Webley Raider - 8 ft/lbs????
Danny
I have a webley raider, and when chrono' tested it read 8.0
ft/lbs(14.5g pellet)
tried it with 25g pellets and it read 8.6 ft/lbs. The local gunsmith
said it had been de-tuned for safety???? Can anyone tell me how to
take it upto around 12ft/lbs mark?(without paying a gunsmith to do
it!)
A friend suggested placing a washer in front of the spring
and adjusting the hammer adj/screw.I tried this and when tested again
it read 9.1 ft/lbs. I now have 3 washers in it and still cant take it
past 9.1?????
I dont want to just keep putting washers in it(as it doesn't seem to
help)
so another friend suggested drilling out the valve port and fitting a
bigger valve. Don't know about this as I'm not sure how much to
machine out and don't want to permantley lock the power rating past 12
ft/lbs
Can anyone help?
Thanks
Danny
Joseph Oberlander
> Hi all,
>
> I have a webley raider, and when chrono' tested it read 8.0
> ft/lbs(14.5g pellet)
> tried it with 25g pellets and it read 8.6 ft/lbs. The local gunsmith
> said it had been de-tuned for safety???? Can anyone tell me how to
> take it upto around 12ft/lbs mark?(without paying a gunsmith to do
> it!)
Actually, the rifle is likely unfixable without a major overhaul.
Sorry, but most U.K. spec air rifles are very de-tuned and their
marketing departments, well, engage in creative marketing.
They say they are 12 ft-lbs, but most are de-tuned to where they
won't ever get close to the legal limit for fear of going over
and getting sued or shut down. ~10ft-lbs in testing is common
as they take their fastest velocity and the heaviest pellet
you can buy just to be safe. Ie: 800fps(from a really light
pellet like the RWS hobby) and then calculate ft-lbs as if a
25gr pellet was going that fast - then engineer it so that
the heaviest pellet goes as fast as you'd need to get 12 ft-lbs
on paper, based upon that maximum. That gives them a hefty
20-30% margin so that it NEVER shoots 12 ft-lbs and makes the
U.K. authorities happy.
Sucks, doesn't it?
25gr - you must have the .22 cal version.
http://www.straightshooters.com/ourtake/otraidergrid.html
11-12ft-lbs is reality for a *U.S.* full power version.
U.K. versions are de-tuned and WYSIWYG - whole new spring
and accessories and seals and such to get it to U.S. specs.
John
> That gives them a hefty 20-30% margin so that it NEVER shoots 12 ft-lbs
and makes the
> U.K. authorities happy.
>
> Sucks, doesn't it?
And the UK government has plans to further decrease the ME to below 8 ft-lb
:(
John
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/2003
Sam
Hi Danny,
it needs a service. PCP`s are quite complicated and not
really within the realms of the DIY person. It easy to do damage if
you don`t know what you are doing. Any silicon based lube can eat into
the molecules of the metal leading to further problems so don`t be
tempted to use it. Only manufacturers recommended lubes should be
used.
Sprinkle some talcum powder around the loading port and take a shot.
If the powder is disturbed then the seal is gone which may account for
the loss in power.
Did you buy it from the local gunsmith, the one who said it was
detuned? If so take it back and ask him to fix it or give you your
money back.
The Raider should give at least 11.5ft/lbs when working correctly.
Cheers,
Keith
Adam Greatrix
news:d4219c6.03062...@posting.google.com...
> I have a webley raider
Me too...
> and when chrono' tested it read 8.0
> ft/lbs(14.5g pellet)
> tried it with 25g pellets and it read 8.6 ft/lbs.
That's not so good - mine is between 11.5 and 11.8ft-lbf for all pellets
(ranging from 14 to 16 grains in .22). I've made no adjustments to the power
as I've not needed to.
> A friend suggested placing a washer in front of the spring
> and adjusting the hammer adj/screw.I tried this and when tested again
> it read 9.1 ft/lbs. I now have 3 washers in it and still cant take it
> past 9.1?????
This will/may slighlty modify the power, but I don't have any washers in
mine where you say...
> so another friend suggested drilling out the valve port and fitting a
> bigger valve. Don't know about this as I'm not sure how much to
> machine out and don't want to permantley lock the power rating past 12
> ft/lbs
Don't do this, you could permanently screw your rifle up. Again, mine hasn't
been drilled/modified at all and is consistently close to 11.8 ft-lbf so I
don't see why you would have to add washers or drill the port. 11.8 ft-lbf
is about as high as you would ever want in the UK (legally) as different
pellets produce different results. Going higher than this could result in
one or more brands going over the limit if tested.
I've not done this myself, but a friend of mine with a FAC tuned his Webley
Raider 2 shot up to 18 ft-lbf and I know how he did it.
Before you read any of this I would first advise that unless you REALLY know
what you're doing that you should take it to a gunsmith who can service PCP
air rifles. I suspect that this is NOT why your rifle is giving out 8 ft-lbf
and it is far more likely to be something simple like a worn seal. Also
remember that unless you own a FAC it is illegal to own an air rifle that
produces over 13 ft-lbf with ANY pellet. I take no responsibility if you
break your gun or get into trouble in any way - ok? :)
In front of the hammer spring (part 3296), in the direction of the end of
the barrel, is a washer (part 2921). Directly in front of this is the hammer
adjustment screw (part 3303). In front of this is the hammer itself (part
3255). The screw is bonded to the hammer with a kind of glue at the factory.
Adjusting the screw will break this bond and you MUST bond it back to the
hammer afterwards otherwise it will slowly turn through use and you will get
inconsistent power. Using a chronograph fire a couple of pellets and note
the power, turn the screw a 1/4 of a turn and fire again, try both
directions and repeat until you get about 11.5ft-lbf. Done.
A copy of the manual is available at:
http://www.pyramydair.com/site/manuals/raider/
Adam
Joseph Oberlander
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>> That gives them a hefty 20-30% margin so that it NEVER shoots 12 ft-lbs
>
> and makes the
>
>>U.K. authorities happy.
>>
>>Sucks, doesn't it?
>
>
> And the UK government has plans to further decrease the ME to below 8 ft-lb
> :(
Yeah. Figures.
Oh - the advice - I didn't realize it was a PCP type rifle. All of the
above is for spring-piston types, but if it is a de-tuned PCP, then it
is probably fixable - just remove/replace the U.K. spec mods to keep the
power down and get some new seals.
But, yes, they do de-power air rifles over there. Shame, too, since
ANY air rifle is less powerful than a simple .22 short by a rather
large margin. A .22 cal PCP type with a HUGE amount of energy - like
the FX line - is still just a bit more powerful than a CB round, and
about half what a .22 Short will do.
IMO, it makes no sense. A law like they have in Canada would make
more sense, as penetration and range is a larger factor of velocity
than K.E. (Ie - how far and deep does a baseball hit, even when thrown
by a Major League pitcher? - It has far more K.E. than any airgun.)
License? Over maybe - um 600-800fps. Under that - it's for
plinking and not regulated.(Canada's limit is about 150-200fps
too low, IMO)
Also, he should make sure the tank is filled to a proper 3000 PSI.
His shop may be filling it to ~2500-2800 PSI and not telling him.
That can loose 1-2ft-lbs as well.
John
> But, yes, they do de-power air rifles over there. Shame, too, since
> ANY air rifle is less powerful than a simple .22 short by a rather
> large margin. A .22 cal PCP type with a HUGE amount of energy - like
> the FX line - is still just a bit more powerful than a CB round, and
> about half what a .22 Short will do.
Even for .22 "CB" rounds a Firearms certificate is needed (in the UK).
Now if you want draconian or restrictive, try applying for a UK firearms
certificate.
Have a look here :
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/crime-reduction/firearm4.htm
Only takes about 2 months, may be even 6 months from start to finish
_before_ the applicant is granted a firearms certificate, which is needed
_before_ it is possible to buy _any_ firearm.
Joseph Oberlander
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>But, yes, they do de-power air rifles over there. Shame, too, since
>>ANY air rifle is less powerful than a simple .22 short by a rather
>>large margin. A .22 cal PCP type with a HUGE amount of energy - like
>>the FX line - is still just a bit more powerful than a CB round, and
>>about half what a .22 Short will do.
>
>
> Even for .22 "CB" rounds a Firearms certificate is needed (in the UK).
> Now if you want draconian or restrictive, try applying for a UK firearms
> certificate.
>
> Have a look here :
> http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/crime-reduction/firearm4.htm
>
> Only takes about 2 months, may be even 6 months from start to finish
> _before_ the applicant is granted a firearms certificate, which is needed
> _before_ it is possible to buy _any_ firearm.
I know. Silly in the extreme. Most U.S. states lump airguns into
rimfire categories and centerfires in their own class due to another
huge jump in energy, but the U.K. is literally shooting itself in
the foot.
All those hundreds of years and everyone used guns or had access to
them and it helped them even win WWII. The same was true for the U.S.
We both did so well because most of our soldiers knew how to hunt and
shoot before going to basic training - it was important and considered a
god-given right in both societies to be able to defend your country
if need be. Now... generations of sheep.
I wonder if they realize that the police are charged with protecting
the *public* as in a general order and no rioting definition and
have NO responsibility to actually protect an average citizen until
they have a court order or thier chief tells them to do so. They are
purely there to clean up and track down criminals after the fact.
I've acutally made a few liberals worry when they realize this - that
it's really like it has been all the time - you either are there to
stop it yourself or they pick you up off the pavement, hopefully in
one piece.
The U.K. has lost that obviously, but the U.S. is only about
50 years behind. If the U.S. ever turns into the U.K., I'll
move to another country.
Mitch Haley
> I know. Silly in the extreme. Most U.S. states lump airguns into
> rimfire categories and centerfires in their own class due to another
> huge jump in energy, but the U.K. is literally shooting itself in
> the foot.
Which states?
I can't think of any which treat ownership/transport of rimfires different
from other firearms. Federal laws certainly don't.
Mitch.
John
> The U.K. has lost that obviously, but the U.S. is only about
> 50 years behind. If the U.S. ever turns into the U.K., I'll
> move to another country.
My S.O wants to move to the US :)
And my anchoring for a .50 BMG makes me want to as well :)
Danny
-------------------------------
Thanks for all the help chaps.
On the chrono test, the readings varied about 6/8 fps(10 shots @ 185
bar) which seemed consistent for a PCP(seals ok?)
so I removed the washers and adjusted the hammer adj/screw(thanks
Keith)
It is now pushing 11.9 ft-lbs using 14.5g RWS - which is just right.
(I found that the hammer adj/screw had been screwed all the way
in)(minimum spring comp')
However, using a lighter pellet the power reads 12.3/12.6 ft-lbs.
Does this mean I should bring it down a little? even though I never
use these lighter pellets(only for chrono testing)
If the rifle was to be tested by the local police, and THEY use a
lighter pellet, would this mean my raider is a section 1 firearm?(and
be charged with it?) or would I be o.k since the pellets I use don't
take it past 12ft-lbs?
(Its silly, cos what good would an extra 0.6 ft-lbs do!!!!)
(apart from land me in prison!)
Joseph Oberlander
Mostly hunting and such - but yes, it has gotten worse. At least
airguns are still technically not a firearm/fit into their own category.
Joseph Oberlander
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>The U.K. has lost that obviously, but the U.S. is only about
>>50 years behind. If the U.S. ever turns into the U.K., I'll
>>move to another country.
>
>
> My S.O wants to move to the US :)
>
> And my anchoring for a .50 BMG makes me want to as well :)
(shameless plus mode on)
Come on over! It's pretty nice, you can own guns, and most of
all, land is inexpensive. All you have to do to get away
from the police-state cameras everywhere(1984 anyone?) is
to - um - live in - um - well, anywhere. Our government
may not trust us, but it is at least covert about keeping
tabs on us.
Most of all, it is perfectly legal to defend yourself.
Doubly so in your home. We have a fraction of the actual
violent crime in most of the U.S. Again, move a few miles
outside the main urban areas and, well, like where I live,
we have one murder every 15 years. Two police cars for
the entire town(on loan from the neighboring city). They
stop you for broken equipment on your car a dozen times
more than for speeding.
This is pretty common. Oh - did I mention I live at the
far edge of Los Angeles? You don't have to get 50 miles
away to be in a quiet, safe community. True rural areas
are even safer, as long as it isn't completely off the map.
Oh - you can also get TV for free(technically - though cable
TV is ten times better), our education system sucks as bad but
at least you have a choice here(many independant districts
instead of a few state-run ones), and we have lots and lots
of roads waiting to be driven on. I'm saving for a nice
Kawasaki Cruiser. Can't beat 300 days of sun a year and
a thousand miles of road within two hours of me. ;)
Land is inexpensive as well if you move a few miles outside
the urban sprawl.
As long as you stay out of California, New York, Illinois,
D.C., and Maryland, it's pretty simple to own a gun. I live
in California, and it WAS good here until about 15 years ago,
then the economy went downhill and businesses were strangled
(most big ones have moved to better places) and our guns
were all but taken away. Sigh. My relatives in Washington
have no such complaints and keep telling me to move up there.
Heh. Seattle is a nice place, though a bit far from my friends.
My aunt is from Canada originally. After 25 years living here,
she finally got her citizenship because it was the right thing
to do. I asked her if she'd ever go back - her response was
(she's very quiet)"Oh - no... It's much better here."
Joseph Oberlander
> It is now pushing 11.9 ft-lbs using 14.5g RWS - which is just right.
> (I found that the hammer adj/screw had been screwed all the way
> in)(minimum spring comp')
Good :) Typical keep the lawyers happy methodology found in the U.K.
> However, using a lighter pellet the power reads 12.3/12.6 ft-lbs.
> Does this mean I should bring it down a little? even though I never
> use these lighter pellets(only for chrono testing)
Actually, the highest power should be with the heaviest pellets,
as weight is a larger factor than velocity in most cases. Not all,
though.
http://www.straightshooters.com/ourtake/otraidergrid.html
Velocity tests(nice site, btw) - I'd buy a pellet sampler from
them and have about 25 or so to test. Adjust the power down
until it is 11.9 with the highest K.E. pellet combo that you
can find. Most will be closer to 11, but that should be more
than safe.
> If the rifle was to be tested by the local police, and THEY use a
> lighter pellet, would this mean my raider is a section 1 firearm?(and
> be charged with it?) or would I be o.k since the pellets I use don't
> take it past 12ft-lbs?
> (Its silly, cos what good would an extra 0.6 ft-lbs do!!!!)
> (apart from land me in prison!)
Exactly. I can see it now. "The owner modified the rifle to shoot
higher than the 12-ft-lb limit..." Laywers suck. Sharespeare was
very enlightened, IMO, concerning them.
Back it off to 11 and be happy. Shoot heavy ones, though - they
retain more energy downrange. :)
Adam Greatrix
> bar) which seemed consistent for a PCP(seals ok?)
Mine vary by about 4 fps over 10 shots (.22) and 6 to 8 over 60 shots. Have
you bonded the hammer adjust screw in place with something? (locktight or
however you spell it?) Not re-bonding the screw can result in variations
like this.
> so I removed the washers and adjusted the hammer adj/screw(thanks
> Keith)
Hang on - wasn't that me who told you how to do that? :p Maybe we both
did... anyway...
> However, using a lighter pellet the power reads 12.3/12.6 ft-lbs.
> Does this mean I should bring it down a little? even though I never
> use these lighter pellets(only for chrono testing)
Tut tut...
> If the rifle was to be tested by the local police, and THEY use a
> lighter pellet, would this mean my raider is a section 1 firearm?(and
> be charged with it?) or would I be o.k since the pellets I use don't
> take it past 12ft-lbs?
Ok, don't believe anyone when they say anything different to what I'm about
to say - this information is directly from the Firearms officer from one of
the UKs biggest police forces whom I spoke to on the phone about this a
couple of months ago...
