Re: The gun goofball philosophy ;-)
Fred J. McCall
:
:If Strathclyde had worked to those rules, Thomas Hamilton wouldn't have
:been using legal weapons at Dunblane... when his club threw him out and
:warned that they considered him unfit to hold firearms, the police
:declined to act.
:
So, in other words, the existing laws were more than adequate if only
they had been enforced. Having failed to enforce them and gotten a
publicity disaster, the solution was to take away the guns from
everyone.
This is why we worry about gun control advocates over here...
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
Richard Casady
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynchANDNOTTHIS.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>:
>:If Strathclyde had worked to those rules, Thomas Hamilton wouldn't have
>:been using legal weapons at Dunblane... when his club threw him out and
>:warned that they considered him unfit to hold firearms, the police
>:declined to act.
>:
>
>So, in other words, the existing laws were more than adequate if only
>they had been enforced. Having failed to enforce them and gotten a
>publicity disaster, the solution was to take away the guns from
>everyone.
>
>This is why we worry about gun control advocates over here...
Self defence was not a reason for granting a permit to own a pistol,
let alone carry one, not since 1948. The Brits feel that it is better
for a 100 pound woman to fistfight a 200 pound rapist than have her
defend herself. Place is morally bankrupt. When there was a massacre
in Texas, the response was to legalize carrying pistols.
Casady
Jim Yanik
news:n0umj51u8gvu04dr8...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:26:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall
><fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynchANDNOTTHIS.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>:
>>:If Strathclyde had worked to those rules, Thomas Hamilton wouldn't have
>>:been using legal weapons at Dunblane... when his club threw him out and
>>:warned that they considered him unfit to hold firearms, the police
>>:declined to act.
>>:
>>
>>So, in other words, the existing laws were more than adequate if only
>>they had been enforced. Having failed to enforce them and gotten a
>>publicity disaster, the solution was to take away the guns from
>>everyone.
>>
>>This is why we worry about gun control advocates over here...
>
> Self defence was not a reason for granting a permit to own a pistol,
> let alone carry one, not since 1948. The Brits feel that it is better
> for a 100 pound woman to fistfight a 200 pound rapist than have her
> defend herself.
Actually,they feel she should SUBMIT to the rape rather than defend
herself with lethal force.("it's only rape....")
> Place is morally bankrupt. When there was a massacre
> in Texas, the response was to legalize carrying pistols.
>
> Casady
>
and no problems with it,either.
In every US state that permits concealed carry,the permit holders are
extremely safe and lawful.Much of US gun crime is from people who are
prohibited from having any gun.
If anything,lawful concealed carry should be expanded.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
William Black
> "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynchANDNOTTHIS.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :
> :If Strathclyde had worked to those rules, Thomas Hamilton wouldn't have
> :been using legal weapons at Dunblane... when his club threw him out and
> :warned that they considered him unfit to hold firearms, the police
> :declined to act.
> :
>
> So, in other words, the existing laws were more than adequate if only
> they had been enforced.
The point the politicians made was that if the law failed once it will
fail again and it is time for a new law...
I disagreed at the time, but I have to admit that I've come around to
their point of view in recent years.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Bruce Bartho
> The point the politicians made was that if the law failed once it will
> fail again and it is time for a new law...
>
> I disagreed at the time, but I have to admit that I've come around to
> their point of view in recent years.
Uh, so you agreed that the bad laws you didn't initially agree with
failed again and again were bad, and you "came around" to agree that
failed/bad laws are a good thing to continue?
EGAD!
You are the perfect UK SUBJECT!
Your nose is so very "queen brown", that even your breath smells like
her poop!
If I were you, I would terminate Tom Binns job for saying the BITCH you
admire was "Bor-Ring!"
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20091230/tod-british-dj-sacked-for-pulling-plug-o-6058bda.html
OH MY! You blokes also don't have Freedom of speech!
William Black
> William Black wrote:
>
>> The point the politicians made was that if the law failed once it will
>> fail again and it is time for a new law...
>>
>> I disagreed at the time, but I have to admit that I've come around to
>> their point of view in recent years.
>
>
> Uh, so you agreed that the bad laws you didn't initially agree with
> failed again and again were bad, and you "came around" to agree that
> failed/bad laws are a good thing to continue?
Piss off child, you're boring.
SaPeIsMa
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hhg8hn$g2k$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynchANDNOTTHIS.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> :
>> :If Strathclyde had worked to those rules, Thomas Hamilton wouldn't have
>> :been using legal weapons at Dunblane... when his club threw him out and
>> :warned that they considered him unfit to hold firearms, the police
>> :declined to act.
>> :
>>
>> So, in other words, the existing laws were more than adequate if only
>> they had been enforced.
>
> The point the politicians made was that if the law failed once it will
> fail again and it is time for a new law...
>
> I disagreed at the time, but I have to admit that I've come around to
> their point of view in recent years.
>
Yup
Until the next one shoots up a bunch of people
Only idiots believe that criminals and loons will not be able to arm
themselves one way or another to do their dirty deeds
SaPeIsMa
> Bruce Bartho wrote:
>> William Black wrote:
>>
>>> The point the politicians made was that if the law failed once it will
>>> fail again and it is time for a new law...
>>>
>>> I disagreed at the time, but I have to admit that I've come around to
>>> their point of view in recent years.
>>
>>
>> Uh, so you agreed that the bad laws you didn't initially agree with
>> failed again and again were bad, and you "came around" to agree that
>> failed/bad laws are a good thing to continue?
>
> Piss off child, you're boring.
>
LOL
Weewee willy got bitch-slapped again so naturally he runs away instead of
admitting that the light has been shined on his shit.
Aren't you going to ask him if English is his first language while your
at it ?
Kerryn Offord
> Richard Casady <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:n0umj51u8gvu04dr8...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:26:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>> <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynchANDNOTTHIS.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> :
>>> :If Strathclyde had worked to those rules, Thomas Hamilton wouldn't have
>>> :been using legal weapons at Dunblane... when his club threw him out and
>>> :warned that they considered him unfit to hold firearms, the police
>>> :declined to act.
>>> :
>>>
>>> So, in other words, the existing laws were more than adequate if only
>>> they had been enforced. Having failed to enforce them and gotten a
>>> publicity disaster, the solution was to take away the guns from
>>> everyone.
>>>
>>> This is why we worry about gun control advocates over here...
>> Self defence was not a reason for granting a permit to own a pistol,
>> let alone carry one, not since 1948. The Brits feel that it is better
>> for a 100 pound woman to fistfight a 200 pound rapist than have her
>> defend herself.
>
> Actually,they feel she should SUBMIT to the rape rather than defend
> herself with lethal force.("it's only rape....")
***
Crap.. The rule is reasonable force.. and a 100 pound woman defending
herself against a 200 pound male can use a heck of a lot of force before
a jury will convict for excessive force. (And the Police, knowing this,
will seriously review the case before even bothering to take it to
court).. up to and including fatal injuries... Just as long as the fatal
injuries were inflicted while "fighting for her life" rather than after
the assailant was subdued....
>
>> Place is morally bankrupt. When there was a massacre
>> in Texas, the response was to legalize carrying pistols.
>>
>> Casady
>>
>
> and no problems with it,either.
> In every US state that permits concealed carry,the permit holders are
> extremely safe and lawful.Much of US gun crime is from people who are
> prohibited from having any gun.
***
But strangely enough.. they seem to have very little difficulty
obtaining said arms. Certainly a lot less difficulty than the same
element in the UK...
>
>
> If anything,lawful concealed carry should be expanded.
>
Increasing the pool of weapons for the criminals to obtain....
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Jim Yanik
news:hhgu70$2ffc$1...@adenine.netfront.net:
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> Richard Casady <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:n0umj51u8gvu04dr8...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:26:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>>> <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynchANDNOTTHIS.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> :
>>>> :If Strathclyde had worked to those rules, Thomas Hamilton wouldn't
>>>> :have been using legal weapons at Dunblane... when his club threw
>>>> :him out and warned that they considered him unfit to hold
>>>> :firearms, the police declined to act.
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>> So, in other words, the existing laws were more than adequate if
>>>> only they had been enforced. Having failed to enforce them and
>>>> gotten a publicity disaster, the solution was to take away the guns
>>>> from everyone.
>>>>
>>>> This is why we worry about gun control advocates over here...
>>> Self defence was not a reason for granting a permit to own a pistol,
>>> let alone carry one, not since 1948. The Brits feel that it is
>>> better for a 100 pound woman to fistfight a 200 pound rapist than
>>> have her defend herself.
>>
>> Actually,they feel she should SUBMIT to the rape rather than defend
>> herself with lethal force.("it's only rape....")
>
> ***
> Crap.. The rule is reasonable force.. and a 100 pound woman defending
> herself against a 200 pound male can use a heck of a lot of force
that "heck of a lot of force" is simply NOT AVAILABLE to UK subjects.
you've all been disarmed.
all that's -permitted- is other,less effective means that entail much more
risk and less chances of successful self-defense.
UK has decided for you that guns are not "reasonable force".
> before a jury will convict for excessive force. (And the Police,
> knowing this, will seriously review the case before even bothering to
> take it to court).. up to and including fatal injuries... Just as long
> as the fatal injuries were inflicted while "fighting for her life"
> rather than after the assailant was subdued....
>
>
In the US,if you shoot someone in self-defense,authorities DO examine the
case closely.But at least you get to survive to face them.
"better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."
>
>
>>
>>> Place is morally bankrupt. When there was a massacre
>>> in Texas, the response was to legalize carrying pistols.
>>>
>>> Casady
>>>
>>
>> and no problems with it,either.
>> In every US state that permits concealed carry,the permit holders are
>> extremely safe and lawful.Much of US gun crime is from people who are
>> prohibited from having any gun.
>
> ***
> But strangely enough.. they seem to have very little difficulty
> obtaining said arms. Certainly a lot less difficulty than the same
> element in the UK...
It appears criminals in the UK don't have any problem getting guns.
(same goes for Japan.)
Yardies have them,IRA got them,people MAKE them from replicas and blank
pistols,which had to be made illegal.Now even pointy knives are being
regulated.
But UK criminals really don't need them,as you've all been disarmed and
it's far easier to dominate a victim if they are unarmed.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> If anything,lawful concealed carry should be expanded.
>>
>
> Increasing the pool of weapons for the criminals to obtain....
But still allowing citizens to defend themselves with the best tools.
"When seconds count,police are minutes away."(if you're lucky...)
the fact remains,criminals prefer unarmed victims.Overwhelmingly.
Richard Casady
wrote:
Wait until someone does in a hundred with a couple of gallons of
gasoline.
Casady
William Black
> Yardies have them,IRA got them,people MAKE them from replicas and blank
> pistols,which had to be made illegal.
What Yardies?
Come to think of it, what IRA?
Kerryn Offord
***
The only weapon you "can't have" for self defence is a hand gun. Long
arms should be secured so they are also not generally available for self
defence, But knives, blunt instruments etc are all available and legal...
The only weapon UK citizens are not allowed is a hand gun. Plenty of
long arms available.. But most people in a urban environment don't own
them (Nowhere to shoot them)
>
> all that's -permitted- is other,less effective means that entail much more
> risk and less chances of successful self-defense.
> UK has decided for you that guns are not "reasonable force".
Nope. UK law is similar to NZ law. A case in point was where a homeowner
shot and killed a home invader when he was attacked by the VHS armed
burglar... (In the dark)
One farmer did get "done" for shooting and hitting an escaping would be
quad-bike thief.
The guy who shot someone with a cross bow did have a few problems.. But
that was more to do with the circumstances of the shooting
>
>> before a jury will convict for excessive force. (And the Police,
>> knowing this, will seriously review the case before even bothering to
>> take it to court).. up to and including fatal injuries... Just as long
>> as the fatal injuries were inflicted while "fighting for her life"
>> rather than after the assailant was subdued....
>>
>>
> In the US,if you shoot someone in self-defense,authorities DO examine the
> case closely.But at least you get to survive to face them.
>
> "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."
And other than not having legal access to a hand gun.. UK is probably
little different.
(NZ is slightly different as we can still own handguns for target
shooting.. but said weapons should be secured in locked boxes "remote"
from ammo and so not easily available of self defence)
>>
>>>> Place is morally bankrupt. When there was a massacre
>>>> in Texas, the response was to legalize carrying pistols.
