Did I made a mistake with these skis?

Some police do carry guns but the vast majority don't...

By the way, the IRA situation was solved mostly with words, and listening to
what the attacking side were concerned about.. even including them in
parliment..

I don't see Bush doing any listening to the current terrorists..


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/2973898.stm

Anyway, I guess UK gun control is no big deal. After all, what good
would a mere handgun do to prevent your typical IRA bombing attack?

-Astro

"InMyTree" wrote in message
...
You are obviously mising my point.. it is about the principle..

The primary purpose of a Ford Focus is so you can drive from A to B.. the
primary purpose of a gun is to kill things.. thats why it should be very
tightly controlled.. anyway.. I'm tired of arguing with right wing redneck
hicks..

Actually no, the primary purpose of a gun is to hurl a projectile.

Yes, that can be used to kill things, but that's an infinitessimally small
percentage of it's use. More often than not, the use of a gun is to
project power. Properly used to project power, it's use to kill things
becomes unnecessary. But, if need be, it can be used to hurl that
projectile, and even then, firearms carried for defense are NOT
actually designed to kill. HUNTING firearms are designed to kill.
Defensive firearms are designed to stop. Yes, they do kill, but at
less efficiency than if that were their purpose. In fact, handguns
are surprisingly inefficient killing tools... Even when they work
exactly as designed. Couple that with the fact that most people,
unless they practice regularly, can't hit a human sized target under
stress at 25 feet in multiple tries. Most people can't even hit a
lethal size zone at 25 feet when they are NOT under stress without
instruction and care.

In fact, military firearms are designed NOT to kill, at least immediately.
Wounding someone on the battlefield ties up more resources of the
enemy than killing does. And demoralizes an enemy combatant.

Yes, it IS about principle. One principle here is that you have the right
to defend yourself. And most people have the right to select the means
to do so.

Some people, in countries such as 'across the pond', are not only
restricted in the tools they are allowed to use, but cannot actually
even legally perform the task of 'self defense'.

Pity...

But you obviously don't understand any of this, due to your pathological
rants....

Mike

In , Mike Yetsko typed:
"InMyTree" wrote in message
...
You are obviously mising my point.. it is about the principle..

The primary purpose of a Ford Focus is so you can drive from A to
B.. the primary purpose of a gun is to kill things.. thats why it
should be very tightly controlled.. anyway.. I'm tired of arguing
with right wing redneck hicks..

Actually no, the primary purpose of a gun is to hurl a projectile.


the matching primary purpose of a Ford Focus is to move itself

Yes, that can be used to kill things, but that's an infinitessimally
small percentage of it's use. More often than not, the use of a gun
is to project power. Properly used to project power, it's use to
kill things becomes unnecessary. But, if need be, it can be used to
hurl that projectile, and even then, firearms carried for defense are
NOT actually designed to kill. HUNTING firearms are designed to kill.
Defensive firearms are designed to stop. Yes, they do kill, but at
less efficiency than if that were their purpose. In fact, handguns
are surprisingly inefficient killing tools... Even when they work
exactly as designed. Couple that with the fact that most people,
unless they practice regularly, can't hit a human sized target under
stress at 25 feet in multiple tries. Most people can't even hit a
lethal size zone at 25 feet when they are NOT under stress without
instruction and care.

It's not surprising that they are ineficient, the ineficiency is a result of
the inaccuracy that is a result of the compromise reqiured to make them
small / concealable. as far as I am concerned one of the most significant
reasons I don't want people to have handguns is how little control they have
over where the bullet goes especially when the user is under stress, which
is I would hope the only time they would consider using it.



In fact, military firearms are designed NOT to kill, at least
immediately. Wounding someone on the battlefield ties up more
resources of the enemy than killing does. And demoralizes an enemy
combatant.

True, someone, I forget who, came up with the idea of using Lasers as a
weapon to blind people, on the theory that 1) they would become
noncombatants and 2) they would require assistance probably for the rest of
thier lives, thus reducing the enemies available personel count by more than
1 for every 1 person injured.




Yes, it IS about principle. One principle here is that you have the
right to defend yourself. And most people have the right to select
the means to do so.

Some people, in countries such as 'across the pond', are not only
restricted in the tools they are allowed to use, but cannot actually
even legally perform the task of 'self defense'.


AFAIK our self defense laws are the same as yours, US Law and UK law are
mostly the same. they are based on "reasonable force" therefore as most
criminals here do not carry guns the use of a gun against them is considered
unreasonable. for example the Martin case where a man shot two burglers with
his shotgun, killing one and injuring the other. He was convicted for
manslaughter for the first (in my opinion reasonable) and is being sued for
damages by the other (unreasonable?).