When they test an air weapon they use a selection of pellets. Typically
they'll use around 6 different pellets varying from extremely light ones, to
extremely heavy ones, in different sizes if available (e.g. 4.51 and 4.52
for .177, etc). They will perform this test several times under different
pressures as the power level on a PCP is not proportional to the pressure in
the tank. If at *ANY* time they get a reading over 12 ft-lbf (6 for air
pistols) it will be classed as a firearm. You will automatically be charged
with the illegal possession of a firearm (unless you have a FAC of course),
and if you were caught using it on anyone else's property you could be
charged with armed trespass as well.
You simply won't notice the difference between 11 and 12 ft-lbf. In fact I'd
be surprised if anyone honestly and truly could notice the difference, other
than a slight increase in pellet drop, between 9 and 12 ft-lbf. It is far
more important to be accurate with your air rifle than it is to have that
extra ft-lb of power. A head good head shot on a rabbit at 30 yards with 9
ft-lbf will kill it. A shot anywhere else (excluding spine and chest) at 12
ft-lbf will almost certainly not kill it (at least for a time). If the
pellet travels through the rabbit then it still has kinetic energy stored in
the pellet which is then absorbed by the hill behind the rabbit - this
energy is wasted. I've yet to see a 9 ft-lbf air rifle not send a pellet
right through the head of a rabbit and out the other side at 30 yards or
less.
Anyway, I'll shut up now :)
Back off the power to around 11.5 ft lbf on the lighter pellets to be on the
safe side, or get a FAC, getting charged with firearm possession simply
isn't worth that extra ft-lb is it?.
Adam
John
> Come on over! It's pretty nice, you can own guns, and most of
> all, land is inexpensive. All you have to do to get away
> from the police-state cameras everywhere(1984 anyone?) is
> to - um - live in - um - well, anywhere. Our government
> may not trust us, but it is at least covert about keeping
> tabs on us.
Funny you should mention CCTV cameras, I drove three mile today and counted,
wait for it!
3 speed cameras, 8 CCTV cameras, 4 traffic light cameras and 4 private CCTV
cameras :(
> Most of all, it is perfectly legal to defend yourself.
> Doubly so in your home. We have a fraction of the actual
> violent crime in most of the U.S. Again, move a few miles
> outside the main urban areas and, well, like where I live,
> we have one murder every 15 years. Two police cars for
> the entire town(on loan from the neighboring city). They
> stop you for broken equipment on your car a dozen times
> more than for speeding.
In my village we have 6 patrol cars (panda cars for all who are British),
one wildlife liaison officer, two local bobbies and a whole host of other
coppers just waiting to pull car owners.
2 murders in the last 3 years, endless break-in's and assaults. Drugs galore
and just about every other crime you can think of.
The police will check you for just sitting in an urban car park and search
you after midnight :(
>
> This is pretty common. Oh - did I mention I live at the
> far edge of Los Angeles? You don't have to get 50 miles
> away to be in a quiet, safe community. True rural areas
> are even safer, as long as it isn't completely off the map.
1 mile up the road is the next town, the next is another mile and the
next................
> Oh - you can also get TV for free(technically - though cable
> TV is ten times better),
TV needs a license over here... did I mention it was state run... :) and
that the license is almost $250
>our education system sucks as bad but
> at least you have a choice here(many independant districts
> instead of a few state-run ones),
Last year I heard a report on the radio that claimed out education system
and health service was as bad as in the third world.
>and we have lots and lots
> of roads waiting to be driven on.
We have lots and lots of road and we pay tax to drive on them, did I mention
that fuel is now at $6 a gallon?
>I'm saving for a nice
> Kawasaki Cruiser. Can't beat 300 days of sun a year and
> a thousand miles of road within two hours of me. ;)
>
> Land is inexpensive as well if you move a few miles outside
> the urban sprawl.
About Ł500 an acre here.
That's it, I'm depressed now..... :)
John
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/2003
AlanG
wrote:
>Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>> Come on over! It's pretty nice, you can own guns, and most of
>> all, land is inexpensive. All you have to do to get away
>> from the police-state cameras everywhere(1984 anyone?) is
>> to - um - live in - um - well, anywhere. Our government
>> may not trust us, but it is at least covert about keeping
>> tabs on us.
>
>Funny you should mention CCTV cameras, I drove three mile today and counted,
>wait for it!
>3 speed cameras, 8 CCTV cameras, 4 traffic light cameras and 4 private CCTV
>cameras :(
>
I walk to work in about 20 minutes. I pass about 8 to 10 of the 100
CCTV cameras run by the local authority depending on my route. This in
a town of less than 100000.
I haven't counted the bar, shop and rail cctv cameras. :(
--
Alan G
"The corporate life [of society] must be
subservient to the lives of the parts instead
of the lives of the parts being subservient to
the corporate life."
(Herbert Spencer)
James Pinkerton
> > TV is ten times better),
>
> TV needs a license over here... did I mention it was state run... :) and
> that the license is almost $250
>
your house to see if you have an antenna? Or is everything via cable with
nothing transmitted by radio waves? Or is it scrambled? You pay the $250
and get a converter box.
I have Dishnetwork here in the States and it costs me about $45 a month. I
don't subscribe to HBO and that sort of Hollywood garbage. I am afraid to
ask Mr. Charlie (Dishnetwork CEO) what it would cost to watch ALL the
channels that are available.
Mitch Haley
> How do they enforce the TV licence law?
They drive around in vans equipted to detect TV receivers, much
as Virginia police use VG-2 radar detector detection equiptment.
Here in the USA, we beat VG-2 with specially shielded radar detectors
and those which sense the VG-2 unit and shut down.
I'd think that well-shielded TV receivers and receivers which use
an unusual frequency offset would be popular in UK.
Remember the good old days when you could legally harvest any
photons that landed on your property?
Mitch.
Joseph Oberlander
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>
>>Come on over! It's pretty nice, you can own guns, and most of
>>all, land is inexpensive. All you have to do to get away
>>from the police-state cameras everywhere(1984 anyone?) is
>>to - um - live in - um - well, anywhere. Our government
>>may not trust us, but it is at least covert about keeping
>>tabs on us.
>
>
> Funny you should mention CCTV cameras, I drove three mile today and counted,
> wait for it!
> 3 speed cameras, 8 CCTV cameras, 4 traffic light cameras and 4 private CCTV
> cameras :(
We only have traffic light cameras every so often to catch people
running red lights. That's it. People complain loudly if they
find a camera spying on them anywhere(they all but riot about the
installation of the traffic light ones)
In the U.K. - the (deleted) police are so lazy and police-state
mentality that they just sit in their room and monitor a few
dozen cameras - all of which they can move. It's nuts - every
time I see a report on crime over there, it amazes me how they
can be so smart and yet so completely ineffective/naive at the
same time.
Onlt in a casino are there simmilar eye in the sky type cameras
and looking over your shoulder.
>>Most of all, it is perfectly legal to defend yourself.
>>Doubly so in your home. We have a fraction of the actual
>>violent crime in most of the U.S. Again, move a few miles
>>outside the main urban areas and, well, like where I live,
>>we have one murder every 15 years. Two police cars for
>>the entire town(on loan from the neighboring city). They
>>stop you for broken equipment on your car a dozen times
>>more than for speeding.
>
> In my village we have 6 patrol cars (panda cars for all who are British),
> one wildlife liaison officer, two local bobbies and a whole host of other
> coppers just waiting to pull car owners.
> 2 murders in the last 3 years, endless break-in's and assaults. Drugs galore
> and just about every other crime you can think of.
> The police will check you for just sitting in an urban car park and search
> you after midnight :(
They will too here - and that's okay. But NOBODY breaks into a home
here (wealthy community as well) while the owners are there as they
KNOW they will get shot at. Upper-middle class people tend to be
completely unafraid to install security systems and own a gun.
It's the assaults that get me. They can assault you. Multiple times.
Your ONLY method of self-defense is martial arts. Anything else gets
YOU seen as the criminal. Historical note: China during its mideval
period had a simmilar rule. Eventually they learned to defend themselves
without weapons.
OTOH, should it be okay for the police and criminals to be the ONLY
ones who can assault you or carry a gun? That seems ass-backwards to me.
Also - we throw people in JAIL. Hard time for such assaults. Three
times and you get life in prison. Period. Hence, the low rates of
assault and hard-core crimes in most of the U.S. (despite the T.V.
and movie portrayals, most of the U.S. is middle of nowhere boring
and uneventful) It's just so much easier to steal cars or do illegal
money laundering or import/export or any number of other crimes that
carry no real risk to getting a load of buckshot in your face.
In the UI.K. -well , you know how it works - that poor man got
put in jail for shooting an *armed* intruder and then the state
paid for the surviving man's case against him.
The person got a huge cash award(basically forcing the man to
sell his home(though he had no real use for it being locked
up for basically forever) AND he got "social rehabilitation".
We call that parole or a slap on the wrist. It's basically
a one-strike rule and then you go to jail. For a couple of
years on most cases.
He had broken into homes sometihng like over 10 times and is
still to this day doing it. Just makes you feel so safe I bet.
>>Oh - you can also get TV for free(technically - though cable
>>TV is ten times better),
>
> TV needs a license over here... did I mention it was state run... :) and
> that the license is almost $250
Yep. $250 to watch a device that you pay a lot of money for.
Oh - IIRC, radios are also taxed.
>
> >our education system sucks as bad but
>
>>at least you have a choice here(many independant districts
>>instead of a few state-run ones),
>
> Last year I heard a report on the radio that claimed out education system
> and health service was as bad as in the third world.
Here it varies. L.A. Unified School District is third-world.
Right next door, Culver City and Glendale and Pasadena all
are their own cities - and do amazingly better. Where I live,
we are in the top ten in the state. 3 miles over is LAUSD
and hellish conditions.
The point is you CAN move eventually to a safe community and
good schools. That option is everything. :)
> >I'm saving for a nice
>
>>Kawasaki Cruiser. Can't beat 300 days of sun a year and
>>a thousand miles of road within two hours of me. ;)
>>
>>Land is inexpensive as well if you move a few miles outside
>>the urban sprawl.
>
> About £500 an acre here.
Gosh - that's um - okay you have us beat there. Land is like
um - $10K and acre(about 6-7K pounds). OTOH, salaries are not
that bad either.
>
> That's it, I'm depressed now..... :)
So --- Move. We'd welcome another gun owner over here. :)
Joseph Oberlander
(Pulls out DISH promo flyer for this month(nationwide, btw))
3 months free - 1 yr commitment(value pack or higher service).
Free 2 room setup plus dish. Keep the dish after a year is over.
(49.99 package - comes to roughly $470 for a year)
$24.99 all the basic 50 channels. $29.99 a month with local channels.
$33.99 for 100 channels - everything you can imagine. HBO/CMAX $49.99
$42.99 all 150 channels - everything but HBO and CMAX. Tons of
sports and independant stations and all the crud you coudl imagine
Soap Opera Network - Fox Sports 2 and 3, half a dozen disney channels.
All a bunch of fluff, IMO.
$59.99 with the movie channels added.
Most people get the normal 100 channels and use an antenna for the
local channels(switch T.V. from channel 3 - ooo so hard). $33.99.
If you are paying $45 a month - get the new pricing. :)
Sam
Hi Danny,
I`m pleased you sorted out your problem but I can`t
take the credit. It was by Adams pen(keyboard) and not my own that the
information surfaced, well done Adam.
As was pointed out by another writer, lighter pellets go better in
springers, and the reverse for pcp`s. Find, borrow, scrounge a few
18gr pellets and put them through and adjust to suit, then you know
you will be legal.
Then you can start finding out which make of pellets group the
tightest and where the most power is produced. The power output will
increase as the pressure decreases to a point where it levels off and
is maintained until the power drops away and a fill is required. Once
you know where the peak power begins fill only to that pressure. This
is especially handy to know if you use a pump and will save you
wasting time and effort pumping to max pressure which is beyond the
guns max output.
Cheers,
Keith
John
>>> Oh - you can also get TV for free(technically - though cable
>>> TV is ten times better),
>>
>> TV needs a license over here... did I mention it was state run... :)
>> and that the license is almost $250
>>
> How do they enforce the TV licence law? Do they have TV police to
> look on your house to see if you have an antenna?
By use of force or intimidation, much like every government. (fines & or
imprisonment)
Basically pay the money or don't watch TV or listen to the radio.
John
>>> Land is inexpensive as well if you move a few miles outside
>>> the urban sprawl.
>>
>> About Ł500 an acre here.
>
> Gosh - that's um - okay you have us beat there. Land is like
> um - $10K and acre(about 6-7K pounds). OTOH, salaries are not
> that bad either.
Sorry, I seem to have left off a few 00's. I guess prime land in say London
would be about $1.5K per 1'x1'.
You'll be looking at Ł5k per acre of good agricultural land.
James Pinkerton
news:3EF90822...@voyager.net...
Yes, that was nice. You can get your brain cooked by cell phones but you
can't buy a scanner that includes the cell phone frequency band. The State
of Mississippi even has Charlie block out one porn channel. It is not
available unless it is hacked. How it is legal to block that channel just
because somebody doesn't like its contents? That seems very wrong in a
so-called free country. You have to subscribe to it to watch it so it is
not freely available to kids.
My dad years ago had one of the big dish systems. He spent a lot of money
on it at the time as it was one of the first around here. Absolutely
nothing was scrambled. I liked to watch the feeds of the news before it was
sent out to the regular stations. I remember seeing the TV guys sitting
around smoking cigarettes and some were drinking cocktails before they were
put on the air.
I wonder how the big dish systems are working now? Some of the satellites
must have fallen out of orbit by now. I used to wash the Rev. Gene Scott
from California. A TV preacher who smokes big fine cigars, owned his own
race horses, and was always around some fine looking women. Also they had a
guy from Canada, Zundle something or another who spent his time trying to
prove that the Nazis were not so bad and that all the stuff about their
murder of Jews was made up. Nothing is that interesting anymore on the
small dish network. You must have to be rich to buy TV time now on the
small dish systems.
Danny
---------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Sorry for the mix up. I ment to thank Adam(sorry Adam!)
The 6 - 8 fps varience when testing the raider wasnt over 10 shots @
185 BAR, I ment to say 10 shots IN from 185 BAR - and then testing
around 40 shots (sorry)
Thanks for the help chaps
Danny
Joseph Oberlander
> James Pinkerton wrote:
>
>>>>Oh - you can also get TV for free(technically - though cable
>>>>TV is ten times better),
>>>
>>>TV needs a license over here... did I mention it was state run... :)
>>>and that the license is almost $250
>>>
>>
>>How do they enforce the TV licence law? Do they have TV police to
>>look on your house to see if you have an antenna?
>
>
> By use of force or intimidation, much like every government. (fines & or
> imprisonment)
>
> Basically pay the money or don't watch TV or listen to the radio.
Oh yeah I forgot about that one.
Pay for the RADIO? What kind of Orwellian type state is that
where the only way to listen to anything for free is listen in
a shielded basement or in your car?
John
>> Only takes about 2 months, may be even 6 months from start to finish
>> _before_ the applicant is granted a firearms certificate, which is
>> needed _before_ it is possible to buy _any_ firearm.
> Now this simply is not the case.
>
> I live in Derbyshire
> The FAC dropped through the letterbox on friday of the same week (3
> days later) and by lunchtime I had bought my rifle and bullets.
Well I can assure you it *is* the case in the vast majority of _new_
applications and in most renewals.
I was advised by my FLA that I would have to wait for three months for my
renewal because of a _back-log_, I must admit to cause quite a fuss and
expressed my point of view on the matter and because of this, my FAC was
renewed on time (only just). I suggest that you ask around and you'll find
that some people have waited upwards of 6 months!
My Deer stalking conditions has caused me sever problems and only because of
the hash our FLA are in and the way in which they *make* their own law, all
these *new* department polices are unfair and totally restrictive, draconian
even.
John
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
John
> Pay for the RADIO? What kind of Orwellian type state is that
> where the only way to listen to anything for free is listen in
> a shielded basement or in your car?
Or what about the CB?
Citizens band radio..... ?? we need a licence for that! :)
Do you know, it's just occurred to me that we need a licence for everything
from dogs to cars! and if it's not licensed it's taxed!
Adam Greatrix
From: "John" <123...@britishlibrary.net>
Newsgroups: alt.sport.air-guns
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Webley Raider - 8 ft/lbs????