>>>>
>>>> Casady
>>>>
>>> and no problems with it,either.
>>> In every US state that permits concealed carry,the permit holders are
>>> extremely safe and lawful.Much of US gun crime is from people who are
>>> prohibited from having any gun.
>> ***
>> But strangely enough.. they seem to have very little difficulty
>> obtaining said arms. Certainly a lot less difficulty than the same
>> element in the UK...
>
>
>
> It appears criminals in the UK don't have any problem getting guns.
> (same goes for Japan.)
> Yardies have them,IRA got them,people MAKE them from replicas and blank
> pistols,which had to be made illegal.Now even pointy knives are being
> regulated.
Cite?
If the UK criminals et al have so little difficulty getting guns.. Why
is it that they resort to modifying replicas and starting pistols etc
rather than use those easily available real guns?
Maybe because guns aren't as easy to get as you seem to think.
As for pointy knives being regulated.. got a cite for the relevant law?
>
>
> But UK criminals really don't need them,as you've all been disarmed and
> it's far easier to dominate a victim if they are unarmed.
Yeah right.. keep on saying that....
Poor defenceless Poms and us equally poor defenceless Kiwis prefer
making it hard for the bad guys to obtain firearms.
And the laws seem to be doing a reasonable job...
Certainly I've never felt that I needed a gun to walk through the
streets of various cities in NZ at night, on my own....
Meanwhile it seems that lots of USains seem to think they can't even go
for a beer or a meal in their cities without carrying a firearm for
their personal safety...
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If anything,lawful concealed carry should be expanded.
>>>
>> Increasing the pool of weapons for the criminals to obtain....
>
> But still allowing citizens to defend themselves with the best tools.
> "When seconds count,police are minutes away."(if you're lucky...)
If there weren't so many guns easily available then the criminals
wouldn't have such easy access to guns that civilians believe they have
to be armed to be safe...
>
>
> the fact remains,criminals prefer unarmed victims.Overwhelmingly.
Sure. They also prefer committing burglaries when people are out..
Maybe the criminals in NZ and UK aren't as desperate as those in America...
Jim Yanik
and have a much higher RISK for the defender in their use,and much lower
chances of success.
Not many people are minimally competent in knife fighting,and generally,a
strong person can take away a "blunt instrument",and then use it on you.
Both require close combat with the attacker.
NOT what you want.
>
> The only weapon UK citizens are not allowed is a hand gun. Plenty of
> long arms available.. But most people in a urban environment don't own
> them (Nowhere to shoot them)
and you can't carry them with you,where they could be of some use in self-
defense.
>
>>
>> all that's -permitted- is other,less effective means that entail much
>> more risk and less chances of successful self-defense.
>> UK has decided for you that guns are not "reasonable force".
>
>
> Nope. UK law is similar to NZ law. A case in point was where a
> homeowner shot and killed a home invader when he was attacked by the
> VHS armed burglar... (In the dark)
>
> One farmer did get "done" for shooting and hitting an escaping would
> be quad-bike thief.
after -many- burglaries.clearly police were useless,and he was not safe.
>
> The guy who shot someone with a cross bow did have a few problems..
> But that was more to do with the circumstances of the shooting
Well,your "justice" system assumes the shooter is the criminal,and must
prove his innocence.
>
>
>
>>
>>> before a jury will convict for excessive force. (And the Police,
>>> knowing this, will seriously review the case before even bothering
>>> to take it to court).. up to and including fatal injuries... Just as
>>> long as the fatal injuries were inflicted while "fighting for her
>>> life" rather than after the assailant was subdued....
>>>
>>>
>> In the US,if you shoot someone in self-defense,authorities DO examine
>> the case closely.But at least you get to survive to face them.
>>
>> "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."
>
> And other than not having legal access to a hand gun.. UK is probably
> little different.
> (NZ is slightly different as we can still own handguns for target
> shooting.. but said weapons should be secured in locked boxes "remote"
> from ammo and so not easily available of self defence)
what about having to store firearms at "gun clubs"?
Much has been said about the Dunblaine shooter's taking his guns out of his
gun club.
It's TRUE.
>
> Poor defenceless Poms and us equally poor defenceless Kiwis prefer
> making it hard for the bad guys to obtain firearms.
yet they STILL DO obtain them. NZ and UK both still have shootings.
I note even the Queen had a "home invader" in her bedroom.It's pure LUCK
she's still alive.
Beatle George Harrison was stabbed multiple times in his home,nearly lost
his life.
>
> And the laws seem to be doing a reasonable job...
>
> Certainly I've never felt that I needed a gun to walk through the
> streets of various cities in NZ at night, on my own....
So what?
that could mean that you are ignorant of your surroundings,or happen to
live in a safe area.OTHER people may have very different circumstances.
>
> Meanwhile it seems that lots of USains seem to think they can't even
> go for a beer or a meal in their cities without carrying a firearm for
> their personal safety...
Being free,we are a less-restrained bunch.Plus,in many places,police are
not readily at hand.
Criminals like to prey on others where police are not present.
the US is a BIG place.
>>>> If anything,lawful concealed carry should be expanded.
>>>>
>>> Increasing the pool of weapons for the criminals to obtain....
But still allowing ODCs better self-defense.
OTOH,you disarm decent citizens while your criminals still have guns and
other weapons.
>>
>> But still allowing citizens to defend themselves with the best tools.
>> "When seconds count,police are minutes away."(if you're lucky...)
>
> If there weren't so many guns easily available then the criminals
> wouldn't have such easy access to guns that civilians believe they
> have to be armed to be safe...
tell that to Mexico,where guns are strictly regulated but criminals
still have lots of them,or Japan,where the Yakuza may a BUSINESS of gun-
running. "business" implies a MARKET for guns.
Also,it's not "HAVE to be armed",it's "CHOOSE to be armed".
WE have the free choice,you don't.Our folks get to decide for themselves
what THEY determine they need for self-defense.
Not some faceless,uncaring officials. That's "freedom".
besides,criminals don't alwaysneed guns to commit robberies,rapes,murders.
they can prey on the smaller,weaker,less numerous,and can use other items
as weapons.
>
>>
>>
>> the fact remains,criminals prefer unarmed victims.Overwhelmingly.
>
> Sure. They also prefer committing burglaries when people are out..
I've heard UK has a higher rate of AT HOME burglaries.
(like Beatle George Harrison's,or the QUEEN herself.)
Sheesh,even the QUEEN isn't safe in her own home,despite high security!
Don't hear much about NZ.
but that doesn't affect robberies or assaults away from home.
>
> Maybe the criminals in NZ and UK aren't as desperate as those in
> America...
Or maybe reporting and crime data collection is different.
Maybe you folks are used to being subjugated.
It's been British history to disarm their subjects,for 100's of years.
Jim Yanik
Already happened;
Happyland massacre.
William Black
> what about having to store firearms at "gun clubs"?
> Much has been said about the Dunblaine shooter's taking his guns out of his
> gun club.
That sounds like a misinterpretation of something.
I fully expect that dick-wad Scout to pop up now and claim I'm a liar,
but I've never heard of a gun club that stored shooters guns in the UK
(I imagine there will be one somewhere) and the police don't even like
the guns owned by the club to be stored there, they prefer the
secretary to keep them at home, which is why gun club secretaries
usually get a free firearms licence.
A gun club can be a target for robbers, people who want to rob guns
from private houses need some sort of intelligence about where the guns
are, and it isn't easy to get.
Hamilton had a full firearms licence and was allowed to keep his guns at
his home locked away in a suitable container, just like everyone else...
I think what you're reading about is Hamilton taking his guns out and
flaunting them in public when a condition of the licence is that they're
only allowed out for cleaning, shooting (on an approved range) for
transport to a gunsmith or dealer, or if you're showing them to someone
who wants to buy them.
You're not allowed to use them for 'showing off'.
Kerryn Offord
> Kerryn Offord <ka...@ext.cantrbury.ac.nz> wrote in
> news:hhhphc$s24$1...@adenine.netfront.net:
>
>> Jim Yanik wrote:
>>> Kerryn Offord <ka...@ext.cantrbury.ac.nz> wrote in
>>> news:hhgu70$2ffc$1...@adenine.netfront.net:
>> The only weapon you "can't have" for self defence is a hand gun. Long
>> arms should be secured so they are also not generally available for
>> self defence, But knives, blunt instruments etc are all available and
>> legal...
>
> and have a much higher RISK for the defender in their use,and much lower
> chances of success.
Given just how much warning a "victim" usually gets.. How are they
expected to get their gun to defend themselves?
About the only circumstances when a weapon might prove useful (easily
accessible) is when the woman feels threatened (someone following
them).. and she can "get it ready"... meanwhile she could also get a
siren/ "pepper spray" / cell phone out and start taking precautions...
An intruder breaking into the home requires that the handgun be
immediately available.. Which means.. Being carried at all times... or
lots of handguns spread around the home so one is "always available"..
> Not many people are minimally competent in knife fighting,and generally,a
> strong person can take away a "blunt instrument",and then use it on you.
> Both require close combat with the attacker.
If you have that much time.. why not attempt to leave...
Meanwhile, in a home in the same circumstances.. Just what distance do
you think there is between the "victim" and her would be assailant?
Until the gun can be brought to bear and is cocked ready to fire it is
less use than a knife.
> NOT what you want.
>
>> The only weapon UK citizens are not allowed is a hand gun. Plenty of
>> long arms available.. But most people in a urban environment don't own
>> them (Nowhere to shoot them)
>
> and you can't carry them with you,where they could be of some use in self-
> defense.
But most people don't seem to think they need to carry a gun in the UK....
>>> all that's -permitted- is other,less effective means that entail much
>>> more risk and less chances of successful self-defense.
>>> UK has decided for you that guns are not "reasonable force".
>>
>> Nope. UK law is similar to NZ law. A case in point was where a
>> homeowner shot and killed a home invader when he was attacked by the
>> VHS armed burglar... (In the dark)
>>
>> One farmer did get "done" for shooting and hitting an escaping would
>> be quad-bike thief.
>
> after -many- burglaries.clearly police were useless,and he was not safe.
Farmers tend to live distant form the nearest police...
>> The guy who shot someone with a cross bow did have a few problems..
>> But that was more to do with the circumstances of the shooting
>
> Well,your "justice" system assumes the shooter is the criminal,and must
> prove his innocence.
Please learn to read for comprehension.. The problem wasn't the
shooting. It was the circumstances surrounding the shooting...
And yes, the shooter was definitely a criminal.. He felt he needed the
crossbow for self defence.. Because of the people he was dealing with...
>>
>>>> before a jury will convict for excessive force. (And the Police,
>>>> knowing this, will seriously review the case before even bothering
>>>> to take it to court).. up to and including fatal injuries... Just as
>>>> long as the fatal injuries were inflicted while "fighting for her
>>>> life" rather than after the assailant was subdued....
>>>>
>>>>
>>> In the US,if you shoot someone in self-defense,authorities DO examine
>>> the case closely.But at least you get to survive to face them.
>>>
>>> "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."
>> And other than not having legal access to a hand gun.. UK is probably
>> little different.
>> (NZ is slightly different as we can still own handguns for target
>> shooting.. but said weapons should be secured in locked boxes "remote"
>> from ammo and so not easily available of self defence)
>
> what about having to store firearms at "gun clubs"?
> Much has been said about the Dunblaine shooter's taking his guns out of his
> gun club.
William answered for UK..
You don't want to store a mass of concealable firearms in a single
location that is known (Gun clubs have public addresses). It makes them
attractive to people who want guns.
So it is doubtful if any club would hold the guns (My gun club has a
designated person who holds the club guns, and can store a members guns
if necessary (because the owner is going away for an extended period,
but not long enough to warrant selling the weapons)
<SNIP>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> But UK criminals really don't need them,as you've all been disarmed
>>> and it's far easier to dominate a victim if they are unarmed.
>> Yeah right.. keep on saying that....
>
> It's TRUE.
>> Poor defenceless Poms and us equally poor defenceless Kiwis prefer
>> making it hard for the bad guys to obtain firearms.
>
> yet they STILL DO obtain them. NZ and UK both still have shootings.