As I stated before personnally I think guns are an accident waiting to
happen, just by being available there is a chance they will be used and
inocent bystanders are just as likily to be injured as the guilty.

Did the News story about the baby killed by a stray bullet in his pram in a
cafe in Turkey when a man at another table got annoyed, drew his gun and
shot at trh people who where anoying him, reach the US? if he hadn't had a
gun bith the person he meant to shoot in his rage and the Baby would still
be alive!


--
Chris *:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

"MoonMan" wrote in message
...

True, someone, I forget who, came up with the idea of using Lasers as a
weapon to blind people, on the theory that 1) they would become
noncombatants and 2) they would require assistance probably for the rest
of
thier lives, thus reducing the enemies available personel count by more
than
1 for every 1 person injured.

Actually, the Soviets did this in the 70's I think. There are a few pilots
out there with 'blind spots' now... All deniable, of course.

AFAIK our self defense laws are the same as yours, US Law and UK law are
mostly the same. they are based on "reasonable force" therefore as most
criminals here do not carry guns the use of a gun against them is
considered
unreasonable. for example the Martin case where a man shot two burglers
with
his shotgun, killing one and injuring the other. He was convicted for
manslaughter for the first (in my opinion reasonable) and is being sued
for
damages by the other (unreasonable?).

Actually, big difference. British courts have actually ruled recently
that you are liable for depriving someone of their livelihood, even if that
is illegal.

And, you cannot use 'force' for self-defense, as American tourist
have discovered when defending themselves against being rousted in
London by muggers and pickpockets.

Here you have to be careful. If you are responsible for elevating the
level of force as it's put in some communities, you can be in trouble.
In other words, you cannot pull out a firearm because someone is
yelling at you. And you cannot just shoot someone for breaking into
your car. (Although, in PA now, there is legal precedent for telling
someone to vacate your property, and then using lethal force if they
do not do so immediately and with haste.) You generally CAN
protect your property with your being, and if then threatened, you
could be justified in using lethal force to protect yourself. But it's
always a touchy issue. And always remember that 'after the fact' it
will be your word against the word of a person that has ALREADY
shown his lack of respect for the law...

As I stated before personally I think guns are an accident waiting to
happen, just by being available there is a chance they will be used and
inocent bystanders are just as likily to be injured as the guilty.

WAY to many guns are never fired. People buy them, load them, and
put them in a nightstand or a dresser drawer 'for defense' and never
have even fired them. I can't tell you how many 'used guns' I've run
into that have NEVER EVER been fired. Some with wear indications
that they were carried concealed for an extended life. And STILL
never fired! Scary! Even if I had 10 guns, all the same, I'd STILL
fire them. Who knows how each one could work or not-work. When
you need it is a poor time to find out.

Did the News story about the baby killed by a stray bullet in his pram in
a
cafe in Turkey when a man at another table got annoyed, drew his gun and
shot at trh people who where anoying him, reach the US? if he hadn't had a
gun bith the person he meant to shoot in his rage and the Baby would still
be alive!

An asshole criminal is STILL an asshole criminal. The guy should not
have had a gun to begin with, and now certainly should be locked up for
a LONG LONG TIME.

Years ago I came within 10 feet of a double murder. 10 feet and a gun
might have led to two high school girls being alive today... (They were
baseball batted by 3 guys. I didn't even know until I got home, and then
realized how close I was.)

On 7/23/03 1:10 PM, in article ,
"MoonMan" wrote:

Did the News story about the baby killed by a stray bullet in his pram in a
cafe in Turkey when a man at another table got annoyed, drew his gun and
shot at trh people who where anoying him, reach the US? if he hadn't had a
gun bith the person he meant to shoot in his rage and the Baby would still
be alive!

Did the news story about the old man driving a car accidentally into a
farmer's market reach the UK. He killed 10 people - does it really matter
what their age is?! That's 10-1 (not that events in Turkey are relevant to
the US - after all this thread was started about how dangerous living in the
US is). The ISSUE is whether or not there is a necessity for additional
laws governing firearms in the US (I really don't care about the UK).
Firearms as I said before are tools, nothing more nothing less. If I feel
the need to have one, then it is my right to get one within the current
laws. Where does the intrusion into our freedom stop? If someone gains
unlawful entry into my house while my family is occupying it, I reserve the
right to use deadly force and the law agrees with me. If I break the
current statutes, then I pay the penalty. Additional laws are not going to
stop, slow down or interfere in any way those who are inclined to commit
crimes.