> Citizens band radio..... ?? we need a licence for that! :)
Aye, but there were good reasons for that, as there are good reasons for
licensing most things. If you need a license for it then you are obliged to
obey by the terms, conditions and rules of having a license, and if you
don't obey them you can be prosecuted or have your license revoked in which
case it would be illegal for you to use your CB (in this case).
Before CB became licensed, people would transmit at whatever powers they
liked, and with whatever setups they liked, and on frequencies outwith the
standard channel allocations. This resulted in CB users interfering with all
sorts of electrical equipment, TVs, hospital equipment, and would cause
problems with other CB users nearby with bleedover from other channels and
signal drop from people transmitting at extremely high powers on near by
channels. This resulted in "CB riots" where groups of CB users would hunt
down these people who were abusing the citizens band which would often
result in violence and at the very least someone tying a tow rope around
their antenna and pulling it down with a landrover.
Licensing things gives authorities the power to police those things. Imagine
if you didn't require a FAC in the UK? Imagine the same thing as I described
above but with guns... Imagine that 8 year old terror of a kid who lives
near by sneaking out with his Dad's magnum that he bought the other day for
a laugh.
There's a simple comparison to make: In 1998 in America there were 11.32 gun
killings per 100,000 people (source: Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention), compared to 0.69 per 100,000 in the UK (source: The Observer).
That's over 16 times as much. It's pretty obvious that if things aren't
licensed then anyone can get them, nobody has any control over them, nobody
can lay down strict rules or guidelines to protect people and allow people
to enjoy it without other people spoiling it, and if you have them a lot of
people would use them, and whatever anyone says, if you have a gun it's a
lot easier for someone to get killed than if you don't. Apply that to other
analogies... if you don't wear a seatbelt it's a lot easier to die if you
have a car crash (something else they don't seem to do much in America I
noticed :)... if you don't have a backup parachute you're more likely to die
when skydiving... It seems blatantly obvious to me that licensing is a very
good thing when it comes to firearms, as with the majority of things
(imagine what the roads would be like if you didn't need a driving
license!).
Ok, I agree it can be a hassle to go through the procedure and cost and time
of obtaining a license for whatever you want one for, but surely that is
entirely worth it when compared to people getting killed or injured, or
people giving your sport/hobby a bad name because a few idiots can't obey
the rules (which of course wouldn't exist without licensing).
There's my 2p (or £2) worth.
Adam
Joseph Lovell
Adam Greatrix wrote:
But the rate of murder in the US taking out the deaths by means of
firearm is higher than the total murder rate of the UK including
firearms. You have to look at the total picture. Turn the numbers
around and look at them from a different point of view. There are about
80,000,000 gun owners in the US with a total of about 250,000,000
firearms in their collective hands. Less than .05% of those gun owners
will kill or injure anyone through criminal misue of those firearms.
Now compare that with cars - over 500,000 killed and injured every
year. Same with bicycles.
Firearms are used in less than 30% of violent crime in the US, and in
less than 3% of all crime. 90% (or more) of all violent crime takes
place in the core areas of about 6 or 7 major metropolitan areas. If
you live outside those areas you have a good chance of never being a
victim of crime.
AlanG
wrote:
>Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>> Pay for the RADIO? What kind of Orwellian type state is that
>> where the only way to listen to anything for free is listen in
>> a shielded basement or in your car?
>
>Or what about the CB?
>
>Citizens band radio..... ?? we need a licence for that! :)
>
>Do you know, it's just occurred to me that we need a licence for everything
>from dogs to cars! and if it's not licensed it's taxed!
>
>John
>
>
Your Address shows a UK source.
In the UK a licence is not needed for dogs cats or radio rx.
You do have to pay a tv tax if installing apparatus capable of
receiving tv signals originating in the EU. If you only use a tv set
for watching prerecorded media or as a monitor then no licence is
needed.
John
> Your Address shows a UK source.
> In the UK a licence is not needed for dogs cats or radio rx.
> You do have to pay a tv tax if installing apparatus capable of
> receiving tv signals originating in the EU. If you only use a tv set
> for watching prerecorded media or as a monitor then no licence is
> needed.
Alan, as an electronics engineer (bias in radio communications) I can assure
you, your wrong.
You pay for apparatus that is capable of receiving signals, if you are using
a monitor to watch videos on a standard VCR then you would still have to
have a _colour_ licence to cover the VCR.
Now, even if you are receiving Spanish TV (for what ever reason you feel
this is relevant) and that apparatus received colour "PAL" or any other
error correction for that matter, you need a licence.
And further more, just go and ask a radio ham, if he/she has a licence,
you'll find they have.
John
> Aye, but there were good reasons for that, as there are good reasons
> for licensing most things. If you need a license for it then you are
> obliged to obey by the terms, conditions and rules of having a
> license, and if you don't obey them you can be prosecuted or have
> your license revoked in which case it would be illegal for you to use
> your CB (in this case).
So you would agree that it's of paramount necessity that airguns are
licensed, to stop misuse?
> Licensing things gives authorities the power to police those things.
and airguns?
> Imagine if you didn't require a FAC in the UK? Imagine the same thing
> as I described above but with guns... Imagine that 8 year old terror
> of a kid who lives near by sneaking out with his Dad's magnum that he
> bought the other day for a laugh.
And airguns?
> There's a simple comparison to make: In 1998 in America there were
> 11.32 gun killings per 100,000 people (source: Centers for Disease
> Control and Prevention), compared to 0.69 per 100,000 in the UK
> (source: The Observer). That's over 16 times as much. It's pretty
> obvious that if things aren't licensed then anyone can get them,
> nobody has any control over them, nobody can lay down strict rules or
> guidelines to protect people and allow people to enjoy it without
> other people spoiling it, and if you have them a lot of people would
> use them, and whatever anyone says, if you have a gun it's a lot
> easier for someone to get killed than if you don't. Apply that to
> other analogies...
Licences didn't do a lot to stop Ryan or Hamilton, licenses don't do much in
the way of public safety.
> if you don't wear a seatbelt it's a lot easier to die if you have a car
crash (something else they don't seem to do
> much in America I noticed :)...
This is another thing that pi$$es me off. Our government makes it illegal
for a person *not* to ware a seatbelt, for god sake if I want to die then
who the hell are they to make it bloody illegal! ??
>f you don't have a backup parachute
> you're more likely to die when skydiving... It seems blatantly
> obvious to me that licensing is a very good thing when it comes to
> firearms, as with the majority of things (imagine what the roads
> would be like if you didn't need a driving license!).
and airguns?
>
> Ok, I agree it can be a hassle to go through the procedure and cost
> and time of obtaining a license for whatever you want one for, but
> surely that is entirely worth it when compared to people getting
> killed or injured, or people giving your sport/hobby a bad name
> because a few idiots can't obey the rules (which of course wouldn't
> exist without licensing).
Adam, I'm NOT being argumentative but IMHO licenses will not stop anything
from happening but they do create revenue and numbers, which may or may not
be a good thing. Watch Mr Orwell's Animal farm.
AlanG
<exto...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
Snip
I think a wider audience is needed for this
>
>Licensing things gives authorities the power to police those things. Imagine
>if you didn't require a FAC in the UK? Imagine the same thing as I described
>above but with guns... Imagine that 8 year old terror of a kid who lives
>near by sneaking out with his Dad's magnum that he bought the other day for
>a laugh.
Imagine his dad getting a fine for it in just the same way he would
get a fine if the 8 yr old lifted his car keys and took off through
the local playground.
>
>There's a simple comparison to make: In 1998 in America there were 11.32 gun
>killings per 100,000 people (source: Centers for Disease Control and
>Prevention), compared to 0.69 per 100,000 in the UK (source: The Observer).
>That's over 16 times as much. It's pretty obvious that if things aren't
>licensed then anyone can get them, nobody has any control over them, nobody
>can lay down strict rules or guidelines to protect people and allow people
>to enjoy it without other people spoiling it,
All that can be and has been done without licencing.
At one time cars were not licenced but driving one at a speed greater
than 14mph would land you in court.
> and if you have them a lot of
>people would use them, and whatever anyone says, if you have a gun it's a
>lot easier for someone to get killed than if you don't. Apply that to other
>analogies... if you don't wear a seatbelt it's a lot easier to die if you
>have a car crash (something else they don't seem to do much in America I
>noticed :)... if you don't have a backup parachute you're more likely to die
>when skydiving... It seems blatantly obvious to me that licensing is a very
>good thing when it comes to firearms, as with the majority of things
>(imagine what the roads would be like if you didn't need a driving
>license!).
You don't need a driving licence. There are a lot of cars on the roads
being driven by drivers who have never had a licence or passed a test.
It doesn't stop road traffic laws being applied.
>
>Ok, I agree it can be a hassle to go through the procedure and cost and time
>of obtaining a license for whatever you want one for, but surely that is
>entirely worth it when compared to people getting killed or injured, or
>people giving your sport/hobby a bad name because a few idiots can't obey
>the rules (which of course wouldn't exist without licensing).
I believe that comment is already proved wrong
>
>There's my 2p (or £2) worth.
>
>Adam
>
Alan G
Joseph Oberlander
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>Pay for the RADIO? What kind of Orwellian type state is that
>>where the only way to listen to anything for free is listen in
>>a shielded basement or in your car?
>
>
> Or what about the CB?
>
> Citizens band radio..... ?? we need a licence for that! :)
>
> Do you know, it's just occurred to me that we need a licence for everything
> from dogs to cars! and if it's not licensed it's taxed!
Things are much more free here - possibly because we invented radio
and most of the surrounding technologies we've never see fit to charge
the customer to listen to it. Broadcast? Sure - if they are over
10 watts, IIRC. OTOH, we do have to be bombarded with ads like
you wouldn't believe to pay for it. People buy mostly what they are
exposed to, so it's a fair trade I guess.
:)
Joseph Oberlander
> There's a simple comparison to make: In 1998 in America there were 11.32 gun
> killings per 100,000 people (source: Centers for Disease Control and
> Prevention), compared to 0.69 per 100,000 in the UK (source: The Observer).
> That's over 16 times as much.
Bzzt. Sorry - it is a known fact that in the U.K. they purposely cook
their figures(what The Government compiles and hands out to sources
like The Observer). Only convicted murders are actually compiled as
part of the statistics. If they are paroled or found innocent/justified,
whatnot, it is not counted. The U.K. government in general(all murders)
only considers first and second-degree type crimes where there is a
conviction - all in order to keep the ugly fact from coming out that
their crime rates and killings are skyrocketing. Manslaughter is NOT
considered murder for their figures as well. Run over 20 people and
it isn't factored in. Only pre-meditated murder is.
We do the same thing with unemployment figures, btw, so it's not like
the U.K. has the corner on lying to its people.
Underemployed? Technically 4 hours a week is considered "employed"
Self-employed? Not counted. 60% of the U.S. is self-employed, btw.
Underage? Not counted.
Elderly? Again, not factored in.
Not legal/on a visa/etc? Not factored as well.
Student? (rate is nearly 50% here in some areas!)
Farmer?
etc.
The fact is - only people who file a claim with the government
or are fired/leave a government type job(most of the US workforce,
though is in this category)are considered "unmeployed"
18-65 year old, working for someone else who pays unemployment
insurance on you as little one day a week. You are "unemployed" if
that person was the government itself or you file a claim with the
local unemployment office. Everything else goes under their radar.
Fact: actual officla unemployment figures during the height of
the Great Depression: 10%. Of course, ~70% of the possible workforce
was not factored in these cooked figures, so it was closer to 30%
of actual people who could not make a proper living.
Today they use the same system. It now is 6.1%. Factoring in reality,
that gives us an adjusted under-employed and/or not making a decent
living in the U.S. rate of roughly 18%. This fits with the reality
that we see. Massive numbers of people barely scraping by. I guarantee
you know at least 2-3 people who fit this description.
Oddly enough, the U.K. does pretty well on unemployment figures.
> It's pretty obvious that if things aren't
> licensed then anyone can get them, nobody has any control over them, nobody
> can lay down strict rules or guidelines to protect people and allow people
> to enjoy it without other people spoiling it,
Yikes. You've been brainwashed by your government and media, son.
Seriously - this kind of thinking is what led to your guns being taken
away - that you NEED the government telling you what to do like your
mother. Obviously, if you are being a nusiance or jamming up your
neighbor's reception, that can be handled in a normal manner on a
case by case basis.
The U.K. syndrome, though, is to apply this same rule to every
single thing in life. It's okay to have the government spying on
you 24/7 with thousands of cameras. It's okay to be told how and
what to to listen to(and they still have ads!). It's okay to let
them regulate guns to the point where nobody has them, due to a
behind-the-scenes understanding between the police and the
government to deny as many as humanly possible, depsite the laws.
> people would use them, and whatever anyone says, if you have a gun it's a
> lot easier for someone to get killed than if you don't.
Actually, it's been proven that high firearm ownership and open-carry
laws make it far LESS likely to be shot. When was the last time you
heard of anyone committing a crime right in front of an officer or
purposely grabbing their gun from them?
Criminals have two unique and consistant personality flaws. They are
sociopaths and lazy. Make it difficult for them and suddenly they
look elsewhere. The U.K.? gosh - that's like a chicken farm with
no fences. Official crime rate in London is now 30% per person
per year. That's your chances of being robbed/mugged/whatnot.
That's basically the same as a Western town in the U.S. back in the
1800s. Except only the criminals have guns.
The London police acutally had to call in U.S. police forces to
train them in firearm use as they now carry guns. Let's see -
people have a right to protect themselves from violent scum?
Not armed police necessarry. No cameras. Take away that right?
Police have to turn into a SWAT team.
> analogies... if you don't wear a seatbelt it's a lot easier to die if you
> have a car crash (something else they don't seem to do much in America I
> noticed :)...
Actually, as of a week ago, the last couple of straggler states made
it mandatory to have a seatbelt. The upside of this is that since that
3% of the poplulation is gone from the equation, we can get safety devices
like airbags that comply to European specs.
Current airbags are made to work as a primary restraint as if a 180lb
male was not wearing a seatbelt. This of course, kicks the pucky
out of small framed people and children. Since it is the law now,
U.S. cars will start to have seatbelt-worn type airbags. No more
injuries. Also, European cars should be easier to import - no
replacing their airbags.
Yes, it sucks, but otoh, I'd trade wearing a seatbelt for mandated
suplimental injury devices anyday.
> if you don't have a backup parachute you're more likely to die
> when skydiving...
This is watching the blather on T.V. we're talking about. You don't
need anything other than your own common sense in either case, though.
> It seems blatantly obvious to me that licensing is a very
> good thing when it comes to firearms, as with the majority of things
> (imagine what the roads would be like if you didn't need a driving
> license!).
Murder rates are shockingly low in Switzerland. Maybe because everyone
owns guns(and I mean EVERY household - you are required to as part
of their citizens militia)? Home invasion robberies are unheard of.
OTOH, non-violent crime is ubsurdly high there. All the criminals
moved to things that won't get them shot. Everyone is happy.
Joseph Oberlander
> Adam, I'm NOT being argumentative but IMHO licenses will not stop anything
> from happening but they do create revenue and numbers, which may or may not
> be a good thing. Watch Mr Orwell's Animal farm.
BTW - Orwell was writing about the U.K. in his book. It took him over
two years to find a publisher that would even carry it - and this was
before the Cold War(tm) came about. His preface was not included and
still is not as it was a scathing commentary on the U.S. and U.K. idiocy.
One publisher three years ago finally did publish it in the U.S., though,
so you can finally get an uncensored version of his work.
You'd probably get fined or something if you tried to sell this version
in the U.K. Poor unenlightened U.K. officials don't want their police
state bubble burst.
John
> Bzzt. Sorry - it is a known fact that in the U.K. they purposely cook
> their figures(what The Government compiles and hands out to sources
> like The Observer).
I'll have you know that the UK Government has *never* just invented facts!
They might have copied a few pages from here and there and well "sexed" them
up, as the TV reporter stated last night but NEVER have they just
"invented"....okay so they might have :)
BUT it's an official secret...... :)
AlanG
wrote:
>AlanG wrote:
>> Your Address shows a UK source.