In NZ the shootings are mostly long arms either unmodified, or cut off.
One of the classics used to be the sawn off .22
The other alternative is using replicas..
There are almost no incidents in NZ where the offenders have used real
hand guns (A few handguns have found their way into illegal hands, but
they don't turn up very often.)
It's still relatively easy to get a long arm in NZ...
>
> I note even the Queen had a "home invader" in her bedroom.It's pure LUCK
> she's still alive.
> Beatle George Harrison was stabbed multiple times in his home,nearly lost
> his life.
And if either of the intruders had had easy access to firearms it could
have been fatal...
But they didn't. Instead, IN Harrison's case, the offender had to use a
knife.. If only Lennon had been so lucky.
>> And the laws seem to be doing a reasonable job...
>>
>> Certainly I've never felt that I needed a gun to walk through the
>> streets of various cities in NZ at night, on my own....
>
> So what?
> that could mean that you are ignorant of your surroundings,or happen to
> live in a safe area.OTHER people may have very different circumstances.
I walked around some of the poorer areas of Auckland and Christchurch,
at night, on my own...
Including the warehouse areas...
never felt I needed a gun. Or any other weapon...
<SNIP>
>
>>>>> If anything,lawful concealed carry should be expanded.
>>>>>
>>>> Increasing the pool of weapons for the criminals to obtain....
>
> But still allowing ODCs better self-defense.
> OTOH,you disarm decent citizens while your criminals still have guns and
> other weapons.
Oh dear, that old saw again..
The decent citizens in NZ have access to the same weapons that nearly
all criminals in NZ have access to... Very few criminals want anything
to do with firearms.
Those people using firearms in crimes are the desperate (Usually
involved in obtaining money to buy drugs).. meaning they use replicas or
sawn off long arms
>
>>> But still allowing citizens to defend themselves with the best tools.
>>> "When seconds count,police are minutes away."(if you're lucky...)
>> If there weren't so many guns easily available then the criminals
>> wouldn't have such easy access to guns that civilians believe they
>> have to be armed to be safe...
>
> tell that to Mexico,where guns are strictly regulated but criminals
> still have lots of them,or Japan,where the Yakuza may a BUSINESS of gun-
> running. "business" implies a MARKET for guns.
Mexic..Strictly regulated -- with some of the most corrupt LEO in the
world... sure
Meanwhile they have the US right beside them awash with weapons...
Japan.. Don't hear much about gun crime in Japan for all those weapons
being smuggled....
>
> Also,it's not "HAVE to be armed",it's "CHOOSE to be armed".
> WE have the free choice,you don't.Our folks get to decide for themselves
> what THEY determine they need for self-defense.
> Not some faceless,uncaring officials. That's "freedom".
Err.. We do get to decide. In a democracy the majority get to make the
laws and the majority don't want the streets awash with firearms.
If enough people objected the law would be changed....
It is not and never has been down to "officials" ..
So sorry.. We are at least as Free in NZ as the US, if not more so
because we don't consider we need to arm ourselves in order to feel safe.
>
>
>
> besides,criminals don't alwaysneed guns to commit robberies,rapes,murders.
> they can prey on the smaller,weaker,less numerous,and can use other items
> as weapons.
>
>>>
>>> the fact remains,criminals prefer unarmed victims.Overwhelmingly.
>> Sure. They also prefer committing burglaries when people are out..
>
> I've heard UK has a higher rate of AT HOME burglaries.
> (like Beatle George Harrison's,or the QUEEN herself.)
>
> Sheesh,even the QUEEN isn't safe in her own home,despite high security!
That was a long time ago (and things have changed). Also of course her
level of personal security is nothing like the US head of state (aka
POTUS) has..
And still a couple of uninvited people managed to gate crash an event in
the Whitehouse...
> Don't hear much about NZ.
You don't hear much because it's not a problem. Just like your two
examples for UK are so old.. I notice you can't give anything more
recent than... 1999 (Harrison), 1982 (Queen)
>
> but that doesn't affect robberies or assaults away from home.
>
>
>> Maybe the criminals in NZ and UK aren't as desperate as those in
>> America...
>
> Or maybe reporting and crime data collection is different.
There is that.. Firearms crime in NZ and UK includes anything that looks
like or is claimed to be a firearm (Air weapons, nonworking replicas,
even a finger in a jacket pocket. ANd real weapons) Compare that with
the US where a firearms crime always involves (I assume) a real firearm.)
>
> Maybe you folks are used to being subjugated.
> It's been British history to disarm their subjects,for 100's of years.
>
The British people have, working as a democracy, decided that they don't
want the streets awash with firearms....
Who the hell do you think makes laws? Some faceless entity, or
politicians keeping in good with the voters to ensure they get reelected.
Heck, why is the NRA one of the largest lobby groups in the US if not to
push their message against (The majority of voters are not NRA or gun
owners. Without the lobbying the gun regulations in the US could easily
be changed by politicians doing what their public ask of them.
Jim Yanik
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> Kerryn Offord <ka...@ext.cantrbury.ac.nz> wrote in
>> news:hhhphc$s24$1...@adenine.netfront.net:
>>
>>> Jim Yanik wrote:
>>>> Kerryn Offord <ka...@ext.cantrbury.ac.nz> wrote in
>>>> news:hhgu70$2ffc$1...@adenine.netfront.net:
><SNIP>
>>> The only weapon you "can't have" for self defence is a hand gun.
>>> Long arms should be secured so they are also not generally available
>>> for self defence, But knives, blunt instruments etc are all
>>> available and legal...
>>
>> and have a much higher RISK for the defender in their use,and much
>> lower chances of success.
>
>
> Given just how much warning a "victim" usually gets.. How are they
> expected to get their gun to defend themselves?
I've read lots of newspaper reports of people doing that,even after being
shot themselves.
>
> About the only circumstances when a weapon might prove useful (easily
> accessible) is when the woman feels threatened (someone following
> them).. and she can "get it ready"... meanwhile she could also get a
> siren/ "pepper spray" / cell phone out and start taking precautions...
shows what YOU know about it.Nothing.
>
> An intruder breaking into the home requires that the handgun be
> immediately available.. Which means.. Being carried at all times... or
> lots of handguns spread around the home so one is "always available"..
Again,shows what YOU know about it.Nothing.
>
>
>> Not many people are minimally competent in knife fighting,and
>> generally,a strong person can take away a "blunt instrument",and then
>> use it on you. Both require close combat with the attacker.
>
> If you have that much time.. why not attempt to leave...
ah,the "flee instead of sticking up for your rights and property",the false
argument that it's better to submit than fight back/Because that IS what
fleeing is;submission.
Pretty cowardly,too.
and maybe you can't flee.
>
> Meanwhile, in a home in the same circumstances.. Just what distance do
> you think there is between the "victim" and her would be assailant?
It varys.
> Until the gun can be brought to bear and is cocked ready to fire it is
> less use than a knife.
Many guns don't have to be cocked to be ready to fire.
also,many criminals will turn and FLEE (or surrender)when a gun is produced
by their "victim",and then no shots are fired;in fact,it's criminal to
shoot a fleeing criminals.
Again,shows what YOU know about it.Nothing.
>
>
>> NOT what you want.
>>
>>> The only weapon UK citizens are not allowed is a hand gun. Plenty of
>>> long arms available.. But most people in a urban environment don't
>>> own them (Nowhere to shoot them)
>>
>> and you can't carry them with you,where they could be of some use in
>> self- defense.
>
> But most people don't seem to think they need to carry a gun in the
> UK....
How do you know? they don't have the choice.
If people don't think they need or want a gun to defend themselves,they
don't have to buy one.
That doess't mean they should decide for OTHERS what those people can have
for their self-defense,in their particular circumstances.
>
>
>>>> all that's -permitted- is other,less effective means that entail
>>>> much more risk and less chances of successful self-defense.
>>>> UK has decided for you that guns are not "reasonable force".
>>>
>>> Nope. UK law is similar to NZ law. A case in point was where a
>>> homeowner shot and killed a home invader when he was attacked by the
>>> VHS armed burglar... (In the dark)
>>>
>>> One farmer did get "done" for shooting and hitting an escaping would
>>> be quad-bike thief.
>>
>> after -many- burglaries.clearly police were useless,and he was not
>> safe.
>
> Farmers tend to live distant form the nearest police...
so do other people.
Police can't be everywhere,nor IN TIME to do you any good if the crook is
intent on doing you harm.Police generally are a "cleanup crew",taking
statements and making reports AFTER a crime is OVER.
and you CANNOT KNOW for certain what an intruder or attacker's intent
is,until it's OVER and they've left and your still alive.
You seem to be VERY uninformed on this subject,working from unfounded
suppositions instead of facts.
>
>
>>> The guy who shot someone with a cross bow did have a few problems..
>>> But that was more to do with the circumstances of the shooting
>>
>> Well,your "justice" system assumes the shooter is the criminal,and
>> must prove his innocence.
>
> Please learn to read for comprehension.. The problem wasn't the
> shooting. It was the circumstances surrounding the shooting...
No,I'm saying that your system treats the victim who shoots as a criminal
until they prove themseves innocent,instead of innocent until proven
guilty.
YOU learn to read for comprehension.
>
> And yes, the shooter was definitely a criminal.. He felt he needed the
> crossbow for self defence.. Because of the people he was dealing
> with...
Not knowing any of the facts on this case,I say he still might have been
right. It's REAL easy for "Monday morning quarterbacking" AFTER the
fact,and not fully knowing what the victim had for a situation.
Particularly for an uncaring official that may have an axe to groind,to
prove themselves "tough" on "lawbreakers".
(and protecting criminals more than the ODCs...)
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>> before a jury will convict for excessive force. (And the Police,
>>>>> knowing this, will seriously review the case before even bothering
>>>>> to take it to court).. up to and including fatal injuries... Just
>>>>> as long as the fatal injuries were inflicted while "fighting for
>>>>> her life" rather than after the assailant was subdued....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> In the US,if you shoot someone in self-defense,authorities DO
>>>> examine the case closely.But at least you get to survive to face
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."
>>> And other than not having legal access to a hand gun.. UK is
>>> probably little different.
>>> (NZ is slightly different as we can still own handguns for target
>>> shooting.. but said weapons should be secured in locked boxes
>>> "remote" from ammo and so not easily available of self defence)
>>
>> what about having to store firearms at "gun clubs"?
>> Much has been said about the Dunblaine shooter's taking his guns out
>> of his gun club.
>
> William answered for UK..
>
> You don't want to store a mass of concealable firearms in a single
> location that is known (Gun clubs have public addresses). It makes
> them attractive to people who want guns.
Ah,so UK criminals DO want guns.
can't a gun club afford a VAULT,some place secure,with alarms,etc?
>
> So it is doubtful if any club would hold the guns (My gun club has a
> designated person who holds the club guns, and can store a members
> guns if necessary (because the owner is going away for an extended
> period, but not long enough to warrant selling the weapons)
>
><SNIP>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But UK criminals really don't need them,as you've all been disarmed
>>>> and it's far easier to dominate a victim if they are unarmed.
>>> Yeah right.. keep on saying that....
>>
>> It's TRUE.
>>> Poor defenceless Poms and us equally poor defenceless Kiwis prefer
>>> making it hard for the bad guys to obtain firearms.
>>
>> yet they STILL DO obtain them. NZ and UK both still have shootings.
>
> In NZ the shootings are mostly long arms either unmodified, or cut
> off. One of the classics used to be the sawn off .22
Heh,in the US,having a "sawed-off" rifle or shotgun is a serious,FEDERAL
crime,besides a state crime.
>
> The other alternative is using replicas..
and homemade and smuggled guns.
I read awhile back of an Aussie who had been making handguns in a home shop
by the 100's,and police believed he had already sold many guns,
illegally,of course.I wish I had kept a link to that article.
If they're in AUS,then they can be smuggled into NZ.
(not that some freighter could not have a few cases of handguns aboard for
smuggling,it could be very profitable.)
>
> There are almost no incidents in NZ where the offenders have used real
> hand guns (A few handguns have found their way into illegal hands, but
> they don't turn up very often.)
>
> It's still relatively easy to get a long arm in NZ...
