> And, in closing, I live in Kanada, where the violent crime rates are
> also on the increase, thanks to "gun control"...
I used to run a shooting club and am acutely aware of the distinction
between sport and "self defence". I barely trust a policeman to use
adequate judgement, never mind a civilian.
> I will waste no more time, nor bandwidth on you. It is painfully clear
> that you are blinded by your own folly, and expect your government and
> your (mostly unarmed) police to protect you 24\7.
I don't, but I'm not scared enough to feel unsafe without a gun, no
reason to be. Much more scary to know that anybody could be carrying
one, like in your locale.
M.K.