>> In the UK a licence is not needed for dogs cats or radio rx.
>> You do have to pay a tv tax if installing apparatus capable of
>> receiving tv signals originating in the EU. If you only use a tv set
>> for watching prerecorded media or as a monitor then no licence is
>> needed.
>
>Alan, as an electronics engineer (bias in radio communications) I can assure
>you, your wrong.
As an electronics technician (data acquisition and controls since 1966
but now semi retired) I suggest you check.
A license is only needed for apparatus *installed* to receive
television signals.
Try this. http://www.jifvik.org/tv/
It gives a reasonably accurate description of the law as it stands
>
>You pay for apparatus that is capable of receiving signals, if you are using
>a monitor to watch videos on a standard VCR then you would still have to
>have a _colour_ licence to cover the VCR.
Only if the VCR is installed to receive television signals. A detuned
piece of kit not connected to an aerial or cable input is not subject
to need for a license.
>
>Now, even if you are receiving Spanish TV (for what ever reason you feel
>this is relevant) and that apparatus received colour "PAL" or any other
>error correction for that matter, you need a licence.
Indeed. Reception from anywhere in the EU requires a license and that
includes satellite transmissions with their signals originating in an
EU state
>
>And further more, just go and ask a radio ham, if he/she has a licence,
>you'll find they have.
>
Radio transmission requires a licence except for those frequencies
permitted for industrial control and low power communication sytems.
Think wireless LAN or those toy tranceivers.
AlanG
<josephob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>John wrote:
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>
>>>Pay for the RADIO? What kind of Orwellian type state is that
>>>where the only way to listen to anything for free is listen in
>>>a shielded basement or in your car?
>>
>>
>> Or what about the CB?
>>
>> Citizens band radio..... ?? we need a licence for that! :)
>>
>> Do you know, it's just occurred to me that we need a licence for everything
>> from dogs to cars! and if it's not licensed it's taxed!
>
>Things are much more free here - possibly because we invented radio
You're Italian?
John
> A license is only needed for apparatus *installed* to receive
> television signals.
Isn't that what I said?
It was you who started bleating on about monitors and EU TV stations.
BTW your car radio need a licence but it's covered by your TV licence, go
and check.
AlanG
wrote:
>AlanG wrote:
>
>> A license is only needed for apparatus *installed* to receive
>> television signals.
>
>Isn't that what I said?
It's what I said originally,
You argued.
>
>It was you who started bleating on about monitors and EU TV stations.
You don't need a licence for a tv used as a monitor.
>
>BTW your car radio need a licence but it's covered by your TV licence, go
>and check.
>
Nope.
They cut the radio licence out about 30 years ago because it was
impossible to enforce.
A portable tv in your caravan or car is covered by your home tv
licence though.
Adam Greatrix
news:bdf59p$s0uve$1...@ID-56855.news.dfncis.de...
> So you would agree that it's of paramount necessity that airguns are
> licensed, to stop misuse?
No.
> and airguns?
No - if you wanted to kill someone with an air gun you'd be better off
hitting them with it than shooting them with it. Far more energy. I was
supporting licensing in general - people seem to be whining about everything
being licensed - specifically fire arms, cars, CB, etc. I don't support that
air guns, under 12 ft-lbf, should require a license.
> This is another thing that pi$$es me off. Our government makes it illegal
> for a person *not* to ware a seatbelt, for god sake if I want to die then
> who the hell are they to make it bloody illegal! ??
Ok, and who are you to say that when you have a head on collistion above 30
miles an hour, and you're not wearing your seatbelt, and you go RIGHT
through your windscreen and the vehicles windscreen you just crashed into,
and with a force in excess of 20 tonnes slam into the occupants of the car
you've just crashed into killing them outright - that's a bit selfish don't
you think. Seatbelt wearing is not just to protect yourself, it's to protect
those around you too, especially anyone in front of you if you're in the
back, or anyone you crash into if you're in the front. Wearing of seatbelts,
as with most things that are made illegal not to do, generally speaking
(i.e. statistically) save lives or increase peoples quality of living.
> Adam, I'm NOT being argumentative but IMHO licenses will not stop anything
> from happening but they do create revenue and numbers, which may or may
not
> be a good thing. Watch Mr Orwell's Animal farm.
But it's the bigger picture that counts. For you and I (assuming you're not
criminally inclined) licensing is a hassle I entirely agree, but I would
say, looking at the bigger picture, it protects people.
Ok, specific example given that this is a topic about gun safety: Say you
didn't require a FAC to own a gun (any gun). It's safe to assume a lot more
people would own guns right? I certainly would. Out of those extra guns that
are lying around peoples houses, can you really say not a single one of them
would end up being used to shoot somebody? A lot of people out there would
use it to shoot someone breaking into their house. What about ones that get
stolen and used by somebody else to shoot somebody? Remember it might not be
you who uses it. What about when one of your children's friends pick it up
and "play" with it. Even if just one of those guns would be used to harm
somebody then that's one life saved by having licensing there as if you had
licensing that gun wouldn't exist.
What do you think?
Adam
Adam Greatrix
From: "AlanG" <m...@privacy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.sport.air-guns,talk.politics.guns
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 5:11 PM
Subject: Gun licencing was : Webley Raider - 8 ft/lbs????
> You don't need a driving licence. There are a lot of cars on the roads
> being driven by drivers who have never had a licence or passed a test.
True, but you're talking about a minority. For most people (as in those with
driving licenses) as it stands at the moment you have to pass your test to
get a license. To pass the test you have to be of a certain driving
competence. Thus this ensures that for the vast majority of people who drive
cars can do so reasonably safely and understand road signs etc. Those that
are utterly rubbish at driving don't pass their test and hence aren't
allowed on the roads. If you didn't require a license then the vast majority
of drivers wouldn't have a clue, certainly it would be far less safe than it
is now.
> It doesn't stop road traffic laws being applied.
T
rue, but in this case (driving) it ensures the vast majority of people on
the road (those with licenses in other words) have proved that they are
reasonably proficient and safe at driving. Surely that's a good thing?
Adam
Adam Greatrix
news:3EFB29AD...@earthlink.net...
> Actually, it's been proven that high firearm ownership and open-carry
> laws make it far LESS likely to be shot. When was the last time you
> heard of anyone committing a crime right in front of an officer or
> purposely grabbing their gun from them?
I've never heard of anyone committing a crime right in front of an unarmed
officer here in the UK either. At least not knowingly. Moot point. Although
I have seen on the American TV show Cops footage of several people grabbing
officers gun's, I'm sure that's pretty rare though.
Ok, but I really can't see how the fact that having loads of guns all over
the place means they won't ever be used (not one of them) to kill someone.
However, it's blatantly obvious that if those guns weren't there in the
first place they can't be used to kill anyone. Ok. I can see how it would be
a huge deterrent, but deterrents aren't a deterrent if everyone knows
they'll never be used. So either way I look at it I can't see how having
guns means less people get shot.
Adam
Joseph Oberlander
You're missing the point. Sociaopaths won't try anything when every third
person is likely carrying. If Maryland had open-carry laws, and someone
had seen those shooters, they would have shot them. They chose their
area on purpose because they knew the people were not likely to be
able to shoot back IF they were caught in the act.
Cars are used in more murders as weapons than guns, btw. If thwy didn't
own guns, it would be knifes or clubs or a big rock.
John
>>> A license is only needed for apparatus *installed* to receive
>>> television signals.
>>
>> Isn't that what I said?
>
> It's what I said originally,
> You argued.
I said and quote "*TV needs a license over here... did I mention it was
state run... and
that the license is almost $250"*
>> It was you who started bleating on about monitors and EU TV stations.
>
> You don't need a licence for a tv used as a monitor.
And you don't need a driving licence for a plane either but that's that got
to do with it?
If you rip the demodulator out of your TV then it's no longer a bloody TV.
>>
>> BTW your car radio need a licence but it's covered by your TV
>> licence, go and check.
>>
>
> Nope.
> They cut the radio licence out about 30 years ago because it was
> impossible to enforce.
> A portable tv in your caravan or car is covered by your home tv
> licence though.
Okay Alan, your obviously a very educated man, we'll agree to disagree that
you need a TV licence in the UK.
John
>> Adam, I'm NOT being argumentative but IMHO licenses will not stop
>> anything from happening but they do create revenue and numbers,
>> which may or may not be a good thing. Watch Mr Orwell's Animal farm.
>
> But it's the bigger picture that counts. For you and I (assuming
> you're not criminally inclined) licensing is a hassle I entirely
> agree, but I would say, looking at the bigger picture, it protects
> people.
No I can not agree that licensing will protect people and in some cases
licensing can actually harm a great many people.
I can see & understand what your point is but the *bigger picture* is that a
simple licence will not stop the holder from harming others.
> Even if just one of those guns would be used to
> harm somebody then that's one life saved by having licensing there as
> if you had licensing that gun wouldn't exist.
>
> What do you think?
I'll tell you what I think.
Adam, think about what you have typed and then think about resent misuse of
airguns.
At least two children have been killed or injured by airgun misuse over the
last 12 months but you disagree that airguns should be licensed, why?
Is it because it would directly effect you?
Joseph Oberlander
> Adam, think about what you have typed and then think about resent misuse of
> airguns.
> At least two children have been killed or injured by airgun misuse over the
> last 12 months but you disagree that airguns should be licensed, why?
And at least two have been killed or injured by baseballs in the last
12 months. Your point? Licencing does squat. Educating people does.
Perhaps we should legislate a baseball tax and make them softer and...
John
My point?
To quote you, "Licencing does squat" to save lives.
Adam Greatrix
> And at least two have been killed or injured by baseballs in the last
> 12 months. Your point? Licencing does squat. Educating people does.
I disagree, licensing (in the case of firearms) makes things which can do a
lot more damage than air guns and baseball bats (such as firearms) much
harder to obtain. For every gun that isn't "obtained" it's one less gun that
can be used to kill someone. A gun that does not exist can not be used - end
of story. Yes, criminals can use knives or alternatives, but it's still
harder to kill someone with most other types of weapons - range being one of
the biggest advantages of a firearm.
Adam
Adam Greatrix
> Adam Greatrix wrote:
> No I can not agree that licensing will protect people and in some cases
> licensing can actually harm a great many people.
> I can see & understand what your point is but the *bigger picture* is that
a
> simple licence will not stop the holder from harming others.
No, but it would make it more difficult to obtain. Most guns here in the UK
that are used in crime have been stolen which suggests that it's actually
pretty hard for most criminals to easily obtain guns for deliberate use in
crime. Removing licensing would mean they could easily obtain them and hence
more people would use them in crime.
> Adam, think about what you have typed and then think about resent misuse
of
> airguns.
> At least two children have been killed or injured by airgun misuse over
the
> last 12 months but you disagree that airguns should be licensed, why?
No, because I understand the physics of it. A typical air rifle gives out
under 12 ft-lbf of energy. That's 16 joules. You could exceed that with a
baseball bat easily. There's little point in shooting someone with an air
rifle - you'd be better off hitting them with it. You are extremely unlikely
to kill someone if you shoot them over 30 yards with an air gun, however if
that were a normal gun you are far far more likely to kill them as the
energy is so much higher (also higher than a baseball bat). That's why I
think firearms should be licensed, and air guns not as it's a LOT easier to
kill someone with a more powerful gun.
Adam
James Pinkerton
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
> >>> Land is inexpensive as well if you move a few miles outside
> >>> the urban sprawl.
> >>
> >> About £500 an acre here.
> >
> > Gosh - that's um - okay you have us beat there. Land is like
> > um - $10K and acre(about 6-7K pounds). OTOH, salaries are not
> > that bad either.
>
> Sorry, I seem to have left off a few 00's. I guess prime land in say
London
> would be about $1.5K per 1'x1'.
> You'll be looking at £5k per acre of good agricultural land.
>
>
> John
>
What are your real estate taxes like on the good agricultural land? Do you
have to make a lot of money farming just to afford to keep your own
property?
John
> What are your real estate taxes like on the good agricultural land?
> Do you have to make a lot of money farming just to afford to keep
> your own property?
James, the truth is for years the farmers have been "swinging-the-lead" but
these days farming is dead.
There is no money left and most farmers a diversifying in to things like 4x4
schools, caravan parks and the like.
True farming in the UK is only just hanging on, most dairy farms are only
just breaking even.
John
> No, but it would make it more difficult to obtain. Most guns here in
> the UK that are used in crime have been stolen which suggests that
> it's actually pretty hard for most criminals to easily obtain guns
> for deliberate use in crime. Removing licensing would mean they could
> easily obtain them and hence more people would use them in crime.
Adam, most firearms used in crime are not stolen, they are "imported".
Heck when was the last time UK gun owners used AK47's or Glocks? (yes I know
when and I did own guns when we could).
There is little doubt that some guns used in armed crime are stolen but you
seem to miss my point.
>> At least two children have been killed or injured by airgun misuse
>> over the last 12 months but you disagree that airguns should be
>> licensed, why?
>
> No, because I understand the physics of it. A typical air rifle gives
> out under 12 ft-lbf of energy. That's 16 joules. You could exceed
> that with a baseball bat easily. There's little point in shooting
> someone with an air rifle - you'd be better off hitting them with it.
> You are extremely unlikely to kill someone if you shoot them over 30
> yards with an air gun, however if that were a normal gun you are far
> far more likely to kill them as the energy is so much higher (also
> higher than a baseball bat). That's why I think firearms should be
> licensed, and air guns not as it's a LOT easier to kill someone with
> a more powerful gun.
So you are basing your opinion on power, how much power or muzzle energy
does your average knife have?
Very little I suspect and in you above example an airgun would have a
greater amount of "power" and so should then be licensed.
Fact is Adam, right now I'm just waffling. You just can not see the paradox
in your post, on one hand you say that guns over a given ME should be
licensed (to preserve life) but on the other hand an airgun which can kill
should not.
Do you own an FAC or SGC, I suspect not. What about an airgun, I suspect you
do.
AlanG
<exto...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "AlanG" <m...@privacy.net>
>Newsgroups: alt.sport.air-guns,talk.politics.guns
>Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 5:11 PM
>Subject: Gun licencing was : Webley Raider - 8 ft/lbs????
>
>> You don't need a driving licence. There are a lot of cars on the roads
>> being driven by drivers who have never had a licence or passed a test.
>
>
>True, but you're talking about a minority. For most people (as in those with
>driving licenses) as it stands at the moment you have to pass your test to
>get a license. To pass the test you have to be of a certain driving
>competence. Thus this ensures that for the vast majority of people who drive
>cars can do so reasonably safely and understand road signs etc.
That still doesn't require a license.
I drove for many years,365 days a year on a motorcycle with only a
provisional license. I didn't actually need one. The bike would have
worked just as well and I would have drove just as safely through all
weathers and road conditions as I did anyway.
> Those that
>are utterly rubbish at driving don't pass their test and hence aren't
>allowed on the roads. If you didn't require a license then the vast majority
>of drivers wouldn't have a clue, certainly it would be far less safe than it
>is now.
Only if the road traffic laws were ignored.
>
>> It doesn't stop road traffic laws being applied.
>
>T
>rue, but in this case (driving) it ensures the vast majority of people on
>the road (those with licenses in other words) have proved that they are
>reasonably proficient and safe at driving.
No it doesn't.
All it proves is they could handle a vehicle for an hour or less
without making any errors.
> Surely that's a good thing?
>
You may say that.
James Pinkerton
news:oqaofvgmrn6dbjcns...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:17:41 +0100, "Adam Greatrix"
> <exto...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> That still doesn't require a license.
> I drove for many years,365 days a year on a motorcycle with only a
> provisional license. I didn't actually need one. The bike would have
> worked just as well and I would have drove just as safely through all
> weathers and road conditions as I did anyway.
My departed mother got her first driver's license by mail. It cost 25
cents. She never had a road test and never had an accident until she got
too old to drive. Driver's licensing is just a racket to get money for the
State. It also lets the local cops pull anyone over and eye ball them
without cause. Obviously that does catch some drunks, people with open
alcoholic drinks, pot, etc. The State gets the money and the people are out
driving again anyway.