>
>>
>> I note even the Queen had a "home invader" in her bedroom.It's pure
>> LUCK she's still alive.
>> Beatle George Harrison was stabbed multiple times in his home,nearly
>> lost his life.
>
> And if either of the intruders had had easy access to firearms it
> could have been fatal...
see my previous statement above about knife wounds/gunshot wounds,and
fatalities.
>
> But they didn't. Instead, IN Harrison's case, the offender had to use
> a knife.. If only Lennon had been so lucky.
another SUPPOSITION with NO fact to back it up.
>
>>> And the laws seem to be doing a reasonable job...
>>>
>>> Certainly I've never felt that I needed a gun to walk through the
>>> streets of various cities in NZ at night, on my own....
>>
>> So what?
>> that could mean that you are ignorant of your surroundings,or happen
>> to live in a safe area.OTHER people may have very different
>> circumstances.
>
> I walked around some of the poorer areas of Auckland and Christchurch,
> at night, on my own...
So what? that proves nothing. Maybe criminals thought you were not their
type of victim,maybe too big,or too aware of surroundings,or attitude.
>
> Including the warehouse areas...
>
> never felt I needed a gun. Or any other weapon...
FEELINGS,nothing more than FEELINGS....la-di-dah-di-dah. great song.
some people don't -feel- fear because they're too clueless.
they simply don't recognize a potentially risky situation or place.
>
>
><SNIP>
>
>>
>>>>>> If anything,lawful concealed carry should be expanded.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Increasing the pool of weapons for the criminals to obtain....
>>
>> But still allowing ODCs better self-defense.
>> OTOH,you disarm decent citizens while your criminals still have guns
>> and other weapons.
>
> Oh dear, that old saw again..
It's STILL TRUE. It always will be.
Just as there will always be bad people out there,looking to do others
wrong.
It's like having a fire extinguisher;sure,you can call the fire dept,and
wait for them to come,and they certainly know their business and all
that,but often you can save yourself a lot of grief if you have your own
fire extinguisher and put out the fire yourself,while it's still small.
It's being PREPARED for a possibility.
Doesn't mean any "fear".that's YOUR imagination.
>
> The decent citizens in NZ have access to the same weapons that nearly
> all criminals in NZ have access to... Very few criminals want anything
> to do with firearms.
unsupprted supposition.
>
> Those people using firearms in crimes are the desperate (Usually
> involved in obtaining money to buy drugs).. meaning they use replicas
> or sawn off long arms
Ah,so there ARE people that have guns for bad purposes in NZ.
>
>
>>
>>>> But still allowing citizens to defend themselves with the best
>>>> tools. "When seconds count,police are minutes away."(if you're
>>>> lucky...)
>>> If there weren't so many guns easily available then the criminals
>>> wouldn't have such easy access to guns that civilians believe they
>>> have to be armed to be safe...
>>
>> tell that to Mexico,where guns are strictly regulated but criminals
>> still have lots of them,or Japan,where the Yakuza may a BUSINESS of
>> gun- running. "business" implies a MARKET for guns.
>
> Mexic..Strictly regulated -- with some of the most corrupt LEO in the
> world... sure
> Meanwhile they have the US right beside them awash with weapons...
except that communist Nicaragua and Guatemala are also right next to them,
supplying REAL automatic weaponry(machine guns),along with grenades and
RPGs.And much looser borders to bring them across.
>
> Japan.. Don't hear much about gun crime in Japan for all those weapons
> being smuggled....
Because it's underground. Japan must "keep face".
>
>>
>> Also,it's not "HAVE to be armed",it's "CHOOSE to be armed".
>> WE have the free choice,you don't.Our folks get to decide for
>> themselves what THEY determine they need for self-defense.
>> Not some faceless,uncaring officials. That's "freedom".
>
> Err.. We do get to decide. In a democracy the majority get to make the
> laws and the majority don't want the streets awash with firearms.
I doubt it was anything that citizens voted on.
>
> If enough people objected the law would be changed....
easier said than done.
>
> It is not and never has been down to "officials" ..
Pretty much so.It's all how proposed laws are written,presented to the
public by media,etc.
>
> So sorry.. We are at least as Free in NZ as the US, if not more so
> because we don't consider we need to arm ourselves in order to feel
> safe.
No,you dont have the ability or the means to overthrow an abusing
government.(see US Declaration of independence;read carefully)
you are not "free".
>
>>
>>
>>
>> besides,criminals don't alwaysneed guns to commit
>> robberies,rapes,murders. they can prey on the smaller,weaker,less
>> numerous,and can use other items as weapons.
>
>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> the fact remains,criminals prefer unarmed victims.Overwhelmingly.
>>> Sure. They also prefer committing burglaries when people are out..
>>
>> I've heard UK has a higher rate of AT HOME burglaries.
>> (like Beatle George Harrison's,or the QUEEN herself.)
>>
>> Sheesh,even the QUEEN isn't safe in her own home,despite high
>> security!
>
> That was a long time ago (and things have changed).
Doubtful.that is what they'd like you to believe,though.
> Also of course her
> level of personal security is nothing like the US head of state (aka
> POTUS) has..
>
> And still a couple of uninvited people managed to gate crash an event
> in the Whitehouse...
exactly. BUT,there were ARMED people nearby.
>
>> Don't hear much about NZ.
>
> You don't hear much because it's not a problem. Just like your two
> examples for UK are so old.. I notice you can't give anything more
> recent than... 1999 (Harrison), 1982 (Queen)
I dont pay that close attention to UK or NZ.I suspect that there's more
recent examples.
I have read that the UK Home Office said they believed there were THREE
MILLION illegal guns in the UK,as of 2003.
>
>
>>
>> but that doesn't affect robberies or assaults away from home.
>>
>>
>>> Maybe the criminals in NZ and UK aren't as desperate as those in
>>> America...
>>
>> Or maybe reporting and crime data collection is different.
>
> There is that.. Firearms crime in NZ and UK includes anything that
> looks like or is claimed to be a firearm (Air weapons, nonworking
> replicas, even a finger in a jacket pocket. ANd real weapons) Compare
> that with the US where a firearms crime always involves (I assume) a
> real firearm.)
Odd,I had head of UK doing wierd things with their data collection to keep
their numbers looking good.
>
>
>
>>
>> Maybe you folks are used to being subjugated.
>> It's been British history to disarm their subjects,for 100's of
>> years.
>>
>
> The British people have, working as a democracy, decided that they
> don't want the streets awash with firearms....
HEH,they weren't even close to a democracy until the US revolted and set
them a good example.That was in 1776!
We revolted because they treated the colonists as slaves;no representation
and all that.
essentially WE -gave- you your "democracy"!! and kept it safe in WW2.
>
> Who the hell do you think makes laws? Some faceless entity, or
> politicians keeping in good with the voters to ensure they get
> reelected.
>
> Heck, why is the NRA one of the largest lobby groups in the US if not
> to push their message against (The majority of voters are not NRA or
> gun owners. Without the lobbying the gun regulations in the US could
> easily be changed by politicians doing what their public ask of them.
Look at the high number of gun owners in the US;over 80 million(out of ~280
million total population,including children),and only 4 million NRA
members.Polls have shown that the vast majority of Americans support the
individual right to keep and bear arms,when it's clearly put to them.
But,the Second Amendment protecting the Right to Keep and Near Arms has
existed since 1791.
(you ought to read Clayton Cramer's "Armed America: The Remarkable Story of
How and Why Guns Became as American as Apple Pie",you'd learn a lot.)
And "lobbying" is just voters getting together to press their position,more
effectively.
Kerryn Offord
> Kerryn Offord <ka...@ext.cantrbury.ac.nz> wrote in
> news:4B3D0D89...@ext.cantrbury.ac.nz:
>
>> Jim Yanik wrote:
>>> Kerryn Offord <ka...@ext.cantrbury.ac.nz> wrote in
>>> news:hhhphc$s24$1...@adenine.netfront.net:
>>>
>>>> Jim Yanik wrote:
>>>>> Kerryn Offord <ka...@ext.cantrbury.ac.nz> wrote in
>>>>> news:hhgu70$2ffc$1...@adenine.netfront.net:
>> <SNIP>
>>>> The only weapon you "can't have" for self defence is a hand gun.
>>>> Long arms should be secured so they are also not generally available
>>>> for self defence, But knives, blunt instruments etc are all
>>>> available and legal...
>>> and have a much higher RISK for the defender in their use,and much
>>> lower chances of success.
>>
>> Given just how much warning a "victim" usually gets.. How are they
>> expected to get their gun to defend themselves?
>
> I've read lots of newspaper reports of people doing that,even after being
> shot themselves.
Ahhh.. more guns in the hands of the criminals because they are so easy
to obtain.. vs UK/ NZ where firearms are so difficult to obtain the
criminals have to take the dangerous route of using modified replicas
(Wrong kind of metal to take the force of actually being fired)
>
>
>> About the only circumstances when a weapon might prove useful (easily
>> accessible) is when the woman feels threatened (someone following
>> them).. and she can "get it ready"... meanwhile she could also get a
>> siren/ "pepper spray" / cell phone out and start taking precautions...
>
> shows what YOU know about it.Nothing.
And what is wrong with the statement that unless the weapon is easily
available you might as well not have it...
>
>> An intruder breaking into the home requires that the handgun be
>> immediately available.. Which means.. Being carried at all times... or
>> lots of handguns spread around the home so one is "always available"..
>
> Again,shows what YOU know about it.Nothing.
If the gun is not immediately available.. then it isn't a heck of a lot
of use against an intruder.. The time spent searching for a gun could be
better spend leaving... it has the advantage that if the other guy is
armed you don't get shot yourself....
To be immediately available you need to be carrying it, or have multiple
guns stashed in easy to access locations around your home... Otherwise
where is the gun?
>
>>
>>> Not many people are minimally competent in knife fighting,and
>>> generally,a strong person can take away a "blunt instrument",and then
>>> use it on you. Both require close combat with the attacker.
>> If you have that much time.. why not attempt to leave...
>
> ah,the "flee instead of sticking up for your rights and property",the false
> argument that it's better to submit than fight back/Because that IS what
> fleeing is;submission.
Fleeing is the safe option. First.. what happens if there are two or
more of them? You plan on discovering that when you confront them. Me..
I'd leave first...
> Pretty cowardly,too.
Avoiding a fight isn't cowardice. It's reasonable behaviour. Especially
when you have little/ no idea who/ what the opposition is. Charging in
blindly to defend property is stupid...
>
> and maybe you can't flee.
It's a legal requirement that buildings and dwellings have escape routes...
The situations where people break in and you can't call for help, and
can't flee are few and far between...
>> Meanwhile, in a home in the same circumstances.. Just what distance do
>> you think there is between the "victim" and her would be assailant?
>
> It varys.
>
>> Until the gun can be brought to bear and is cocked ready to fire it is
>> less use than a knife.
>
> Many guns don't have to be cocked to be ready to fire.
Ah.. so you constantly carry a weapon, or have weapons lying around the
house locked and loaded.. just a trigger pull away from firing..
I bet there are lots of accident with that set up... Lots of accidental
deaths caused by children playing with guns that are loaded...
> also,many criminals will turn and FLEE (or surrender)when a gun is produced
> by their "victim",and then no shots are fired;in fact,it's criminal to
> shoot a fleeing criminals.
A lot of criminals will turn and flee if just confronted (As long as
they have access to an escape route.
making a lot of noise and attracting attention seems to work...
There is a good reason burglars prefer homes without buglar alarms..
Something about not calling attention to themselves.
>
> Again,shows what YOU know about it.Nothing.
You say that often enough and maybe you'll start to believe it. Me.. I
see someone who has a "religious" belief that they can only be safe in
their country if they can carry a gun..
Ah, to be in the land of the free.... :^)
>
>>
>>> NOT what you want.
>>>
>>>> The only weapon UK citizens are not allowed is a hand gun. Plenty of
>>>> long arms available.. But most people in a urban environment don't
>>>> own them (Nowhere to shoot them)
>>> and you can't carry them with you,where they could be of some use in
>>> self- defense.
>> But most people don't seem to think they need to carry a gun in the
>> UK....
>
> How do you know? they don't have the choice.
The government, working on the requests of the voters (Subject to the
lobby groups getting lots of press attention) drive laws. Not some
nameless entity.