If you want to ban guns in the UK, go for it. It's none of our business.
What happens here is up to us.

jvwalker51 wrote:

Your absurd example of purchasing an atomic bomb is typical of
intellectually dishonest dirtbag stupid liberal horse**** in trying to
control people's lives. Blow it out your ass.

Thank you for this succinct, well-reasoned, dispassionate discourse. I
am sure that you have done much to convert those still undecided to your
point of view.

--
//-Walt
//
//

On 7/23/03 2:39 PM, in article
cGhhdHBoaWw=.01f9f36feb3a9396669600604b8d00cf@1058 985557.cotse.net,
"CurtisLemay" wrote:

vinnie the wonder boob wrote:
I'm glad you aren't missing the point, moron, but the comment was
directed towards me. You know, you really look like a maniac
when you go off like that. Ya know, I don't need any help exposing
assholes like this. Crawl back into your rubber room.

I just get fed up with stupid foreign creeps telling us how we should live
our lives when their countries are even more messed up than ours. It all
goes back to when I roomed with a Sikh for a semester in Grad School and he
was always accusing Americans of being horrible racists and then going off
on how he hated Muslims and Pakistanis. It was SO stupid and he couldn't see
the absurdity of it all.

On 7/23/03 2:20 PM, in article lid,
"Walt" wrote:

jvwalker51 wrote:

Your absurd example of purchasing an atomic bomb is typical of
intellectually dishonest dirtbag stupid liberal horse**** in trying to
control people's lives. Blow it out your ass.

Thank you for this succinct, well-reasoned, dispassionate discourse. I
am sure that you have done much to convert those still undecided to your
point of view.

And his response does? Right?

InMyTree wrote:

Some police do carry guns but the vast majority don't...

By the way, the IRA situation was solved mostly with words, and listening to
what the attacking side were concerned about.. even including them in
parliment..

I don't think that either the IRA or the Brits claimed that their god
wanted them to kill the other side. Hard to deal with people whose god
says you should die.

I don't see Bush doing any listening to the current terrorists..

Once you've heard "Die, filthy American pig" a couple of times, further
repetitions don't really provide additional information. Or do you mean
that all middle-easterners are terrorists?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/2973898.stm

Anyway, I guess UK gun control is no big deal. After all, what good
would a mere handgun do to prevent your typical IRA bombing attack?

--
Cheers,
Bev
------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:30:28 -0400, "Mike Yetsko"
wrote:

"MoonMan" wrote in message
...


AFAIK our self defense laws are the same as yours, US Law and UK law are
mostly the same. they are based on "reasonable force" therefore as most
criminals here do not carry guns the use of a gun against them is
considered
unreasonable. for example the Martin case where a man shot two burglers
with
his shotgun, killing one and injuring the other. He was convicted for
manslaughter for the first (in my opinion reasonable) and is being sued
for
damages by the other (unreasonable?).

Actually, big difference. British courts have actually ruled recently
that you are liable for depriving someone of their livelihood, even if that
is illegal.


No they haven't. There is a case currently on the way to court, but
that hasn't yet been decided.

But yes, if you injure somebody by using more force than was
reasonable to defend yourself, then you would be liable for damages,
and so you should be.

And, you cannot use 'force' for self-defense, as American tourist
have discovered when defending themselves against being rousted in
London by muggers and pickpockets.


You're simply wrong here. You *can* use force when defending yourself,
but that force *must* be proportional to the perceived threat.

There have even been cases recently where people were killed, but no
prosecution took place.


Here you have to be careful. If you are responsible for elevating the
level of force as it's put in some communities, you can be in trouble.
In other words, you cannot pull out a firearm because someone is
yelling at you. And you cannot just shoot someone for breaking into
your car.

Which is pretty well the same as here.


Did the News story about the baby killed by a stray bullet in his pram in
a
cafe in Turkey when a man at another table got annoyed, drew his gun and
shot at trh people who where anoying him, reach the US? if he hadn't had a
gun bith the person he meant to shoot in his rage and the Baby would still
be alive!

An asshole criminal is STILL an asshole criminal. The guy should not
have had a gun to begin with, and now certainly should be locked up for
a LONG LONG TIME.


So you obviously agree that there should be restrictions on gun
ownership, sinc\e you say he should not have had a gun to start with.

I think our government overreacted to one person going on a rampage
with a gun, when they banned all handguns completely, even target
pistols used in olympic sport.

But at the same time, I do think that it should be reasonably
difficult to get a license to own a firearm. (BTW, I have a shotgun
license, but only because I own a modern-built matchlock musket for
use in English Civil War re-enactments).



--

Alex Heney, global villager

Budget: A method for going broke methodically.

Please remove NO and SPAM from above
address if replying by email.