I don't know about GB but in most places in America the public
transportation system does not exist. You need a car to go anywhere. Also
in parts of certain cities like Detroit you need to have a gun because of
the pimps, drug addicts, muggers, etc. And the police don't make it
impossible for an upright citizen to protect himself. They know what is
going on.
What about this! I don't need a license to own a automobile. If I drive it
only on my own land I don't even need to buy a license tag.
They allow drug addicts, alcoholics and blind people to own a car. I don't
hear any one wanting to restrict the ownership of automobiles. They want to
sell all they can.
Why can't I own any kind of gun I want as long as I don't fire it? That is
called gun collecting. In fact, as long as I obey the law why can't I take
it out and shoot it at targets? How has ruining the sport of pistol shooting
in GB helped with your personal safety? Now having a plastic non-firing
Japanese copy of a gun is just not the same thing as owning the real thing.
There is something wrong with a government that does not trust its citizens
to own firearms and is now arming its police (Isn't it called a police
state)?
Joseph Oberlander
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Adam, think about what you have typed and then think about resent
>>>misuse of airguns.
>>>At least two children have been killed or injured by airgun misuse
>>>over the last 12 months but you disagree that airguns should be
>>>licensed, why?
>>
>>And at least two have been killed or injured by baseballs in the last
>>12 months. Your point? Licencing does squat. Educating people does.
>>
>>Perhaps we should legislate a baseball tax and make them softer and...
>
>
> My point?
>
> To quote you, "Licencing does squat" to save lives.
>
And I'm right. Violent criminals will resort to another weapon
if guns are not available. Same number of crimes - just look
at London in the 1700s and 1800s. Certain areas were amazingly
high crime areas and nobody had guns because they were too noticeable
and expensive.
Legislating restrictions on or removing firearm ownership means those
who never would use them get rid of them(obey the laws) and the
only ones that do are the criminals. This - well - it's not a pretty
situation, just look at Washington D.C. or London lately.
Joseph Oberlander
> I disagree, licensing (in the case of firearms) makes things which can do a
> lot more damage than air guns and baseball bats (such as firearms) much
> harder to obtain. For every gun that isn't "obtained" it's one less gun that
> can be used to kill someone. A gun that does not exist can not be used - end
> of story. Yes, criminals can use knives or alternatives, but it's still
> harder to kill someone with most other types of weapons - range being one of
> the biggest advantages of a firearm.
You really need to read actual studies on this.
Fact: Guns exist. People can make their own crude ones in hours
at home with normal tools.
Fact: Criminals use their own methods to obtain a gun, which
have not changed nor will change in hundreds of years. They
do not use the channels normal people do(forms/paperwork/gun shop)
except for the rare idiot as the chances of being caught or traced
to a weapon are too high.
This all means that we are removing the guns from the people
who are using them responibly and having ZERO impact on the
criminal element's access to them.
About range:
Fact: most shootings occur at under 20 ft. Almost all at under 50.
You can close 20 feet with a knife in about 1-2 seconds, so range
is a moot deal other than in drive-by shootings(again, usually
full-auto illegal guns from the black market to begin with)
Joseph Lovell
Adam Greatrix wrote:
>"Joseph Oberlander" <josephob...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:3EFC006A...@earthlink.net...
>
>
>>And at least two have been killed or injured by baseballs in the last
>>12 months. Your point? Licencing does squat. Educating people does.
>>
>>
>
>I disagree, licensing (in the case of firearms) makes things which can do a
>lot more damage than air guns and baseball bats (such as firearms) much
>harder to obtain.
>
Then make automobiles as hard to get as guns. They kill and injure far
more people than are killed or injured by means of firearms. But now,
in the US, anyone can walk into any car dealership, plunk down the money
and get a car. No questions, no waiting period, no background check.
>For every gun that isn't "obtained" it's one less gun that
>can be used to kill someone. A gun that does not exist can not be used - end
>of story. Yes, criminals can use knives or alternatives, but it's still
>harder to kill someone with most other types of weapons - range being one of
>the biggest advantages of a firearm.
>
In spite of the media hype about long range shootings, most homicides by
means of firearm take place at knife fighting ranges. And, remember
that less thatn 30% of all violent crime involves the use of a firearm.
Plus, the USDOJ estimates that there are at least 600,000 effective self
defense uses of firearms each year. Several other studies (13) by
others indicate that the number is closer to between 2,000,000 and
2,500,000 DGUs each year (I'm not going to throw in the LA Times study
that suggests over 3 million DGUs/year, that seems too high just as the
DOJs seems too low). Most without a shot being fired. Even taking the
lower number of 600k, that shows that firearms are used by citizens for
protection about 3 times more often than criminals use firearms to kill
or injure their victims.
Getting away from the red herring of the utility argument, look at some
other numbers. There are about 80,000,000 firearms owners in the US.
At least that many. The number of firearms in private hands is about
250,000,000 (far more than automobiles). Well under 0.1% (closer to
0.05%) of all firerms owners will misuse their firearms in a criminal
manner. Not too bad a record, that. If you look at only accidental
deaths and injuries, the numbers become statistically insignificant - in
2000 there were fewer than 900 accidental deaths by means of firearm.
Compare that to well over 30,000 accidental deaths caused by cars.
Tell me, which is safer.
Mitch Haley
> This all means that we are removing the guns from the people
> who are using them responibly and having ZERO impact on the
> criminal element's access to them.
And here in the USA, some laws don't even apply to criminals.
For instance, convicted felons cannot legally possess firearms.
Therefore, convicted felons cannot be required to register
their firearms because their 5th ammendment right to avoid
self-incrimination prevents us from requiring them to confess
to having guns. Do we really need laws which require the
innocent to register their firearms but not the felons?
Mitch.
Joseph Lovell
Adam Greatrix wrote:
>"John" <123...@britishlibrary.net> wrote in message
>news:bdgtfk$t90de$1...@ID-56855.news.dfncis.de...
>
>
>>Adam Greatrix wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>No I can not agree that licensing will protect people and in some cases
>>licensing can actually harm a great many people.
>>I can see & understand what your point is but the *bigger picture* is that
>>
>>
>a
>
>
>>simple licence will not stop the holder from harming others.
>>
>>
>
>No, but it would make it more difficult to obtain. Most guns here in the UK
>that are used in crime have been stolen which suggests that it's actually
>pretty hard for most criminals to easily obtain guns for deliberate use in
>crime. Removing licensing would mean they could easily obtain them and hence
>more people would use them in crime.
>
>
>
>>Adam, think about what you have typed and then think about resent misuse
>>
>>
>of
>
>
>>airguns.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>At least two children have been killed or injured by airgun misuse over
>>
>>
>the
>
>
>>last 12 months but you disagree that airguns should be licensed, why?
>>
>>
>
>No, because I understand the physics of it. A typical air rifle gives out
>under 12 ft-lbf of energy. That's 16 joules.
>
Here in the US, even here in California, a "typical" air rifle is
usually full power, not the reduced power versions produced for the UK
(why did that law get passed, were air guns being used to kill people?
If so, why not make murder and ADW illegal?). On can even buy large
bore air guns, say .35 to .75 calibre. Basically get the power of a .32
Colt or a Brown Bess, and considerably more accurate than a Brown Bess.
>
>
Joseph Lovell
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>
> About range:
> Fact: most shootings occur at under 20 ft. Almost all at under 50.
> You can close 20 feet with a knife in about 1-2 seconds, so range
> is a moot deal other than in drive-by shootings(again, usually
> full-auto illegal guns from the black market to begin with)
And all drive by shootings involve the use of - a car! Get rid of cars,
you get rid of drive bys. Simple. I don't recall, here in the US
anyway, criminals doing drive bys using full auto. Semi autos, yes,
and full capacity magazines. Or even after market extended capacity
magazines. But not full auto.
Adam Greatrix
> So you are basing your opinion on power, how much power or muzzle energy
> does your average knife have?
Not really, I'm basing it on how easy it is to kill somebody with a given
weapon. I would argue it's easier to kill someone with a baseball bat than
an air rifle, and it's easier to kill someone with a gun than it is an air
rifle or a baseball bat. My energy point was that with such a low power of
16 joules or so you'd be better off hitting someone with it and using it as
a club than shooting them. However, there are far better "club" lying
around - such as baseball bats. Hence licensing air rifles is not something
I support, but licensing firearms is.
> Very little I suspect and in you above example an airgun would have a
> greater amount of "power" and so should then be licensed.
That's not what I'm saying, I was comparing air rifle energy to normal rifle
energy, not air rifle energy to a knife which is an entirely different form
of weapon.
> Fact is Adam, right now I'm just waffling. You just can not see the
paradox
> in your post, on one hand you say that guns over a given ME should be
> licensed (to preserve life) but on the other hand an airgun which can kill
> should not.
But you're saying that because you're not getting my point either. I'm not
saying things should be licensed based on their energy output at all. I'm
saying I can see why licensing a firearm - a device that can easily kill at
100 yards or more with a single shot in under a second is a good thing and
why licensing an air rifle is not, given that an air rifles energy can
easily be exceeded if you swing it like a club is not sensible to license.
I feel what you're saying is entirely true... I'd put air rifles in the same
boat as sling shots, clubs, rocks, and a other things you generally couldn't
license easily.
It's unfair to compare things like knives to firearms. You can defend
yourself against a knife, you can run away from a wielder, you can even
block it with your arms and survive. It's a lot harder to run from a
firearm, and you can't defend yourself against them short of wearing body
armour.
All I actually meant in my original post was that if you didn't require a
license to own a firearm then a lot more people would have them. That's a
lot more guns that COULD be used to kill someone. If the gun doesn't exist
it can't be abused. I'm aware people obtain fire arms by other means, and
I'm aware there are a multitude of other things out there that can just as
easily kill., but firearms have a distinct advantage of being able to kill
quickly, accurately, and at range, for an affordable price. Cars, knives,
rocks, etc don't have all of these attributes. It's an obvious weapon choice
if you want to kill someone. As far as I can see the only thing stopping
them being the most commonly used weapon is licensing which makes them
harder to obtain. I'd much rather face someone with a knife (which as you
said yourself is deadlier than an air rifle) than someone with a firearm and
as a result of licensing I would argue there are a LOT of people out there
who have chosen less deadly weapons due to not being able to get hold of a
firearm as a direct result of licensing.
Adam
Adam Greatrix
>
> Fact: Guns exist. People can make their own crude ones in hours
> at home with normal tools.
I'm not denying that. But come on - how many of your typical street thugs
could actually make a working firearm? I know it's relatively easy - but if
that was the case how come just about everyone doesn't have one?
> Fact: Criminals use their own methods to obtain a gun, which
> have not changed nor will change in hundreds of years. They
> do not use the channels normal people do(forms/paperwork/gun shop)
> except for the rare idiot as the chances of being caught or traced
> to a weapon are too high.
I'm not denying that either. However, if you didn't require a license to own
a gun there'd be a lot more out there. Are you seriously trying to tell me
that there's not a single person out there who hasn't got a gun because of
licensing? Rubbish! I'm one of them. If I didn't require a FAC I'd have a
firearm. Now ok, I'm not criminally minded and I don't intend to kill
anyone, but you can not say that it doesn't make any difference whether
firearms are licensed or not - or rather, you can not say that there would
be an equal or less quantity of guns in the wrong hands out there if they
weren't licensed.
> This all means that we are removing the guns from the people
> who are using them responibly and having ZERO impact on the
> criminal element's access to them.
I disagree - if you have a legitimate reason for having a firearm then you
can get a FAC and I disagree that criminals will *always* be able to obtain
a firearm through other channels. Yes, a lot can, but a lot can't otherwise
just about every criminal would have one.
> Fact: most shootings occur at under 20 ft. Almost all at under 50.
> You can close 20 feet with a knife in about 1-2 seconds, so range
> is a moot deal other than in drive-by shootings(again, usually
> full-auto illegal guns from the black market to begin with)
I disagree again. Someone running at you from 20ft looks suspect and you're
likely to spot them. You can be prepared and you can defend yourself against
knives - especially if you've trained in self defence. You can easily
survive several slashes if you defend with your arms. What chance do you
have against a gun? No amount of self defence training will stop a bullet.
Adam
Mitch Haley
> And all drive by shootings involve the use of - a car! Get rid of cars,
> you get rid of drive bys. Simple. I don't recall, here in the US
> anyway, criminals doing drive bys using full auto.
But... in the movies that's all they use!
Are you telling me the movies aren't authentic?
<sarcasm mode off>
porceli...@webtv.net
gun violence. What wold those laws be. In the great U.S.A. we alredy
have about 250,000,000 guns in the general population. Brits are such
sheeple that they seem to beg to the Queen Mom to have thier rights
taken away. Please Tony, please M0M we can't think for ourselves.Please
save us from our rotten tooth selves.Can you still have an air rifle?
The Daisy Red Rider is a dangerous one for sure, ( My God you'll shoot
your eye out). What rights do the Brits want to give up next?
AlanG
<tom...@megagate.com> wrote:
>"AlanG" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:oqaofvgmrn6dbjcns...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:17:41 +0100, "Adam Greatrix"
>> <exto...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That still doesn't require a license.
>> I drove for many years,365 days a year on a motorcycle with only a
>> provisional license. I didn't actually need one. The bike would have
>> worked just as well and I would have drove just as safely through all
>> weathers and road conditions as I did anyway.
>
>My departed mother got her first driver's license by mail. It cost 25
>cents. She never had a road test and never had an accident until she got
>too old to drive. Driver's licensing is just a racket to get money for the
>State. It also lets the local cops pull anyone over and eye ball them
>without cause. Obviously that does catch some drunks, people with open
>alcoholic drinks, pot, etc. The State gets the money and the people are out
>driving again anyway.
>
>I don't know about GB but in most places in America the public
>transportation system does not exist. You need a car to go anywhere.
Some places are like that.
Also
>in parts of certain cities like Detroit you need to have a gun because of
>the pimps, drug addicts, muggers, etc. And the police don't make it
>impossible for an upright citizen to protect himself. They know what is
>going on.
Same in some places in the UK
>
>What about this! I don't need a license to own a automobile. If I drive it
>only on my own land I don't even need to buy a license tag.
>They allow drug addicts, alcoholics and blind people to own a car. I don't
>hear any one wanting to restrict the ownership of automobiles. They want to
>sell all they can.
>
>Why can't I own any kind of gun I want as long as I don't fire it? That is
>called gun collecting. In fact, as long as I obey the law why can't I take
>it out and shoot it at targets? How has ruining the sport of pistol shooting
>in GB helped with your personal safety? Now having a plastic non-firing
>Japanese copy of a gun is just not the same thing as owning the real thing.
The UK government and police want to ban those too
>There is something wrong with a government that does not trust its citizens
>to own firearms and is now arming its police (Isn't it called a police
>state)?
>
yes.
I want to get back to the position where we had the right to own a gun
and the state had to give a damn good reason as to why you were unfit
to own one. That was a little over 50 years ago when we had very few
firearms murders.
Adam Greatrix
news:3EFC828F...@sonic.net...
> If you look at only accidental
> deaths and injuries, the numbers become statistically insignificant - in
> 2000 there were fewer than 900 accidental deaths by means of firearm.
> Compare that to well over 30,000 accidental deaths caused by cars.
> Tell me, which is safer.
I can't understand why people keep insisting on comparing deaths by guns to
deaths by other things. Just because other things can kill more people or
are more dangerous than a firearm is no justification at all for making it
easier to obtain firearms.
That's like comparing Heroin to Alcohol and saying Alcohol kills more people
a year than Heroin so Heroin should be made legal - rubbish!
Adam
Adam Greatrix
news:26357-3EF...@storefull-2336.public.lawson.webtv.net...
You really should read what I have been saying. If you HAD read what I said
in my other posts you'd understand that I am against the licensing of air
guns (uk sub 12 ft-lbf ones). Where exactly did I say we should have more
laws against guns?