Individuals are governed by the choice of the "majority" (Or a vocal
minority that can push their cause)
> If people don't think they need or want a gun to defend themselves,they
> don't have to buy one.
maybe people don't want their streets awash with guns, because all
those guns in the hands of people scares them..
> That doess't mean they should decide for OTHERS what those people can have
> for their self-defense,in their particular circumstances.
Voters decide lots of things...
If enough people think having guns in the hands of too many citizens is
unsafe... Not even the millions the NRA is bribing the politicians with
will be enough...
>>
>>>>> all that's -permitted- is other,less effective means that entail
>>>>> much more risk and less chances of successful self-defense.
>>>>> UK has decided for you that guns are not "reasonable force".
>>>> Nope. UK law is similar to NZ law. A case in point was where a
>>>> homeowner shot and killed a home invader when he was attacked by the
>>>> VHS armed burglar... (In the dark)
>>>>
>>>> One farmer did get "done" for shooting and hitting an escaping would
>>>> be quad-bike thief.
>>> after -many- burglaries.clearly police were useless,and he was not
>>> safe.
>> Farmers tend to live distant form the nearest police...
>
> so do other people.
> Police can't be everywhere,nor IN TIME to do you any good if the crook is
> intent on doing you harm.Police generally are a "cleanup crew",taking
> statements and making reports AFTER a crime is OVER.
So?
The law prevents them from acting until a law has been broken....
>
> and you CANNOT KNOW for certain what an intruder or attacker's intent
> is,until it's OVER and they've left and your still alive.
so what? Still doesn't mean the only protection/ defence is a hand gun...
>
>
> You seem to be VERY uninformed on this subject,working from unfounded
> suppositions instead of facts.
Really.. And you are working from what? (religious belief in the holy
NRA... :^)
>
>>
>>>> The guy who shot someone with a cross bow did have a few problems..
>>>> But that was more to do with the circumstances of the shooting
>>> Well,your "justice" system assumes the shooter is the criminal,and
>>> must prove his innocence.
>> Please learn to read for comprehension.. The problem wasn't the
>> shooting. It was the circumstances surrounding the shooting...
>
> No,I'm saying that your system treats the victim who shoots as a criminal
> until they prove themseves innocent,instead of innocent until proven
> guilty.
If you say this often enough I'm sure you think it will become true..
>
> YOU learn to read for comprehension.
Oh dear.. still not reading for comprehension yourself, are you ...
The victim who shoots a criminal in NZ will have the case examined.
If it is deemed to be reasonable force the police will not press charges.
Where do you get these strange ideas that NZ/ UK automatically prosecute
people who defend themselves? They keep track of what the courts and
juries have been doing.... The occasional case goes to court to get a
legal opinion, and the crown prosecutor takes note...
Meanwhile.. Wasn't you who said. Better to be tried by 12 than carried
by 6.. That seems to imply the US system will examine the circumstances
of a would be assailant being killed/ maimed/ otherwise seriously
injured in "self-defence"..
>> And yes, the shooter was definitely a criminal.. He felt he needed the
>> crossbow for self defence.. Because of the people he was dealing
>> with...
>
>
> Not knowing any of the facts on this case,I say he still might have been
> right. It's REAL easy for "Monday morning quarterbacking" AFTER the
> fact,and not fully knowing what the victim had for a situation.
> Particularly for an uncaring official that may have an axe to groind,to
> prove themselves "tough" on "lawbreakers".
> (and protecting criminals more than the ODCs...)
Ah.. I see your problem. You think our justice system is controlled by
elected LEO's and judges.
Sorry. Not the case.
Police and judges, and even crown prosecutors are not subject to the
whim of the public.
The government might make laws in response to public opinion. But no
judge or LEO needs to have an image of being "tough on lawbreakers" to
remain secure in their job. they just have to enforce the laws that are
made... (We leave that to the politicians...)
<SNIP>
>>
>> You don't want to store a mass of concealable firearms in a single
>> location that is known (Gun clubs have public addresses). It makes
>> them attractive to people who want guns.
>
> Ah,so UK criminals DO want guns.
Sure.. just not very many of them because of the penalties...
Nobody ever said no UK criminals want guns... just that they are hard to
get hold of.
>
> can't a gun club afford a VAULT,some place secure,with alarms,etc?
You put a few hundred high value guns in a "remote" (People don't like
living close to sources of loud noises).. and it becomes a target for
thieves...
Why create such an attractive nuisance?
And such security costs money..
I don't know about UK and US gun clubs, but the local club in
Christchurch is only a few hundred members...
The cost of all that security would raise membership fees excessively.
Besides, having the weapons at home is much more convenient.
>
>> So it is doubtful if any club would hold the guns (My gun club has a
>> designated person who holds the club guns, and can store a members
>> guns if necessary (because the owner is going away for an extended
>> period, but not long enough to warrant selling the weapons)
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>>> But UK criminals really don't need them,as you've all been disarmed
>>>>> and it's far easier to dominate a victim if they are unarmed.
>>>> Yeah right.. keep on saying that....
>>> It's TRUE.
>>>> Poor defenceless Poms and us equally poor defenceless Kiwis prefer
>>>> making it hard for the bad guys to obtain firearms.
>>> yet they STILL DO obtain them. NZ and UK both still have shootings.
>> In NZ the shootings are mostly long arms either unmodified, or cut
>> off. One of the classics used to be the sawn off .22
>
> Heh,in the US,having a "sawed-off" rifle or shotgun is a serious,FEDERAL
> crime,besides a state crime.
Well, given how easily they can get hold of handguns they don't need to
saw the barrels off.
meanwhile in NZ/ UK any firearms offence is a serious crime.. sawed-off
is one of the few ways they can get shorter, easier to conceal
weapons... It's already a heavy prison sentence using a firearm in the
commission of a crime. Using a sawed-off isn't going to add to it.
>> The other alternative is using replicas..
>
> and homemade and smuggled guns.
Yes.. which is of course so easy and cheap that they are still using
replicas.
> I read awhile back of an Aussie who had been making handguns in a home shop
> by the 100's,and police believed he had already sold many guns,
> illegally,of course.I wish I had kept a link to that article.
> If they're in AUS,then they can be smuggled into NZ.
> (not that some freighter could not have a few cases of handguns aboard for
> smuggling,it could be very profitable.)
You can make handguns in a home shop.. If you can get the metals and
know what you are doing.. But finding a market for them isn't easy. It's
not the kind of thing you can advertise in the local paper or trademe/ ebay
Most firearms smuggled into NZ probably come in yachts traveling between
Oz and NZ.. Still.. not a lot of handgun crime in NZ (Can't remember
when I last saw anything about handguns.
The most recent firearms confrontation the guy (Wanted for questioning
about drugs) had illegally held Military style semis plus legal rifles
.. but strangely enough.. No handguns...
>
>
>> There are almost no incidents in NZ where the offenders have used real
>> hand guns (A few handguns have found their way into illegal hands, but
>> they don't turn up very often.)
>>
>> It's still relatively easy to get a long arm in NZ...
>>
>>> I note even the Queen had a "home invader" in her bedroom.It's pure
>>> LUCK she's still alive.
>>> Beatle George Harrison was stabbed multiple times in his home,nearly
>>> lost his life.
>> And if either of the intruders had had easy access to firearms it
>> could have been fatal...
>
> see my previous statement above about knife wounds/gunshot wounds,and
> fatalities.
So guns are less effective as weapons than knives....
>
>> But they didn't. Instead, IN Harrison's case, the offender had to use
>> a knife.. If only Lennon had been so lucky.
>
> another SUPPOSITION with NO fact to back it up.
really..
Facts..
Lennon was shot and died,
Harrison was stabbed and survived...
Lennon's assailant had access to a gun
Harrison's assailant only had a knife
If Harrison's assailant had had a gun instead of a knife, then chances
are Harrison would have died... But he only had a knife, and even after
multiple stab wounds Harrison survived...
>
>>>> And the laws seem to be doing a reasonable job...
>>>>
>>>> Certainly I've never felt that I needed a gun to walk through the
>>>> streets of various cities in NZ at night, on my own....
>>> So what?
>>> that could mean that you are ignorant of your surroundings,or happen
>>> to live in a safe area.OTHER people may have very different
>>> circumstances.
>> I walked around some of the poorer areas of Auckland and Christchurch,
>> at night, on my own...
>
> So what? that proves nothing. Maybe criminals thought you were not their
> type of victim,maybe too big,or too aware of surroundings,or attitude.
Oh, so in NZ criminals are scared of a 5'7" male of about 180 pounds..
Yep, obviously no need for Kiwis to have guns to defend themselves...
>> Including the warehouse areas...
>>
>> never felt I needed a gun. Or any other weapon...
>
> FEELINGS,nothing more than FEELINGS....la-di-dah-di-dah. great song.
> some people don't -feel- fear because they're too clueless.
> they simply don't recognize a potentially risky situation or place.
Or maybe the threat is just in YOUR mind...
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>>>>> If anything,lawful concealed carry should be expanded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Increasing the pool of weapons for the criminals to obtain....
>>> But still allowing ODCs better self-defense.
>>> OTOH,you disarm decent citizens while your criminals still have guns
>>> and other weapons.
>> Oh dear, that old saw again..
>
> It's STILL TRUE. It always will be.
> Just as there will always be bad people out there,looking to do others
> wrong.
Sure there are people out their looking to take the easy road to
money... but very few NZ criminals have guns.. It causes too much heat
from the police. It also automatically adds years to a prison sentence.
Anybody with firearms is most likely involved in drugs and they are used
against other dealers.
Guns in holdups are so common events they make national news (TABs,
banks, service stations, corner stores) :^)
Heck, even knife welding holdups make national news.
There just isn't the level of threat in NZ you seem to believe exists...
>
> It's like having a fire extinguisher;sure,you can call the fire dept,and
> wait for them to come,and they certainly know their business and all
> that,but often you can save yourself a lot of grief if you have your own
> fire extinguisher and put out the fire yourself,while it's still small.
> It's being PREPARED for a possibility.
It's being scared of your environment such that you believe you have to
be armed in order to feel even marginally safe....
>
> Doesn't mean any "fear".that's YOUR imagination.
Nope, there is fear... I don't walk around believing I need to have a
gun to defend myself. You do..
Obviously you live with such a degree of fear for your safety that you
feel you need to carry a handgun to have any hope of protecting yourself..
Me.. I just use a little commonsense on where I walk (Mostly avoiding
the heavy drinking areas at night because the drunk louts can get
violent..But that's usually after 2 am)
But I don't feel the need to even carry a rolled magazine as a weapon...
>> The decent citizens in NZ have access to the same weapons that nearly
>> all criminals in NZ have access to... Very few criminals want anything
>> to do with firearms.
>
> unsupprted supposition.
Really? Got specifics?
I am a decent NZ citizen. I know what weapons I can access. And I don't
see very many cases of criminals having weapons in the news...
And those criminals with weapons tend to be predominantly drug dealers
protecting their patch...
And every time a gun is used in a crime the police crack down so hard
that the people responsible tend to be caught
>> Those people using firearms in crimes are the desperate (Usually
>> involved in obtaining money to buy drugs).. meaning they use replicas
>> or sawn off long arms
>
> Ah,so there ARE people that have guns for bad purposes in NZ.
Nobody ever said they didn't. Just that normal citizens don't walk in
fear of them...
Heck, when robbing a store etc the crims don't want to fire. They're
usually very scared and it's best to get out of the way and let the
police deal with them (And the success rate in catching gun welding
robbers is pretty good in NZ...
<SNIP>
>>> Also,it's not "HAVE to be armed",it's "CHOOSE to be armed".
>>> WE have the free choice,you don't.Our folks get to decide for
>>> themselves what THEY determine they need for self-defense.
>>> Not some faceless,uncaring officials. That's "freedom".
>> Err.. We do get to decide. In a democracy the majority get to make the
>> laws and the majority don't want the streets awash with firearms.
>
> I doubt it was anything that citizens voted on.
So, the NRA is not made up of citizens who are pushing their agenda/
Citizens push agendas all the time and those agendas influence the laws
the politicians write...
>> If enough people objected the law would be changed....
>
> easier said than done.
Well, with the levels of political corruption in the US, I guess that is
true... for the US
The lobby groups in NZ don't have that kind of power.
They have to motivate the general public rather than just catch the ears
of the politicians.
>> It is not and never has been down to "officials" ..
> Pretty much so.It's all how proposed laws are written,presented to the
> public by media,etc.
And that is up to the various lobby groups...
>
>> So sorry.. We are at least as Free in NZ as the US, if not more so
>> because we don't consider we need to arm ourselves in order to feel
>> safe.
>
> No,you dont have the ability or the means to overthrow an abusing
> government.(see US Declaration of independence;read carefully)
> you are not "free".
Err...
I feel pretty free actually. Not a lot I want to do that I can't do....
As for being able to overthrow an abusing government...
The American people don't have the ability to do anything about a
president who decides he is above the law. All he has to do is sign some
kind of memo and laws the government passes don't apply to him.
In NZ that just can't happen.
Actually, an abusing government is hard to see happening under NZ law...
And well.. NZ has one of the highest per capita ownership of long arms
in the world..
>
>>>
>>>
>>> besides,criminals don't alwaysneed guns to commit
>>> robberies,rapes,murders. they can prey on the smaller,weaker,less
>>> numerous,and can use other items as weapons.
>>
>>
>>>>> the fact remains,criminals prefer unarmed victims.Overwhelmingly.
>>>> Sure. They also prefer committing burglaries when people are out..
>>> I've heard UK has a higher rate of AT HOME burglaries.
>>> (like Beatle George Harrison's,or the QUEEN herself.)
>>>
>>> Sheesh,even the QUEEN isn't safe in her own home,despite high
>>> security!
>> That was a long time ago (and things have changed).
>
> Doubtful.that is what they'd like you to believe,though.
Who are "They"? Are you another wacky conspiracy theorist? (certainly
sound like one)..
"Heads" rolled over that incident and measures were taken.. That
happened in 1982.. Seen anything similar in the nearly thirty years since?
>
>> Also of course her
>> level of personal security is nothing like the US head of state (aka
>> POTUS) has..
>>
>> And still a couple of uninvited people managed to gate crash an event
>> in the Whitehouse...
>
> exactly. BUT,there were ARMED people nearby.
Very good at acting after the event... Nice way to protect your
president.. What if they had been "armed" (What if one of them had been
a suicide bomber?)
>>> Don't hear much about NZ.
>> You don't hear much because it's not a problem. Just like your two
>> examples for UK are so old.. I notice you can't give anything more
>> recent than... 1999 (Harrison), 1982 (Queen)
>
> I dont pay that close attention to UK or NZ.I suspect that there's more
> recent examples.
> I have read that the UK Home Office said they believed there were THREE
> MILLION illegal guns in the UK,as of 2003.
Oh dear.. Is that the best you can do? Not good at reading for
comprehension are you..
That has been thrashed out recently..
Some lobby group, with an agenda, put together an unsubstantiated report
that made a claim... IIRC Peter supplied the complete article where the
claims were rubbished.
The UK Home Office has said no such thing (Where are these weapons?
Where did they come from (Why weren't there increases in the numbers of
discovered weapons in border control operations while these millions of
weapons arrived.)
>>
>>> but that doesn't affect robberies or assaults away from home.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Maybe the criminals in NZ and UK aren't as desperate as those in
>>>> America...
>>> Or maybe reporting and crime data collection is different.
>> There is that.. Firearms crime in NZ and UK includes anything that
>> looks like or is claimed to be a firearm (Air weapons, nonworking
>> replicas, even a finger in a jacket pocket. ANd real weapons) Compare
>> that with the US where a firearms crime always involves (I assume) a
>> real firearm.)
>
> Odd,I had head of UK doing wierd things with their data collection to keep
> their numbers looking good.
From NRA sources no doubt...
<SNIP>
>
>> Who the hell do you think makes laws? Some faceless entity, or
>> politicians keeping in good with the voters to ensure they get
>> reelected.
>>
>> Heck, why is the NRA one of the largest lobby groups in the US if not
>> to push their message against (The majority of voters are not NRA or
>> gun owners. Without the lobbying the gun regulations in the US could
>> easily be changed by politicians doing what their public ask of them.
>
> Look at the high number of gun owners in the US;over 80 million(out of ~280
> million total population,including children),and only 4 million NRA
> members.Polls have shown that the vast majority of Americans support the
> individual right to keep and bear arms,when it's clearly put to them.
>
> But,the Second Amendment protecting the Right to Keep and Near Arms has
> existed since 1791.
> (you ought to read Clayton Cramer's "Armed America: The Remarkable Story of
> How and Why Guns Became as American as Apple Pie",you'd learn a lot.)
>
>
> And "lobbying" is just voters getting together to press their position,more
> effectively.
Lobbying is small groups with lots of money pushing for "favourable"
legislation that suits them...
The minority making the rules for the majority..
Still it's not some nameless official making teh rules.. It's voters
pushing agendas..
Alan Lothian
<ka...@ext.cantrbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> About the only circumstances when a weapon might prove useful (easily
> accessible) is when the woman feels threatened (someone following
> them).. and she can "get it ready"... meanwhile she could also get a
> siren/ "pepper spray" / cell phone out and start taking precautions...
True story, London, circa 1970. Notting Hill (not then as posh as it is
now) late at night. Old friend of mine finds himself walking behind
young lady who is fumbling in handbag. Drops something. Old friend
picks it up: "Excuse me..." says he. Young lady, who is Swiss, snaps
Mace spray out of handbag and gives old friend a thorough zapping. (NB
this entirely illegal -- Mace imported illegally, too.)
Young Swiss lady, to her credit, realizes horrid error. Accepts dropped
handkerchief. Weekend of tempestuous sex follows, as she tries to make
up for it. All is sometimes well that ends well. Lucky it wasn't a .45
though. As old friend put it, "I've never cried my eyes out for sex
before."
Ideally, they'd have married and lived happily ever after. This, alas,
was not the case. Still, as a courtship ritual, it has to be of some
interest to anthropologists.
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> And what is wrong with the statement that unless the weapon is easily
> available you might as well not have it...
>
Brings back the Sports Illustrated article 1/ from many years ago
where "Colonel Boothroyd" was giving James Bond a critique on his
choice of weapons. Bond carried a Beretta 418 in a pouch. Boothroyd
pointed out it took too long to extract this tiny gun to be useful. It
might help to know he was talking to a man who had just been shot
because he couldn't get his gun into play. Gun bunnies may feel free
to critique Boothroyd in return but for the time and place he was a
revelation.
1/ http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1073622/index.htm
Andrew Chaplin
410c-9ea5-2...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> Gun bunnies may feel free to critique Boothroyd in return
> but for the time and place he was a revelation.
Please leave the artillery out of this. A "gun bunny" is a member of a gun
detachment.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:1e4390cb-260d-
> 410c-9ea5-264379b49...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Gun bunnies may feel free to critique Boothroyd in return
> > but for the time and place he was a revelation.
>
> Please leave the artillery out of this. A "gun bunny" is a member of a gun
> detachment.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Urban Dictionary gives me the number 3 def.
3. gun bunny
N. A person who loves guns, especially big ones, and has lots of them,
often to a ridiculous degree. Mel Gibson and Renee Russo's characters
in Lethal Weapon 3 could be considered gun-bunnies. Arnold
Schwarzenegger's character in Commando, and all the commandos in
Predator were better examples of gun bunnies. Often used in a mildly
derisive manner. Most frequently used this way in role-playing games
(RPGs).
"And so the gun bunny whips out a rocket launcher and blasts that
stupid neighbor's dog that wouldn't shut up."
Jim Yanik
This paragraph has NOTHING to do with the statement above it.
It's just something you keep repeating like a mantra.
criminals in NZ and UK STILL get guns.
Whether they are conversions or factory made,it doesn't matter;they still
are GUNS;lethal weapons.even a replica conversion can kill a person,and
they STILL are intimidating,thus useful in crimes.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> About the only circumstances when a weapon might prove useful
>>> (easily accessible) is when the woman feels threatened (someone
>>> following them).. and she can "get it ready"... meanwhile she could
>>> also get a siren/ "pepper spray" / cell phone out and start taking
>>> precautions...
>>
>> shows what YOU know about it.Nothing.
>
> And what is wrong with the statement that unless the weapon is easily
> available you might as well not have it...
Because actual incidents have shown it to be false.
>
>>
>>> An intruder breaking into the home requires that the handgun be
>>> immediately available.. Which means.. Being carried at all times...
>>> or lots of handguns spread around the home so one is "always
>>> available"..
>>
>> Again,shows what YOU know about it.Nothing.
>
> If the gun is not immediately available.. then it isn't a heck of a
> lot of use against an intruder.. The time spent searching for a gun
> could be better spend leaving... it has the advantage that if the
> other guy is armed you don't get shot yourself....
Again,show what you know about it;NOTHING.
FACT is,many people HAVE managed quite well in getting to a gun "not
immediately available".
you keep repeating your FALSE BELIEFS. That's called "denial".
>
> To be immediately available you need to be carrying it, or have
> multiple guns stashed in easy to access locations around your home...
> Otherwise where is the gun?
actual happenings show that is not true.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Not many people are minimally competent in knife fighting,and
>>>> generally,a strong person can take away a "blunt instrument",and
>>>> then use it on you. Both require close combat with the attacker.
>>> If you have that much time.. why not attempt to leave...
>>
>> ah,the "flee instead of sticking up for your rights and property",the
>> false argument that it's better to submit than fight back/Because
>> that IS what fleeing is;submission.
>
> Fleeing is the safe option. First.. what happens if there are two or
> more of them?
most guns carry more than a single shot.
> You plan on discovering that when you confront them.
> Me.. I'd leave first...
>
>> Pretty cowardly,too.
>
> Avoiding a fight isn't cowardice. It's reasonable behaviour.
It's SURRENDER.
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder
> Especially when you have little/ no idea who/ what the opposition is.
> Charging in blindly to defend property is stupid...
yes,that's why one acts carefully.
Not "charging in blindly",like you're doing in this argument.
>
>>
>> and maybe you can't flee.
>
> It's a legal requirement that buildings and dwellings have escape
> routes...
and yet people stil get trapped in buildings.
How does a handicapped or elderly person flee?
any reasonably healthy criminal can outrun them.
>
> The situations where people break in and you can't call for help, and
> can't flee are few and far between...
assumption not based in fact.
>
>
>
>>> Meanwhile, in a home in the same circumstances.. Just what distance
>>> do you think there is between the "victim" and her would be
>>> assailant?
>>
>> It varys.
>>
>>> Until the gun can be brought to bear and is cocked ready to fire it
>>> is less use than a knife.
>>
>> Many guns don't have to be cocked to be ready to fire.
>
> Ah.. so you constantly carry a weapon, or have weapons lying around
> the house locked and loaded.. just a trigger pull away from firing..
Sure,why not.
Many guns are perfectly safe while loaded,and many guns DONT HAVE TO BE
COCKED to fire. they're called "double action" triggers.
Again,shows that you know nothing about this topic.
Learn something.
BTW,guns don't "go off" on their own,it takes a pull on the trigger to fire
them.
>
> I bet there are lots of accident with that set up... Lots of
> accidental deaths caused by children playing with guns that are
> loaded...
Lots of children that were never educated in gun safety.Often when they
encounter a gun at someone else's home,without adult supervision.
Actually,the number is pretty low,considering America's widespread gun
ownership and large population.
Swimming pools and autos kill FAR more children.
Don't you teach your kids not to play with matches?
>
>
>
>> also,many criminals will turn and FLEE (or surrender)when a gun is
>> produced by their "victim",and then no shots are fired;in fact,it's
>> criminal to shoot a fleeing criminals.
>
> A lot of criminals will turn and flee if just confronted (As long as
> they have access to an escape route.
A "lot"?
Not if they are robbers,rapists,murderers,and HOW does one KNOW what their
intent is? and they CHANCEE their mids often enough,too.
Do you read minds?
>
> making a lot of noise and attracting attention seems to work...
at giving THEM the advantage of surprise.Warning them.
>
> There is a good reason burglars prefer homes without buglar alarms..
> Something about not calling attention to themselves.
yeah,and people put bars on their windows and doors,live in CAGES.