I'll summarise what I said: Somebody on here said that the licensing of
firearms in the UK is pointless and does not achieve anything other than
revenue for the government. I argued against that point stating that if you
did not require a license to obtain a firearm then more people would own
them, and hence there are more firearms available that COULD be used to kill
people (either on purpose or accidently). For every gun that is not obtained
because that person doesn't have a license/FAC then that's one more gun that
does not exist. A gun that does not exist can not hurt anyone - end of
story. If you have a genuine need for a firearm (such as pest control,
hunting, etc) and can prove it you can easily obtain a FAC.
Yes, people can obtain firearms through other channels - but I doubt very
much if more guns are in circulation because you require a license to obtain
them and that less guns would be around if you didn't require a license -
that just doesn't make sense.
Yes, other things can just as easily kill (a knife) or can be more dangerous
or kill more people per year (cars). But that is NO justification whatsoever
to give even more and easier ways to kill people to the general public.
Not once have I said we should have more laws, not once have I said we
should give up any rights. I have only ever said that I don't see a problem
in the current situation where you require a FAC to obtain a firearm, nor do
I see a need to remove that requirement.
Adam
Mitch Haley
> For every gun that is not obtained
> because that person doesn't have a license/FAC then that's one more gun that
> does not exist. A gun that does not exist can not hurt anyone - end of
> story. If you have a genuine need for a firearm (such as pest control,
> hunting, etc) and can prove it you can easily obtain a FAC.
That is the basic difference between you and the majority here.
You're afraid of guns in the hands of the general public, and think
fewer guns are inherently better. I guess we'll have to disagree on
that subject, as I don't think I can convince you that there is nothing
inherently dangerous in having a gun in every home, any more than having
a stove in every home is inherently dangerous, and there is nothing you
can say to convince me that guns are dangerous by their mere existence.
Firearms in the home in the USA do far more good than harm, as the number
of accidental discharges by idiots are greatly outnumbered by defensive
uses against criminals by their intended victims.
Mitch.
Joseph Lovell
Adam Greatrix wrote:
Takes practice. And, if you concern is crime, how many criminals use
rifles? Most criminals can't hit jack with a handgun at over 25 ft.
>is a good thing and
>why licensing an air rifle is not, given that an air rifles energy can
>easily be exceeded if you swing it like a club is not sensible to license.
>
>I feel what you're saying is entirely true... I'd put air rifles in the same
>boat as sling shots, clubs, rocks, and a other things you generally couldn't
>license easily.
>
>It's unfair to compare things like knives to firearms. You can defend
>yourself against a knife, you can run away from a wielder, you can even
>block it with your arms and survive. It's a lot harder to run from a
>firearm, and you can't defend yourself against them short of wearing body
>armour.
>
In most ranges that a firearm is used during the commission of a crime,
a person with a knife or club can close and kill or disable in about the
same time as it takes to clear leather and fire. The difference is who
gets rattled the least. It is NOT the tool, it is the criminal. Here
is what one of our forefathers said about blaming the tool: " For men of
understanding do not say that the sword is to blame for murder, nor wine
for drunkenness, nor strength for outrage, nor courage for
foolhardiness, but they lay the blame on those who make an improper use
of the gifts which have been bestowed upon them by God, and punish them
accordingly." (St. John Chrysostom)
You want to punish everyone for the misdeeds of a few. Do you advocaste
banning cars because a few get drunk and then try to drive? Same
reasoning applies, punish all for the acts of the few.
Joseph Lovell
Mitch Haley wrote:
Silly me! I forgot about all that documentry evidence that Hollywood
puts out every year.
Isn't it amazing that a in group so dedicated to outlawing firearms
(actors, directors, producers, etc) so many make their livings by
portraying the misuse of firearms? Maybe we need to start a letter
writing campaign telling studios, sponseers, etc, that we will boycott
any film or TV program that features an anti gun actor, producer,
director or sponser misuseing firearms. If ALL the gun owners in the US
did that for a year, and wrote letters to the money behind the
productions letting them know our views, I bet that people like Alex
Baldwin, etc. would soon find that they really like firearms.
>
>
Joseph Lovell
Adam Greatrix wrote:
>"Joseph Lovell" <sub...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:3EFC828F...@sonic.net...
>
>
>
>>If you look at only accidental
>>deaths and injuries, the numbers become statistically insignificant - in
>>2000 there were fewer than 900 accidental deaths by means of firearm.
>> Compare that to well over 30,000 accidental deaths caused by cars.
>> Tell me, which is safer.
>>
>>
>
>
>I can't understand why people keep insisting on comparing deaths by guns to
>deaths by other things.
>
Some of that is because the antis began saying things like "Well, we
register cars, why can't we register firearms, too." So we took it and
ran with it. Antis claim, as you do, that guns in and of themselves are
dangerous and cause people to commit crimes and violent acts. Well, if
one inanimate object does that, then other inanimate objects can do the
same thing. Cars are everywhere and provide a good comparison. Again I
ask, should cars be subject to the same restrictions that you want on
firearms? Anyone can go to any car lot, put down the money and drive
off in a car. No background check, no waiting period, nothing. Why?
Cars kill and injure far more than firearms do. Same with bicycles -
in 2000, bikes caused over 516,000 deaths and injuries in the US, most
of them children. Do you favor the registration of bicycles? Remember,
you are basing your restricting firearms on the damage that they cause.
And, criminals (felons, professional criminals) can not legally be
required to register firearms. So how exactly would registration help
reduce criminal violence by means of firearms?
>Just because other things can kill more people or
>are more dangerous than a firearm is no justification at all for making it
>easier to obtain firearms.
>
Because the whole basis of the gun banners arguments seems to be the
supposed danger to people posed by the presence of firearms. If other
things are just as, or more, dangerous, then by the reasoning used by
the antis those other items should be subject to the same restrictions.
>That's like comparing Heroin to Alcohol and saying Alcohol kills more people
>a year than Heroin so Heroin should be made legal - rubbish!
>
>Adam
>
Most of the sever social problems caused by heroin are due to its being
illegal. Yes, it is addictive, but its pharmacological effects to those
addicted to it are not that much more sever than those of alcohol or
tobacco (which should be in the same class as heroin - if it were being
introduced today it would never make it onto the market).
The other argument that antis use goes something like "If I had a gun,
it would just be a matter of time before I used it on (in in the
blank)." To which I say, fine, don't buy a gun. But do not presume to
restrict MY enumerated rights just because you do not feel that you can
control yourself.
Joseph Lovell
Adam Greatrix wrote:
I forgot to add, I fired about 15,000 rounds last year. Somehow I
failed to kill or injure anyone. I know several dozen people that shoot
at least double what I do, and amazingly none of them have killed or
injured anyone either. According to you, and other antis, we must be
doing something wrong. After all, guns turn people into killing
machines, right?
James Pinkerton
> should give up any rights. I have only ever said that I don't see a
problem
> in the current situation where you require a FAC to obtain a firearm, nor
do
> I see a need to remove that requirement.
>
> Adam
>
What firearm crime is not covered by "Shall not murder", "Shall not Steal",
etc. Old Moses laid down the basic ten but so-called Christians, Jews, and
Moslems seem to ignore them. The fear of bad Karma should make the other
people think about using a gun for crime.
The problem with gun licensing is gun grabbing. Is not GB and handguns a
prime example. Didn't the British government ask (actually demand) to have
all the pistol shooters license their target pistols? Didn't they promise
if you registered it that you could keep it or did they say go ahead and
register it and we will make it illegal for you to even own it? What is the
harm for registered pistol shooters to be able to punch holes in paper
targets?
In almost every case gun licensing is a plot to allow the later outlawing of
firearms. The government then knows on who's door to knock when pick up
time comes. It came in Nazi Germany and it came in GB for pistol owners! In
parts of America, legal semi-automatic rifles have become illegal by
mislabeling them as "assault rifles".
The law should be stated to require the government to issue a FAC or firearm
license unless the person is a criminal with a police record for serious
crime. The license should be free as the gun owners is a tax payer and has
already paid for police services. The law should insure that the government
will not change its mind later and take that person's personal property.
Obviously the government changes laws all the time. If they didn't then MPs
and American Senators could take some time off from work instead of figuring
out new ways to shaft the workers.
Mitch Haley
>
> Same with bicycles -
> in 2000, bikes caused over 516,000 deaths and injuries in the US, most
> of them children.
Assuming that number is true, it's still misleading to say "516,000 deaths
and injuries" to describe 800 deaths and 515,000 injuries, mostly cuts and
bruises. I'd leave the unnecessary inflammatory wording to the antis and
try to stand on firm ground myself.
Mitch.
Joseph Lovell
Mitch Haley wrote:
All those injuries required some sort of medical attention, stitches
and/or casts at least, often overnight stays in the hospital for
concusion, not "mostly cuts and bruises". Lots of multi trauma stuff
The numbers are from one of the national bicycle sporting groups. NIH
for the same year showed about 498,000 deaths and injuries caused by
bicycles.
When I'm talking to antis I tend to use their terminology - if firearms
"casue" violence all by themselves, then other inanimate objects "cause"
deaths and injuries all by themselves. This sometimes helps them to see
that it is not the tool that directs the actions of people.
>
>
Joseph Oberlander
Barnes makes the biggest, iirc - ~650ft-lbs from a .54 cal slug.
It's basically a .45 cal blackpowder rifle that you can reload every
3-5 seconds. It also can be used during bow and blackpowder seasons,
for hunting, a huge plus they don't market(since it isn't technically
a firearm, they lump it in with "other" hunting methods)
Joseph Oberlander
(checks) you're right. OTOH, I *do* know that Glocks are a favorite
in the U.K. - with high capacity magazines. You aren't even supposed
to OWN any semi-auto pistol in the U.K., btw(barring competition or a
specific impossible to get license)
The point is that the black market is your ONLY way to get something,
people tend to go as far as they can get away with as being caught
with a SMG or a Glock is about as bad as a rifle - so why not get
what you want?
Joseph Lovell
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
There was someone, I don't remember who and the link is lost due to a
crash, that produced for sale a .75 cal. air rifle a few years back.
It was in the price range of the Barnes pieces. Might have been
something that a guy made 4 or 5 of and then stopped.
Joseph Oberlander
> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephob...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3EFC7DB8...@earthlink.net...
>
>>Fact: Guns exist. People can make their own crude ones in hours
>>at home with normal tools.
>
> I'm not denying that. But come on - how many of your typical street thugs
> could actually make a working firearm? I know it's relatively easy - but if
> that was the case how come just about everyone doesn't have one?
Two pieces of brass gas tubing and a couple of caps. plus a hammer
are all you need(springs and a door hinge bolt if you want to
make a functional bolt assmebly and forget about the hammer.
30 mintutes, tops to make a zip gun.
>>Fact: Criminals use their own methods to obtain a gun, which
>>have not changed nor will change in hundreds of years. They
>>do not use the channels normal people do(forms/paperwork/gun shop)
>>except for the rare idiot as the chances of being caught or traced
>>to a weapon are too high.
>
> I'm not denying that either. However, if you didn't require a license to own
> a gun there'd be a lot more out there.
But the problem you fail to see is - if it's okay for the police to own
them to "protect us"(as if - all they really ever do is cleanup after
the fact - remember this), why should it be wrong for a person to won one
for the same reasons?
Why should only the criminals own them since you make it impossible for
people to legally own them over there anymore with a proper permit, given
than the same people who do it legally almost NEVER use them improperly.
> Are you seriously trying to tell me
> that there's not a single person out there who hasn't got a gun because of
> licensing? Rubbish! I'm one of them. If I didn't require a FAC I'd have a
> firearm.
Exactly. You don't own a gun. Not a real one - because they legislate
it so that it is all but impossible to do so legally. So, only criminals
really own guns anymore. Hope you feel safe.
I also know that if a robber was in my house, I could legally shoot
him and protect myself from getting messed up, my child from possibly
getting killed(screaming panicking children tend to end up badly in
home invasion situations), and my wife definately from being raped.
Assuming a standard situation where the intruder ties you up or
incapacitates you if you are unarmed. A woman, alone and unarmed?
Hope she is lucky enough to have him use protection.
In the U.K. - sorry. Give up and let them take everything or
YOU are the criminal. No guns either to stop them. I hear cases
of AIDS transmitted by assault are on the rise in the U.K.
Wolf and sheep syndrome. People are powerless and the criminals
have any means at their disposal that they can manage with virtually
ZERO fear of injury in return.
Okay - more like Wolf in a rabbit pen.
>>This all means that we are removing the guns from the people
>>who are using them responibly and having ZERO impact on the
>>criminal element's access to them.
>
> I disagree - if you have a legitimate reason for having a firearm then you
> can get a FAC and I disagree that criminals will *always* be able to obtain
> a firearm through other channels. Yes, a lot can, but a lot can't otherwise
> just about every criminal would have one.
Well, the hole here is that the public can almost never own one as the
"legitimate" reason doesn't include protecting your family from a
homicidal rapist in the middle of the night. You can't even use a
baseball bat or knife legally to protect yourself in the U.K. anymore,
so what do you suggest to take the situation into your own hands,
which is the REAL underlying reason people have weapons of various
kinds for protection.
To me, giving up is not a valid option.
>>Fact: most shootings occur at under 20 ft. Almost all at under 50.
>>You can close 20 feet with a knife in about 1-2 seconds, so range
>>is a moot deal other than in drive-by shootings(again, usually
>>full-auto illegal guns from the black market to begin with)
>
> I disagree again.
You are flat out wrong here. Actual studies from all over the
world back me up. People lack the pre-meditated motives almost
all of the time to snipe at someone. The human mind generally sees
more than 50ft to be be outside of our immediate threat zone/long
range, so even hot tempered people don't fire at such ranges -
they get to much closer before crossing that line. Even drive-bys
are at ~50 ft or less due to this - maybe 100 if the other car/target
is moving.
(LA police excepted - shooting people to stop them from running away)
> Someone running at you from 20ft looks suspect and you're
> likely to spot them. You can be prepared and you can defend yourself against
> knives - especially if you've trained in self defence. You can easily
> survive several slashes if you defend with your arms. What chance do you
> have against a gun? No amount of self defence training will stop a bullet.
Maybe own a gun yourself? At least it's even as wishing the criminal
into not having that gun isn't going to work.
Joseph Oberlander
> I want to get back to the position where we had the right to own a gun
> and the state had to give a damn good reason as to why you were unfit
> to own one. That was a little over 50 years ago when we had very few
> firearms murders.
Yet - holdd onto that thought...
Firearm ownership went DOWN in the U.K. over the last 50 years as
firearm related deaths increased. Oops.
Joseph Oberlander
> Firearms in the home in the USA do far more good than harm, as the number
> of accidental discharges by idiots are greatly outnumbered by defensive
> uses against criminals by their intended victims.
I'd like to add that even though I don't own a large-caliber pistol
or hangun and would never likely need to use on in self-defense even
if I did, the fact that I *could* and that the criminal knows that
I very well might have one is a huge deterrant.
Joseph Oberlander
Barnes is too la-la-land expensive anyways. Quackenbush makes a nice
250ft-lb .50 cal version. I'd suspect that if you upped the power
a bit and loaded heavy slugs, 400ft-lbs would be had. IIRC, it gets
about 3-4 shots per full tank. Heh.
John
> <porceli...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> I'll summarise what I said: Somebody on here said that the licensing
> of firearms in the UK is pointless and does not achieve anything
> other than revenue for the government. I argued against that point
No Adam, somebody on here said that licenses do not save lives.
John
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 25/06/2003
John
<snip>
> If you have a genuine need for a firearm (such as pest control,
> hunting, etc) and can prove it you can easily obtain a FAC.
>
> Yes, people can obtain firearms through other channels - but I doubt
> very much if more guns are in circulation because you require a
> license to obtain them and that less guns would be around if you
> didn't require a license - that just doesn't make sense.
Adam, I would also like to point out that we in the UK have been brain
washed in to the mentality of licensing and taxation.
We truly believe that if something could be dangerous, then for our own
protection it *should* be licensed.
We also truly believe that if something is pleasurable, then it should be
taxed.
Even though I know that licenses don't save lives I could never agree to
abolishing the FAC & SGC licensing system, only because like you, I have
been raised with the view of "just-in-case".
People fear guns and rightly so because if they are misused then they will
kill but so will a great many other things.
Cars are a good example and research will show that our roads are becoming
ever increasingly full of unlicensed & uninsured drivers. Do you stay home
more?
Gun crime in the UK has risen and the amount of pistol crime is at an all
time high, yet pistols are banned.
I think as a last and closing statement Adam, you really have to understand
that no matter what restrictions are placed upon guns, it's not the
restriction that will keep you safe, it's the person using the gun and if he
or she is a criminal, he or she will misuse and kill people with their gun.
Which leads on to the last point, criminals don't need licenses.
Adam Greatrix
>
Ok, don't get me wrong any of you - I do see where you're all coming from,
and I'm obviously outnumbered but some of your arguments are still not
convincing me... I'm happy for people to argue the following points...
> But the problem you fail to see is - if it's okay for the police to own
> them to "protect us"(as if - all they really ever do is cleanup after
> the fact - remember this), why should it be wrong for a person to won one
> for the same reasons?
Because police owned guns are highly unlikely to fall into the wrong hands,
and are used by highly trained people only who undergo psychological
evaluaition to make sure they're safe to use a gun. Most home owned guns can
be easily stolen and are used by people with no or little training who
undergo no psychological evaluation and could be entirely insane.
> Why should only the criminals own them since you make it impossible for
> people to legally own them over there anymore with a proper permit, given
> than the same people who do it legally almost NEVER use them improperly.
Because it licensing reduces the number of firearms that are around. Think
about it - if you're a criminal and you break into someone's house and find
a gun, wouldn't you steal it? Of course you would. At the moment here in the
UK I would argue that the vast majoryity of people who have commited
burglary do not own a gun. If every house they had broken into had a gun
(which would almost certainly be the case if it wasn't for licensing) then
every burglar as a result would also have a gun. I don't like the idea of
that. As it stands currently here in the UK, most criminals don't use guns
at all in their crimes and I personally feel that would change if everyone
had a gun - unless someone can give me an explaination as to why? I am open
minded, I just don't agree with any arguments so far.
> Exactly. You don't own a gun. Not a real one - because they legislate
> it so that it is all but impossible to do so legally. So, only criminals
> really own guns anymore. Hope you feel safe.
Actually yes, much safer. If I don't have a gun then the said criminal won't
feel it a nesessicty to even the odds and carry one as well. It is extremely
rare that crimes involve firearms here in the UK. It happens occasionally.
Say you own a gun and you finds someone breaking into your house or
attacking your wife or kids as they've been caught and are running scared...
wouldn't you use that gun if required? If you say yes to that then you've
just injured or killed someone with a gun, yet another gun related death. If
you say no to that then that gun hasn't achieved anything other than perhaps
being a deterrent which any replica could achieve. Also if you said no then
you had a gun in your house and if everyone had a gun as I said above the
criminals would feel the need to even the odds so by owning a gun, in this
instance, all you're doing is enticing more gun related crime from their
side. So either way I can't see how having a gun there makes anything
better. One the one hand you've got another gun related death (either you or
him - he could shoot first), or you're enticing guns that could be used
against you into your house.
> I also know that if a robber was in my house, I could legally shoot
> him and protect myself from getting messed up, my child from possibly
> getting killed(screaming panicking children tend to end up badly in
> home invasion situations), and my wife definately from being raped.
> Assuming a standard situation where the intruder ties you up or
> incapacitates you if you are unarmed. A woman, alone and unarmed?
> Hope she is lucky enough to have him use protection.
But using an opposing argument (I think it was you that said this but it
could habe been someone else) most gun related attacks occur at close range
where a weapon such as a knife would be just as good...
> Wolf and sheep syndrome. People are powerless and the criminals
> have any means at their disposal that they can manage with virtually
> ZERO fear of injury in return.
Not powerless at all. There are many many things you can do. Increased
security for one. Most criminals will run off from a robbery if an alarm
goes off and that's way cheaper than a gun. As it stands at the moment most
crimes do not involve guns. If everyone had one then surely said robber
would carry a gun so that he can even the odds when you as a home owner are
threatening him your own gun. As a result every criminal carries a gun. I
simply can not see how anyone would rather have a gun weilding crimnal in
their house as opposed to a non-gun wielding criminal. Are you saying you'd
rather both have guns than both not? Robbery will still exist with or
without everyone having guns - the only difference is that if everyone has
them it's blatently obvious more are going to get used as a result. Again -
feel free to argue why any of this isn't the case.
> Well, the hole here is that the public can almost never own one as the
> "legitimate" reason doesn't include protecting your family from a
> homicidal rapist in the middle of the night. You can't even use a
> baseball bat or knife legally to protect yourself in the U.K. anymore,
> so what do you suggest to take the situation into your own hands,
> which is the REAL underlying reason people have weapons of various
> kinds for protection.
> To me, giving up is not a valid option.
But that's just narrow mindedness - a gun costs what, a few hundred pounds?
There are a whole load of things I could do to my house to protect it for
that money, and a whole load of ways I could protect myself and my family
from such people - without killing them. You can buy taser stun guns for far
less than a gun - it's non-lethal too. Ok, maybe not as good but it
demonstrates my point that owning a gun is not the only way or the be all
and end all way of stopping criminals.
> You are flat out wrong here. Actual studies from all over the
> world back me up. People lack the pre-meditated motives almost
> all of the time to snipe at someone. The human mind generally sees
> more than 50ft to be be outside of our immediate threat zone/long
> range, so even hot tempered people don't fire at such ranges -
> they get to much closer before crossing that line. Even drive-bys
> are at ~50 ft or less due to this - maybe 100 if the other car/target
> is moving.
That wasn't what I was disagreeing with. I was disagreeing that a knife (or
other melee weapon) would be the weapon of choice for a criminal over a
firearm as a firearm has many advantages over a knife.
> Maybe own a gun yourself? At least it's even as wishing the criminal
> into not having that gun isn't going to work.
True, but my argument has always been that if it wasn't for licenses far
more guns would be in circulation. For me I'd rather take the option of it
being a rare chance the criminal has a gun than us both having a gun. If
both of you have a gun it's likely one of you is going to get killed. If
it's a rare chance that the criminal has a gun (as it is at the moment) then
it's unlikely either of you will be killed. And lets face it, if it is you
that gets your bullet off first then what are all his gun wielding mates
going to do? It's likely you'll end up dead very shortly afterwards. My
other point is that it's almost certain you'll have a gun pointing at you
first. Would you go wandering around pointing your gun at everyone just in
case? No... but the criminal who wants to shoot you will be pointing his at
you before you have your hands on yours. I doubt I'd risk finding my gun or
going for it if I had a gun pointed at me - that would also likely get me
shot.
To summarise, I don't see how it's a better choice for everyone to have a
gun as opposed to a few criminals and a few people who have legitimate
reasons for them. If everyone has guns, as I've argued above, you'll either
get killed or both of you will get killed or you (or your wife in your
example above) would be forced into bad situations given that it's highly
likely the criminal has his gun (and hence it's dominating effect) on you
before you can get your hands on yours...
Adam
John
> Because police owned guns are highly unlikely to fall into the wrong
> hands,
Why?
>and are used by highly trained people only who undergo
> psychological evaluaition to make sure they're safe to use a gun.
Are you sure, I would be very interested if you could point in the direction
of your evidence of these claims.
> Most home owned guns can be easily stolen and are used by people with
> no or little training who undergo no psychological evaluation and
> could be entirely insane.
Adam, do you own a FAC or a SGC?
As a point of interest, what you have said above is the biggest load of
cobblers I've ever seen.
If Mr plod, loses one of his guns, who is accountable and what is the
consequences?
If I lose just 10 rounds of ammo, I am accountable, I lose my FAC & SGC and
I could face a fine and or jail.
> Because it licensing reduces the number of firearms that are around.
> Think about it - if you're a criminal and you break into someone's
> house and find a gun, wouldn't you steal it? Of course you would.
More crap, *all* firearms and shotguns *have* to be stored in a gun cabinet
which must be ratted to British standards.
It's not quite as simple as you think Adam but it is easier to go to the
local drug baron and buy an imported AK47!
> Actually yes, much safer. If I don't have a gun then the said
> criminal won't feel it a nesessicty to even the odds and carry one as
> well.
Adam, you NEED to wake up!
Since when have criminals ever walked in to a situation with the odds
stacked against them? NEVER right and if they wanted to use a gun now, they
would but the only thing that is stopping them is this.
Burglary these days is considered a minor offence, armed assault on the
other hand is not. Criminals go out, safe in the knowledge that even if they
are caught, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO THEM!
>It is extremely rare that crimes involve firearms here in the
> UK.
Go to Manchester and have a look around.
The rest I have just snipped, coz it rubbish.
Adam, okay you think what the hell you like but try and research what you
think.
Marty
I really don't believe that the level of gun crime reported in the
USA is really as high as legend has it. Statistics involving crime and
disease are very much at the mercy of how they are compiled and what
those compiling them want you to believe. Sure, there is much more gun
crime than there used to be, and in certain areas of the country, it is
VERY high, but there are a number of complex reasons for that beyond the
availability of the hardware. When I was a kid in the 50's and early
60's, you could buy any gun you wanted through the mail. (short of
machine guns.) However, crimes committed with guns were rare. When
President Kennedy was assassinated, though, it was found that Oswald
bought his gun through the mail. HORRIFYING! This was quickly
remedied, and guns became much harder to purchase. It didn't do any
good. Since that time, thousands of gun related laws and regulations
have been passed, and spectacular crimes involving nutcases and public
shootings only increased. The reasoning has gone, "Since this isn't
working at all, LET'S DO IT MORE!" It's much easier to pass regulations
against evil guns than it is to face the uncomfortable problem that we
have some serious, deep seated, social problems in our society that well
meaning welfare laws have only exacerbated. (Examples... For the last
30 years or so, we've been increasingly paying lazy people to not work
and unmarried girls to have babies. SURPRISE! Both groups have
increased dramatically.) The US is a very large, very diverse, country,
and it's difficult to compare all of it's problems with smaller, often
more homogenous countries. As an example, Britain has seen a fairly
rapid influx of foreign immigration over recent years, and crime
problems have increased. Are these people evil? Of course not. But
the social problems concerning integration of the uprooted populations
into society become much more complex. This is only one pie-slice
example.
On one level, licensing of firearms seems reasonable to me. I
don't have a big problem with the police knowing what firearms I own.
However, for such a program to be of any use, I'm sure it would be
computerised and available to all police throughout the country. Such
things are easy to hack into, and any information would soon be
available to anyone interested, either through their own access to the
internet, the freedom of information act, or the purchase of such lists.
I do NOT want a shopping list of all the guns I own, along with my name
and address, to even exist. And since most guns used in crimes are
stolen anyway, and criminals are unlikely to cooperate with firearms
regulations, such a list would be of very little help in solving crimes.
Geez, I can get windy...
Marty
Adam Greatrix
> Adam Greatrix wrote:
> > Because police owned guns are highly unlikely to fall into the wrong
> > hands,
>
> Why?
Would you steal a gun from an armed police officer? Or would you steal one
from somebody's house while they're asleep.
> > Because it licensing reduces the number of firearms that are around.
> > Think about it - if you're a criminal and you break into someone's
> > house and find a gun, wouldn't you steal it? Of course you would.
>
> More crap, *all* firearms and shotguns *have* to be stored in a gun
cabinet
> which must be ratted to British standards.
> It's not quite as simple as you think Adam but it is easier to go to the
> local drug baron and buy an imported AK47!
But again, you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm entirely aware of
what you have to do at the moment in order to obtain and keep a firearms
certificate. You have to have your guns locked up, etc. And how does anyone
know you are going to do this? Because the firearms officers comes to check
out your house and where you keep your guns before you can get a firearms
certificate. If you didn't require a firearms certificate are you really
saying that EVERYONE would buy a gun cabinet before they purchased a gun?
Rubbish!
You still seem to think I'm arguing for more gun laws or to ban guns
altogether. I'm not. I'm just saying that I do not believe that making the
use of guns a free for all with only a set of laws that can be completely
ignored to protect the public is a good idea. However I can entirely see how
enforcing licensing (as it stands at the moment) goes some way to ensuring
guns are locked up and fewer idiots can obtain them. I know it's not fool
proof - far from it, but it's better than nothing.
Adam
Mitch Haley
> Because police owned guns are highly unlikely to fall into the wrong hands,
> and are used by highly trained people only who undergo psychological
> evaluaition to make sure they're safe to use a gun.
Hahahaha... I had no idea that the nanny state had brainwashed you so
thoroughly. When the law puts police above the average citizen, something
is seriously wrong.
http://www.ops-se.com/Videos/Negligence.mpg
I'd imagine that British police are even more inept with firearms than in USA,
as they have much less experience.
USA cops have more than their share of negligent discharges (partly because they
handle their guns nearly every day) and it's not unheard of for their kids to take
their duty weapons and do something stupid with them.
As for psychology, it is my firm belief that the percentage of worse than worthless
assholes is far higher in the law enforcement world than in the population as a whole.
When USA banned firearm possession by convicted felons, they had to exclude police
officers, despite the difficulty a cop finds in getting himself charged when he
openly commits a crime. More recently, when the ban was extended to wife beaters,
the police unions were fully in favor until they discovered that it applied to them
too. A lot of cops got reassigned to desk jobs or forced out of work because of
that law. (IMO, they were the sort who should never have been put in positions
of public trust)
Lansing's "elite" S.T.A.R.T. squad (one of the most highly trained police groups
in Michigan) shot a fellow in the back a few years ago. They followed him from his
home to a busy parking lot and arrested him on a drug warrant. He was unarmed and
put up no resistance.
After searching and shackling him, they walked him to their van for a ride to jail.
The officer behind him was holding a Glock in his back and squeezing the trigger.
As they stepped into the van, the cop squeezed a little harder and shot him in the
back. You see, nobody bothered to tell these "highly trained" individuals that
you don't pull the trigger unless you intend to shoot something. Due to the
liability climate here, most handguns come from the factory with trigger pulls
in excess of ten pounds, and the police have taught themselves to overcome this
by holding 5-8lbs on the trigger so that it is ready to fire.
And here's an except from Colonel Jeff Cooper's article on the model 1911 pistol
in the Feb 2003 issue of Guns&Ammo, page 67-68:
A good many people in the lower reaches of bureaucratic authority discovered that
the trigger-cocking, or "double-action" autoloading pistol was theoretically safer
than the single-action 1911.
I was once called up to the Chicago area at one point to discuss the changeover of
police weapon types in one of the northern suburbs. Despite my representations, the
incoming chief of police, who was not very bright, decided that his department should
give up its revolver but go to a minor-caliber double-action auto. The day after I
left, he proceeded to shoot a neat hole in the ceiling of his office with one of the
new guns.
Mitch.
AlanG
<exto...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Joseph Lovell" <sub...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:3EFC828F...@sonic.net...
>
>
>That's like comparing Heroin to Alcohol and saying Alcohol kills more people
>a year than Heroin so Heroin should be made legal - rubbish!
>
>Adam
>
Have you any proof heroin is dangerous?
I recall prior to the 1971 drugs law we did not have a heroin problem
in this country. The few addicts we had were given as much as they
needed by their GP.
Hmm.
I'm tempted to cross post this to Uk.politics.drugs
This boy wants to ban or control everything.
He'll be having cctv in the toilets next to make sure we all wash our
hands.
AlanG
<exto...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Joseph Oberlander" <josephob...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:3EFD3E59...@earthlink.net...
>>
>
>Because police owned guns are highly unlikely to fall into the wrong hands,
>and are used by highly trained people only who undergo psychological
>evaluaition to make sure they're safe to use a gun.
Bollox
We had two police officers blow a hole in the roof of the police car
when they 'illegaly' took full auto weapons from the lock box and
played with them. One of the 30 armed police looking after Tony
Blair's constituency house blew a pigeon away when it rustled at him
in a bush. The worst example of police firearm use in recent years has
to be the killing of Harry Stanley but there are equally bad incidents
in previous years including the killing of a baby in his bed by a
'trained' police officer.