>
>>
>> Again,shows what YOU know about it.Nothing.
>
> You say that often enough and maybe you'll start to believe it. Me.. I
> see someone who has a "religious" belief that they can only be safe in
> their country if they can carry a gun..
I NEVER said that.
that is what YOU read into the debate,ignoring what I've actually said.
What I've SAID is that guns give a person BETTER CHANCES (and more
options)of successful defense with less risk to themselves than any other
method.
For people of all sorts of physical condition;handicapped,elderly,small and
weak,or simply outnumbered.
>
> Ah, to be in the land of the free.... :^)
Ah,if only you have some reasoning and comprehension.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> NOT what you want.
>>>>
>>>>> The only weapon UK citizens are not allowed is a hand gun. Plenty
>>>>> of long arms available.. But most people in a urban environment
>>>>> don't own them (Nowhere to shoot them)
>>>> and you can't carry them with you,where they could be of some use
>>>> in self- defense.
>>> But most people don't seem to think they need to carry a gun in the
>>> UK....
>>
>> How do you know? they don't have the choice.
>
> The government, working on the requests of the voters (Subject to the
> lobby groups getting lots of press attention) drive laws. Not some
> nameless entity.
>
> Individuals are governed by the choice of the "majority" (Or a vocal
> minority that can push their cause)
>
>
>
>> If people don't think they need or want a gun to defend
>> themselves,they don't have to buy one.
>
> maybe people don't want their streets awash with guns, because all
> those guns in the hands of people scares them..
This is where your argument falls apart;
On one hand,you say your ilk don't want guns.
So,if guns -were- available for lawful ownership,they probably would not
buy them anyways. the number of people who -would- LAWFULLY buy guns would
be small,and thus the "availability" of guns for crimes would not increase
significantly.
In fact,if "no one wanted them",gun stores could not stay in business.
>
>
>
>> That doess't mean they should decide for OTHERS what those people can
>> have for their self-defense,in their particular circumstances.
>
>
> Voters decide lots of things...
Voters get lead around by the nose by media and government propaganda.
they are brainwashed to believe that police and gov't can protect them.
Unfortunately,-actual real life occurences- show otherwise.
>
> If enough people think having guns in the hands of too many citizens
> is unsafe... Not even the millions the NRA is bribing the politicians
> with will be enough...
Yeah,if people like you can succeed in misleading them....
>
>>>
>>>>>> all that's -permitted- is other,less effective means that entail
>>>>>> much more risk and less chances of successful self-defense.
>>>>>> UK has decided for you that guns are not "reasonable force".
>>>>> Nope. UK law is similar to NZ law. A case in point was where a
>>>>> homeowner shot and killed a home invader when he was attacked by
>>>>> the VHS armed burglar... (In the dark)
>>>>>
>>>>> One farmer did get "done" for shooting and hitting an escaping
>>>>> would be quad-bike thief.
>>>> after -many- burglaries.clearly police were useless,and he was not
>>>> safe.
>>> Farmers tend to live distant form the nearest police...
>>
>> so do other people.
>> Police can't be everywhere,nor IN TIME to do you any good if the
>> crook is intent on doing you harm.Police generally are a "cleanup
>> crew",taking statements and making reports AFTER a crime is OVER.
>
> So?
>
> The law prevents them from acting until a law has been broken....
EXACTLY.
it doesn't do YOU any good "after the fact",you've already been
killed,maimed,raped,savagely beaten,with perhaps permanent damage.
whereas a person can act to prevent an attack by merely displaying a
firearm;that the "vicitm" is not one to be messed with.
Even the weak,small,handicapped,elderly CAN successfully defend themselves
and others with a gun. With better chances of success and less harm to
themselves.
>
>
>
>>
>> and you CANNOT KNOW for certain what an intruder or attacker's intent
>> is,until it's OVER and they've left and your still alive.
>
> so what? Still doesn't mean the only protection/ defence is a hand
> gun...
Again,YOUR misinterpretation,not my misstatement.
You gotta work on that reading comprehension...
-I- have never said "only",I said "best" method..for the widest group of
ODCs.
>
>>
>>
>> You seem to be VERY uninformed on this subject,working from unfounded
>> suppositions instead of facts.
>
> Really.. And you are working from what? (religious belief in the holy
> NRA... :^)
I work from actual real life examples.
Not unfounded supposition and imaginations,as you've demonstrated with many
of your incorect statements above,that I've pointed out several time.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>> The guy who shot someone with a cross bow did have a few
>>>>> problems.. But that was more to do with the circumstances of the
>>>>> shooting
>>>> Well,your "justice" system assumes the shooter is the criminal,and
>>>> must prove his innocence.
>>> Please learn to read for comprehension.. The problem wasn't the
>>> shooting. It was the circumstances surrounding the shooting...
>>
>> No,I'm saying that your system treats the victim who shoots as a
>> criminal until they prove themseves innocent,instead of innocent
>> until proven guilty.
>
> If you say this often enough I'm sure you think it will become true..
>
>>
>> YOU learn to read for comprehension.
>
> Oh dear.. still not reading for comprehension yourself, are you ...
>
> The victim who shoots a criminal in NZ will have the case examined.
but the police lean towards the shooter as being the "bad guy".
nonsense;
the closest indoor gun range to me is right next to peoples homes.
same for the next closest.
and in some countries,they REQUIRE the use of sound suppressors(AKA
"silencers")! (not the US,though.we severely regulate them..)
>
> Why create such an attractive nuisance?
>
> And such security costs money..
>
> I don't know about UK and US gun clubs, but the local club in
> Christchurch is only a few hundred members...
>
> The cost of all that security would raise membership fees excessively.
> Besides, having the weapons at home is much more convenient.
making them -easier- to steal.they're even MORE "remote" then.
a single person cannot afford the security that a large group can when they
pool their resources.
Far cheaper to store them in a shared well-constructed vault.
>
>
>
>>
>>> So it is doubtful if any club would hold the guns (My gun club has a
>>> designated person who holds the club guns, and can store a members
>>> guns if necessary (because the owner is going away for an extended
>>> period, but not long enough to warrant selling the weapons)
>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But UK criminals really don't need them,as you've all been
>>>>>> disarmed and it's far easier to dominate a victim if they are
>>>>>> unarmed.
>>>>> Yeah right.. keep on saying that....
>>>> It's TRUE.
>>>>> Poor defenceless Poms and us equally poor defenceless Kiwis prefer
>>>>> making it hard for the bad guys to obtain firearms.
>>>> yet they STILL DO obtain them. NZ and UK both still have shootings.
>>> In NZ the shootings are mostly long arms either unmodified, or cut
>>> off. One of the classics used to be the sawn off .22
>>
>> Heh,in the US,having a "sawed-off" rifle or shotgun is a
>> serious,FEDERAL crime,besides a state crime.
>
> Well, given how easily they can get hold of handguns they don't need
> to saw the barrels off.
amazingly,they still do quite often.
People are more afraid of a sawed-off shotgun than a handgun.
>
> meanwhile in NZ/ UK any firearms offence is a serious crime..
> sawed-off is one of the few ways they can get shorter, easier to
> conceal weapons... It's already a heavy prison sentence using a
> firearm in the commission of a crime. Using a sawed-off isn't going to
> add to it.
>
>
>
>>> The other alternative is using replicas..
>>
>> and homemade and smuggled guns.
>
> Yes.. which is of course so easy and cheap that they are still using
> replicas.
>
>
>
>> I read awhile back of an Aussie who had been making handguns in a
>> home shop by the 100's,and police believed he had already sold many
>> guns, illegally,of course.I wish I had kept a link to that article.
>> If they're in AUS,then they can be smuggled into NZ.
>> (not that some freighter could not have a few cases of handguns
>> aboard for smuggling,it could be very profitable.)
>
> You can make handguns in a home shop.. If you can get the metals and
> know what you are doing.. But finding a market for them isn't easy.
> It's not the kind of thing you can advertise in the local paper or
> trademe/ ebay
criminals manage quite well. they stay "connected".
>
> Most firearms smuggled into NZ probably come in yachts traveling
> between Oz and NZ.. Still.. not a lot of handgun crime in NZ (Can't
> remember when I last saw anything about handguns.
Perhaps your low rates of crime is due to that isolation,along with a small
population that is probably more homogenous than the populous,diverse
USofA. Just as Japan's is due to their culture and history.
things are done differently there.
>
> The most recent firearms confrontation the guy (Wanted for questioning
> about drugs) had illegally held Military style semis plus legal rifles
> .. but strangely enough.. No handguns...
Ah,now HOW did he GET those "military style semis? where did they come
from? They aren't usual sale items in your nation,and not manufactured in
NZ or AUS.
they must have been smuggled in.
Note;druggies have moved to greater firepower than handguns,for several
reasons.
In Mexico,they also use grenades and RPGs,not something any gun store
sells,strictly miltary sources.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> There are almost no incidents in NZ where the offenders have used
>>> real hand guns (A few handguns have found their way into illegal
>>> hands, but they don't turn up very often.)
>>>
>>> It's still relatively easy to get a long arm in NZ...
>>>
>>>> I note even the Queen had a "home invader" in her bedroom.It's pure
>>>> LUCK she's still alive.
>>>> Beatle George Harrison was stabbed multiple times in his
>>>> home,nearly lost his life.
>>> And if either of the intruders had had easy access to firearms it
>>> could have been fatal...
>>
>> see my previous statement above about knife wounds/gunshot wounds,and
>> fatalities.
>
> So guns are less effective as weapons than knives....
Another DUMB statement. Do you THINK about what you post?
At close range,a knive CAN be more deadly. Look at Rwanda,where machetes
killed millions of people.
>
>
>>
>>> But they didn't. Instead, IN Harrison's case, the offender had to
>>> use a knife.. If only Lennon had been so lucky.
>>
>> another SUPPOSITION with NO fact to back it up.
>
> really..
> Facts..
> Lennon was shot and died,
> Harrison was stabbed and survived...
> Lennon's assailant had access to a gun
> Harrison's assailant only had a knife
then there was the lawyer who was attacked by a guy(former customer?) with
a 10-shot .22 revolver,kept dodging behind a tree,got shot many times,but
nothing lethal.It was on TV all over the US.
MANY people get shot and survive their gunshot wounds.
>
>
> If Harrison's assailant had had a gun instead of a knife, then chances
> are Harrison would have died... But he only had a knife, and even
> after multiple stab wounds Harrison survived...
Pure LUCK. a matter of less than an inch for one stab.
>
>
>>
>>>>> And the laws seem to be doing a reasonable job...
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly I've never felt that I needed a gun to walk through the
>>>>> streets of various cities in NZ at night, on my own....
>>>> So what?
>>>> that could mean that you are ignorant of your surroundings,or
>>>> happen to live in a safe area.OTHER people may have very different
>>>> circumstances.
>>> I walked around some of the poorer areas of Auckland and
>>> Christchurch, at night, on my own...
>>
>> So what? that proves nothing. Maybe criminals thought you were not
>> their type of victim,maybe too big,or too aware of surroundings,or
>> attitude.
>
> Oh, so in NZ criminals are scared of a 5'7" male of about 180 pounds..
Depends on several variables.attitude and awareness of surroundings are
two.
(youre about the same size as I,BTW.)
you have to remember the crooks goal is to do what he wants -with the least
risk or damage to himself-,and the best chances of success.
If he thinks you might put up a fight,who knows?
they generally go for the -easy- targets.
(I'm amazed that I have to explain all this to you...)
>
> Yep, obviously no need for Kiwis to have guns to defend themselves...
>
>>> Including the warehouse areas...
>>>
>>> never felt I needed a gun. Or any other weapon...
>>
>> FEELINGS,nothing more than FEELINGS....la-di-dah-di-dah. great song.
>> some people don't -feel- fear because they're too clueless.
>> they simply don't recognize a potentially risky situation or place.
>
> Or maybe the threat is just in YOUR mind...
Again,it's more of preparedness,than fear or imagination.
well,that's YOUR "read". it's called "denial".
>>
>> Doesn't mean any "fear".that's YOUR imagination.
>
> Nope, there is fear... I don't walk around believing I need to have a
> gun to defend myself. You do..
So,people who have fire extinguishers are all FEARFUL???
not merely prepared?
>
> Obviously you live with such a degree of fear for your safety that you
> feel you need to carry a handgun to have any hope of protecting
> yourself..
Keep deluding yourself.
Jim Yanik
news:010120100519364510%alanl...@mac.com:
> In article <4B3D0D89...@ext.cantrbury.ac.nz>, Kerryn Offord
><ka...@ext.cantrbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>>
>> About the only circumstances when a weapon might prove useful (easily
>> accessible) is when the woman feels threatened (someone following
>> them).. and she can "get it ready"... meanwhile she could also get a
>> siren/ "pepper spray" / cell phone out and start taking precautions...
Heh,a cell phone? when seconds count,police are minutes away....
(good for cleanup after the crime...doesn't do the victim any good.)
>
> True story, London, circa 1970. Notting Hill (not then as posh as it is
> now) late at night. Old friend of mine finds himself walking behind
> young lady who is fumbling in handbag. Drops something. Old friend
> picks it up: "Excuse me..." says he. Young lady, who is Swiss, snaps
> Mace spray out of handbag and gives old friend a thorough zapping. (NB
> this entirely illegal -- Mace imported illegally, too.)
Mace can cause permanent damage,pepper spray doesn't.
> Young Swiss lady, to her credit, realizes horrid error. Accepts dropped
> handkerchief. Weekend of tempestuous sex follows, as she tries to make
> up for it. All is sometimes well that ends well. Lucky it wasn't a .45
> though. As old friend put it, "I've never cried my eyes out for sex
> before."
>
> Ideally, they'd have married and lived happily ever after. This, alas,
> was not the case. Still, as a courtship ritual, it has to be of some
> interest to anthropologists.
>
true story;
50 yr old lady in Heathrow area of Seminole County,Florida had a
stalker,got a restraining order against him.County Sheriff's deputy advised
her to -buy a gun-. She did,got only 20 minutes of training with it(from a
County deputy!).
The stalker came to her house,smashed thru a patio door,armed with a gun
and carrying a piece of rope. She was shot twice,yet managed to get to her
revolver,fired and killed him. She's still alive.
this was reported in the Orlando Sentinel.
Pieces of paper don't keep away bad people intent on doing you harm.
"Police protection" is merely a promise usually not kept.
Andrew Chaplin
> On Jan 1, 10:29�am, Andrew Chaplin <ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com>
> wrote:
>> Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:1e4390cb-260d-
>> 410c-9ea5-264379b49...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Gun bunnies may feel free to critique Boothroyd in return
>> > but for the time and place he was a revelation.
>>
>> Please leave the artillery out of this. A "gun bunny" is a member
>> of a gun detachment.
>
> 3. gun bunny
>
> N. A person who loves guns, especially big ones, and has lots of them,
> often to a ridiculous degree. Mel Gibson and Renee Russo's characters
> in Lethal Weapon 3 could be considered gun-bunnies. Arnold
> Schwarzenegger's character in Commando, and all the commandos in
> Predator were better examples of gun bunnies. Often used in a mildly
> derisive manner. Most frequently used this way in role-playing games
> (RPGs).
> "And so the gun bunny whips out a rocket launcher and blasts that
> stupid neighbor's dog that wouldn't shut up."
Never heard tell of that before. The artillery usage has had currency in
the U.S. since at least the 1960s, and it has since spread to Canada. I
have been a qualified gun bunny since early August 1973.
Jack Linthicum
Rich Johnson
wrote:
> Never heard tell of that before. The artillery usage has had currency in
> the U.S. since at least the 1960s, and it has since spread to Canada. I
> have been a qualified gun bunny since early August 1973.
Is that anything like a puck bunny ?
Rich
Enfield NS
Canada
Andrew Chaplin
b7e3c0...@t12g2000vbk.googlegroups.com:
Sure, but with poorer hearing and the ability to lift the trails of a 105
C1 howitzer by the lunette with one hand while directing the gun tractor
with the other.
Andrew Chaplin
> On Jan 1, 11:41�am, Andrew Chaplin <ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com>
> wrote:
>> Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> innews:c5165a63-e461-4
> f3d-9321-f...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 1, 10:29�am, Andrew Chaplin
>> > <ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
>> >> Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> >> news:1e4390cb-260d-
>> >> 410c-9ea5-264379b49...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > Gun bunnies may feel free to critique Boothroyd in return
>> >> > but for the time and place he was a revelation.
>>
>> >> Please leave the artillery out of this. A "gun bunny" is a member
>> >> of a gun detachment.
>>
>> > 3. � � �gun bunny
>>
>> > N. A person who loves guns, especially big ones, and has lots of
>> > them, often to a ridiculous degree. Mel Gibson and Renee Russo's
>> > characters in Lethal Weapon 3 could be considered gun-bunnies.
>> > Arnold Schwarzenegger's character in Commando, and all the
>> > commandos in Predator were better examples of gun bunnies. Often
>> > used in a mildly derisive manner. Most frequently used this way in
>> > role-playing games (RPGs).
>> > "And so the gun bunny whips out a rocket launcher and blasts that
>> > stupid neighbor's dog that wouldn't shut up."
>>
>> Never heard tell of that before. The artillery usage has had currency
>> in the U.S. since at least the 1960s, and it has since spread to
>> Canada. I have been a qualified gun bunny since early August 1973.
>
> Got sticker?
>
> http://www.stickergiant.com/gun-bunny_ekzs49.html
That's not a gun, it hasn't any wheels.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:6de78f23-26c3-4f1c...@n31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 11:41 am, Andrew Chaplin <ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote
> >> innews:c5165a63-e461-4
Like our high school football coach
Alan Lothian
<jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
> Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com> wrote in
> news:010120100519364510%alanl...@mac.com:
> >
>
> true story;
> 50 yr old lady in Heathrow area of Seminole County,Florida had a
<snippaggio>
Jim, on this of all days I am not disposed to be ungenerous, but you're
seriously misfiring a couple of cylinders in the sense-of-humour
engine.
None the less, I wish you a very happy 2010. And note, although it is
irrelevant, that I do NOT support current UK gun law.
Jack Linthicum
> Alan Lothian <alanloth...@mac.com> wrote innews:010120100519364510%alanl...@mac.com:
>
> > In article <4B3D0D89.6080...@ext.cantrbury.ac.nz>, Kerryn Offord
Which one is it?
1. Preview (Abstract/Citation) Full Text (No Photos) Buy Page Print
LAW OFFICER SHOOTS WIFE AS INTRUDER A SEMINOLE DEPUTY SHERIFF WAS
PLACED ON LEAVE AFTER THE SHOOTING.
Mary Brooks of The Sentinel Staff; Orlando Sentinel; Apr 10, 1996; pg.
D.3;
2. Preview (Abstract/Citation) Full Text (No Photos) Buy Page Print
COUNTY LEADERS TAKING THEIR CUE FROM PRESIDENT AND TALKING SOFTLY
Don Boyett, Seminole County Editor; Orlando Sentinel; Feb 5, 1989; pg.
8;
3. Preview (Abstract/Citation) Full Text (No Photos) Buy Page Print
When your sanctuary is violated, it hits home ; Even `safest'
neighborhoods have break-ins; The Sheriff's Office says it will try to
deter the crime, but the reality is `it's going to happen.'
Mike Berry, Sentinel Staff Writer; Orlando Sentinel; Dec 10, 2006; pg.
J.1;
4. Preview (Abstract/Citation) Full Text (No Photos) Buy Page Print
IT'S SAFETY FIRST ON SHOPPING LIST
Nancy N. Glick; Orlando Sentinel; Aug 6, 2000; pg. J.1;
5. Preview (Abstract/Citation) Full Text (No Photos) Buy Page Print
EX-DEPUTY ALLOWED TO VISIT DAUGHTER TOM LIVINGSTON WAS ACQUITTED LAST
MONTH IN SEMINOLE COUNTY OF TRYING TO SHOOT HIS ESTRANGED WIFE TO
DEATH.
Rene Stutzman of The Sentinel Staff; Orlando Sentinel; Apr 21, 1998;
pg. D.3;
6. Preview (Abstract/Citation) Full Text (No Photos) Buy Page Print
SEMINOLE HOMEOWNER HOLDS INTRUDER AT GUNPOINT
Orlando Sentinel; Aug 22, 1993; pg. B.3;
7. Preview (Abstract/Citation) Full Text (No Photos) Buy Page Print
WOMAN FINDS INTRUDER ASLEEP IN HER BEDROOM
Compiled from staff and wire reports; Orlando Sentinel; Nov 13, 1986;
pg. D.2;
8. Preview (Abstract/Citation) Full Text (No Photos) Buy Page Print
HURRAY FOR SELF-DEFENSE
Orlando Sentinel; Dec 27, 1985; pg. A.10;
9. Preview (Abstract/Citation) Full Text (No Photos) Buy Page Print
Nephew tells of intruders and fatal beating in 2003 ; Julio Pablo,
who survived the brutal attack that killed his uncle at their Sanford
home, was to be a star state witness but couldn't identify a suspect
in court.
Rene Stutzman, Sentinel Staff Writer; Orlando Sentinel; Nov 4, 2005;
pg. B.1;
10. Preview (Abstract/Citation) Full Text (No Photos) Buy Page
Print TRAFFIC PROBLEM PAVES WAY FOR LANDSCAPING
Don Boyett, Seminole County Editor; Orlando Sentinel; Apr 28, 1989;
pg. 1;
Jim Yanik
news:Xns9CF376CA97...@216.196.109.144:
Ah,how wise to base opinions on what one sees in the movies....
BTW,RPG is also an acronym for rocket propelled grenade. ;-)
Jim Yanik
> In article <Xns9CF3736BC1C0A...@216.168.3.44>, Jim Yanik
><jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>> Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com> wrote in
>> news:010120100519364510%alanl...@mac.com:
>> >
>>
>> true story;
>> 50 yr old lady in Heathrow area of Seminole County,Florida had a
>
><snippaggio>
>
> Jim, on this of all days I am not disposed to be ungenerous, but you're
> seriously misfiring a couple of cylinders in the sense-of-humour
> engine.
Yeah,but so many would take your humorous true story as reason why people
shouldn't have this or that.
>
> None the less, I wish you a very happy 2010. And note, although it is
> irrelevant, that I do NOT support current UK gun law.
>
Thank you,same to you,and I know. 8-)
Jack Linthicum
> Andrew Chaplin <ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote innews:Xns9CF376CA97...@216.196.109.144:
Then you are badly misinformed, but then that's normal for you.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynchANDNOTTHIS.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :If Strathclyde had worked to those rules, Thomas Hamilton wouldn't have
:> :been using legal weapons at Dunblane... when his club threw him out and
:> :warned that they considered him unfit to hold firearms, the police
:> :declined to act.
:> :
:>
:> So, in other words, the existing laws were more than adequate if only
:> they had been enforced.
:
:The point the politicians made was that if the law failed once it will
:fail again and it is time for a new law...
:
With no more guarantee that that law won't fail just like the last one
did. They never learn.
:
:I disagreed at the time, but I have to admit that I've come around to
:their point of view in recent years.
:
You never learn, either. So what happens next time? Yet another new
law?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Fred J. McCall
:
:The only weapon you "can't have" for self defence is a hand gun. Long
:arms should be secured so they are also not generally available for self
:defence, But knives, blunt instruments etc are all available and legal...
:
:The only weapon UK citizens are not allowed is a hand gun. Plenty of
:long arms available.. But most people in a urban environment don't own
:them (Nowhere to shoot them)
:
The only weapon they can't have is the very one that is best suited to
self defense in the home.
Long arms are unwieldy indoors. Knives require that you get too close
and you're back into having the attacker take it away from you and
shove it up your ass. Ditto clubs, etc.
--
"I was lucky in the order. But I've always been lucky
when it comes to killin' folks."
-- William Munny, "Unforgiven"
Scout
> Bruce Bartho wrote:
>> William Black wrote:
>>
>>> The point the politicians made was that if the law failed once it
>>> will fail again and it is time for a new law...
>>>
>>> to their point of view in recent years.
>>
>>
>> failed again and again were bad, and you "came around" to agree that
>> failed/bad laws are a good thing to continue?
>
> Piss off child, you're boring.
Once again we see William running up the white flag due to his sticking his
foot in his mouth.