I suggest you start at this URL then investigate further. There was an
announcement earlier this year that the inquest was to be reopened.
http://inquest.gn.apc.org/briefings/stanley.html
Adam Greatrix
news:vm1rfvsu3doo2ljrc...@4ax.com...
>
> Have you any proof heroin is dangerous?
> I recall prior to the 1971 drugs law we did not have a heroin problem
> in this country. The few addicts we had were given as much as they
> needed by their GP.
>
> He'll be having cctv in the toilets next to make sure we all wash our
> hands.
Lol, you just don't get the point I'm trying to make - which is very simple.
So what if Heroin wasn't a problem over 30 years ago, it is now. Yes, Heroin
has medical uses. Did I say it didn't? No.
My point was simply that just because we have certain problems, be it death
through guns, death through cars, death through drugs, death through falling
down stairs, or whatever, is NOT a justification for making any of these
worse, nor is it any justification for adding more problems to the ones we
already have.
People seem to think that because, for example, more people are killed by
cars every year than are killed by guns the government should de-restrict
access to firearms so that everyone can have one - rubbish!
All that I have ever maintained is that I see no need to change the laws
here in the UK as they currently stand. I have never once said we need more
laws or more restrictions. I have only ever expressed my view which is that
I simply do not see how allowing everyone easy access to firearms, without
the current requirement for owning a FAC, would reduce gun related crime and
injuries. That's like saying giving everyone access to cars without the
requirement for having a driving license would reduce car related injuries -
how can it?
Adam
AlanG
<exto...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>"AlanG" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:vm1rfvsu3doo2ljrc...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Have you any proof heroin is dangerous?
>> I recall prior to the 1971 drugs law we did not have a heroin problem
>> in this country. The few addicts we had were given as much as they
>> needed by their GP.
>>
>> This boy wants to ban or control everything.
>> He'll be having cctv in the toilets next to make sure we all wash our
>> hands.
>
>Lol, you just don't get the point I'm trying to make - which is very simple.
>So what if Heroin wasn't a problem over 30 years ago, it is now. Yes, Heroin
>has medical uses. Did I say it didn't? No.
But the point is that we now have a problem only because of attempts
to control it.
>
>My point was simply that just because we have certain problems, be it death
>through guns, death through cars, death through drugs, death through falling
>down stairs, or whatever, is NOT a justification for making any of these
>worse, nor is it any justification for adding more problems to the ones we
>already have.
But the problems we have are because politicians have interfered. We
did not have these problems before the regulations you support.
>
>People seem to think that because, for example, more people are killed by
>cars every year than are killed by guns the government should de-restrict
>access to firearms so that everyone can have one - rubbish!
Then by that argument the government should restrict access to cars
and only permit ownership where you can prove good reason.
>
>All that I have ever maintained is that I see no need to change the laws
>here in the UK as they currently stand. I have never once said we need more
>laws or more restrictions. I have only ever expressed my view which is that
>I simply do not see how allowing everyone easy access to firearms, without
>the current requirement for owning a FAC, would reduce gun related crime and
>injuries. That's like saying giving everyone access to cars without the
>requirement for having a driving license would reduce car related injuries -
>how can it?
>
But most of the laws and restrictions you support have been brought
infairly recently and have not reduced the alleged problem of illegal
gun use. If anything the laws have led to increased violence both in
firearms use and generally.
Joseph Lovell
Adam Greatrix wrote:
Sorry Adam, but you seem to be pushing the idea that government control
of every aspect of life is the way to solve all our problems. There are
places that run like that, govenment officials micro managing peoples
lives - the are known here in the US as "prisons."
Joseph Oberlander
> Because police owned guns are highly unlikely to fall into the wrong hands,
> and are used by highly trained people only who undergo psychological
> evaluaition to make sure they're safe to use a gun. Most home owned guns can
> be easily stolen and are used by people with no or little training who
> undergo no psychological evaluation and could be entirely insane.
Not true. Here in California, we require knowledge of safe operation,
A class, the sale of a trigger lock, and tons of forms. If you come
back with mental illness, domestic violence, or any number of possible
semi-red flags, they deny you. No fines or jail time or nonsense -
just a "sorry budddy" and you are on your way.
Also, anyone in the U.S. has a safe to keep them in. Not easily
accessable while you are not at home. Add to that the option of a
guard dog(you are blameless if the robber gets mauled invading your
house, btw) or a security system and suddenly very few are getting
into criminal hands that way, just like in the U.K.
What gets me is your insistance that normal, rational and lawful
people are not the norm. You are so scared of the one in a thousand
sociopath that you are willing to throw away all of your God-given
rights. You can't even defend your own home and family anymore
without being seen as the criminal.
What kind of ass-backwards situation is that? I know if a dog
was mauling your child, you'd grab your gun if you had one and
shoot it. Too bad you don't. Maybe your next child will be
luckier.
>>Why should only the criminals own them since you make it impossible for
>>people to legally own them over there anymore with a proper permit, given
>>than the same people who do it legally almost NEVER use them improperly.
>
> Because it licensing reduces the number of firearms that are around.
It does, but 99% of the crimes are committed by those who never register
or BUY guns through normal channels in the U.K. That's a fact. Your
paranoia over your neighbors is leaving you defenseless against the
criminals who just don't give a darn about ANY lawes, least of all one that
says they can't own a gun.
> Think
> about it - if you're a criminal and you break into someone's house and find
> a gun, wouldn't you steal it? Of course you would.
Except - get this - they already HAVE one. The gun isn't the problem, it's
the sociopath that gets 6 months in rehabilitation for mugging someone and
is back on the street. No teeth in your laws over there for lower-level
crimes, so they move up the chain as far as they can without getting
Scotland Yard involved.
Oh - *I* wouldn;t steal a gun because like 99.9% of the people out there,
I don't do such things. Yet I own a dirty, filthy, and hideous gun
that's going to jump up and start mowing down schoolchildren all by
itself while I am at work...
This isn't some lame Twilight Zone episode. You make it seem as
if owning a gun at all is the same as handing it over to a criminal.
> At the moment here in the
> UK I would argue that the vast majoryity of people who have commited
> burglary do not own a gun. If every house they had broken into had a gun
> (which would almost certainly be the case if it wasn't for licensing) then
> every burglar as a result would also have a gun.
Um - if your laws allowed for gun ownership and the right to protect
your property like um - they do in the U.S. - most of them would have
got a load of buckshot upside their head and stopped doing it as
it was far more dangerous than walking up to a police station and
starting to throw rocks at the windows.
Word gets out. The reason they don't use guns is because they
don't need to. The people are legally supposed to hand them everything
and hope society at large rehabilitsates them.
>>Exactly. You don't own a gun. Not a real one - because they legislate
>>it so that it is all but impossible to do so legally. So, only criminals
>>really own guns anymore. Hope you feel safe.
>
> Actually yes, much safer.
You have a problem, then. Crime in the U.K. is at an all time high. Even
though less than 1 out of a hundred people own a pistol or revolver anymore,
there has NEVER been a time when they weren't used as much as they are now.
People have no guns. Yet police are finding them in droves in criminal hands.
They aren;t getting them from robberies. That blows that theory and
defense for the inane legislation out of the water. They aren't buying
them or licencing them. That also blows that one up.
So - they are getting them via illegal channels and the black market.
Normal people NEVER use those methods. They are sheep and apply via
legal channels and follow all of the rules. They don't by definition
shoot people or are involved in serious gun-related crimes as nearly
100% of guns found in the U.K. illegally are in the hands of known
criminals.
You really should start looking at the reports and raw data and
then decide if you really ARE safer or if it is just an illusion
fed to you by an incompetant government to keep you pacified.
> Say you own a gun and you finds someone breaking into your house or
> attacking your wife or kids as they've been caught and are running scared...
> wouldn't you use that gun if required? If you say yes to that then you've
> just injured or killed someone with a gun, yet another gun related death.
No, I saved three lives. More than a fair trade. I value MY life ten times
more than an intruder. You make it sound like I am shooting up a schoolyard
full of children by choosing my life over that armed slime's.
"Yet another gun related death" my ass. If he wants to invade my home,
he can get himself shot. His choice.
If
> you say no to that then that gun hasn't achieved anything other than perhaps
> being a deterrent which any replica could achieve.
Heh. As if. A toy. What happens when he decides to call my bluff
or realizes that it is plastic? Worn, blued metal is pretty easy
to tell from plastic and they are not chimps. Fake guns fool nobody
other than trigger-happy paranoid police officers.
> Also if you said no then
> you had a gun in your house and if everyone had a gun as I said above the
> criminals would feel the need to even the odds so by owning a gun, in this
> instance,
NO - they would be damn fools to invade homes.
See - criminals aren't James Bond villians - they are sleezy pimples
of people who skate through life and are gutless vermin. They want
the easy way out and a quick buck.
You make it hard and they'll go to your unarmed neighbors. If,
like in Switzerland, every home has a gun and everyone is trained
how to use it. you go to other crimes.
No criminal wants to get shot over $500 in electronics. Of course,
in the U.K., they'll NEVER get shot, so they rob and rob and rob
and rob until they are to old to do it anymore.
> all you're doing is enticing more gun related crime from their
> side. So either way I can't see how having a gun there makes anything
> better. One the one hand you've got another gun related death (either you or
> him - he could shoot first), or you're enticing guns that could be used
> against you into your house.
This last part is your stumbling block. It's bad logic and why you
fail to see the reality - that they won't enter a home where they
will get shot, guaranteed.
Robberies are 100% while the owners are away where I live. They
know they will get their hind ends blown off otherwise. Well, maybe
not this time, but with over 50% of homes hhaving guns in them...
They'd have better odds playing russian roulette, so they never
do it when the owners are at home.
Nobody dies. They *may* get a gun, but they'd not need one anyways
since their M.O. is to to be in a situation where they might need it.
> But using an opposing argument (I think it was you that said this but it
> could habe been someone else) most gun related attacks occur at close range
> where a weapon such as a knife would be just as good...
It's not the gun in the attacker's hands... It's the one in my hands
that allows me to deal with the intruder.
I should have said that one of the few exceptions is home defense
situations. These happen at longer ranges in general and are
also where you want the intruder or attacker dead ASAP with no
harm towards you.
Remember - the intruder is the hyped up socipopath willing to
rush you with a knife. YOU aren't willing to take that chance,
nor chouild you. That's the whole point of using a gun in self
defense.
>>Wolf and sheep syndrome. People are powerless and the criminals
>>have any means at their disposal that they can manage with virtually
>>ZERO fear of injury in return.
>
> Not powerless at all. There are many many things you can do. Increased
> security for one.
Worthless. If they can almost pull off that heist to get the DeBeers
diamonds right under Scotland Yard's eyes and watching cameras(they
made it into the actual case inside the exhibit before they were
able to get police in to take them down) - what does your puny home
system really do other than give you a false sense of security?
> Most criminals will run off from a robbery if an alarm
> goes off and that's way cheaper than a gun.
The good ones will toast your alarm system and laugh. Oops.
So you are REALLY willing to trust your life to the police and
a bunch of fake guns and noisemakers? Whatever happened to the
English pride in being self-reliant? You didn't flinch an inch
againt Hitler in WWII, yet lie down about defending your own homes
now?
For the record I know many people in the U.K. who are apalled
at the current situation and feel as I do - they'd use the gun
and screw the legal fallout as long as their family was safe.
> As it stands at the moment most
> crimes do not involve guns. If everyone had one then surely said robber
> would carry a gun so that he can even the odds when you as a home owner are
> threatening him your own gun.
But this is where you get it wrong. Exactly here. And the U.K. police
have it wrong as well. It is not about some arms race, but the fact
that the mindset of a criminal is such that they will NOT willingly
risk their life against a possible armed victim. They will move to
the weakest of the herd every time, just like a lone Wolf will.
> As a result every criminal carries a gun.
As a result criminals stop invading homes as they start getting
shot in record numbers. criminals enter a house, unfamiliar with
the terrain or layout. The owner, knows it blindfolded and is
in a defensive position. That's already weighed heavily towards
the home owner who WILL shoot first and ask no questions later.
>>Well, the hole here is that the public can almost never own one as the
>>"legitimate" reason doesn't include protecting your family from a
>>homicidal rapist in the middle of the night. You can't even use a
>>baseball bat or knife legally to protect yourself in the U.K. anymore,
>>so what do you suggest to take the situation into your own hands,
>>which is the REAL underlying reason people have weapons of various
>>kinds for protection.
>>To me, giving up is not a valid option.
>
> But that's just narrow mindedness - a gun costs what, a few hundred pounds?
> There are a whole load of things I could do to my house to protect it for
> that money, and a whole load of ways I could protect myself and my family
> from such people - without killing them. You can buy taser stun guns for far
> less than a gun - it's non-lethal too. Ok, maybe not as good but it
> demonstrates my point that owning a gun is not the only way or the be all
> and end all way of stopping criminals.
It's not owning one, but the fear that they will run into a one while
breaking in that is enough in the U.S. Make them available to every
citizen in their home and suddenly that's the one place you don't go
without casing the place and making darn sure they are nowhere near it.
> That wasn't what I was disagreeing with. I was disagreeing that a knife (or
> other melee weapon) would be the weapon of choice for a criminal over a
> firearm as a firearm has many advantages over a knife.
Moot point. You can't use either to defend your home in the U.K.
John
> "John" <123...@britishlibrary.net> wrote in message
> news:bdk23m$rkr11$1...@ID-56855.news.dfncis.de...
>> Adam Greatrix wrote:
>>> Because police owned guns are highly unlikely to fall into the wrong
>>> hands,
>>
>> Why?
>
> Would you steal a gun from an armed police officer? Or would you
> steal one from somebody's house while they're asleep.
Several reports have shown that the police are in fact less "gun"
responsible than the private gun owner.
Two examples are to found, where the ARU have sold ex-response cars to
private buyers (through auction houses), both private buyers reported
finding ammunition under the seats.
My local police station has been broken into twice in the last ten years.
The first time all the police radios were stolen.
Now try my house, two dogs that *will* attack and hidden gun cabinets. All
guns have bolts / forends removed and stored separately, so come on Batman,
try getting my guns :)
>>> Because it licensing reduces the number of firearms that are around.
>>> Think about it - if you're a criminal and you break into someone's
>>> house and find a gun, wouldn't you steal it? Of course you would.
>>
>> More crap, *all* firearms and shotguns *have* to be stored in a gun
>> cabinet which must be ratted to British standards.
>> It's not quite as simple as you think Adam but it is easier to go to
>> the local drug baron and buy an imported AK47!
>
> But again, you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm entirely
> aware of what you have to do at the moment in order to obtain and
> keep a firearms certificate. You have to have your guns locked up,
> etc. And how does anyone know you are going to do this? Because the
> firearms officers comes to check out your house and where you keep
> your guns before you can get a firearms certificate. If you didn't
> require a firearms certificate are you really saying that EVERYONE
> would buy a gun cabinet before they purchased a gun? Rubbish!
In the first instance, I could if I wished leave my guns hanging around my
home, never lock them up and just lean them in the corner. The police
wouldn't know. Nothing *makes* me lock my firearms up, EXCEPT me! and this
is the case for *all* firearms owners in the UK.
So your point is again voided, yes I believe that any responsible gun owners
would prevent access to their guns, licence or no licence.
>
> You still seem to think I'm arguing for more gun laws or to ban guns
> altogether. I'm not. I'm just saying that I do not believe that
> making the use of guns a free for all with only a set of laws that
> can be completely ignored to protect the public is a good idea.
Why? is it because as shown above, you think that MOST people are gun nuts?
> However I can entirely see how enforcing licensing (as it stands at
> the moment) goes some way to ensuring guns are locked up and fewer
> idiots can obtain them. I know it's not fool proof - far from it, but
> it's better than nothing.
Yet you don't agree that airguns should be licensed, even though MORE
illegal occurrences have happened with airguns than ever legal firearms.
Why is that?