Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: OT: Gn Control Poll

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: OT: Gn Control Poll

 
 
sid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2013
nick c wrote:

>
> I'm aware that the UK news media managed to conduct an successful
> campaign gathering over some 700,000 signatures from a horrified public
> after the Dunblane incident in 96, which was then sent to the PM, John
> Major.
>
> I think the UK has a population of about 50 million people and the way I
> see the issue is that about 700,000 plus signatures is not really a
> representative figure of a majority of people. I suppose there were many
> who didn't own a firearm and had nothing to surrender, yet signed the
> petition because Dunblane was such a horrific incident. However, nothing
> has actually changed in the UK that would insure such an incident would
> never happen again, perhaps not with guns but by other means, unless
> loony's obey laws.
>
> In any event, guns were banned and crime appears to have increased up to
> 35% .
>
> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...rime-soars-in-

england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-soars-35.html
>
> One has to wonder how gun related crimes in the UK can soar 35% (I've
> read other sites that say 40%) in a nation were guns are banned.


If you are going to post links at least post ones that are up to date. 10
year old Daily Mail links are hardly the gospel on anything

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...des-ownership-
world-list

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...me-statistics-
england-wales

I'm pretty sure those three completely disprove all you've said about the UK

--
sid
RLU 300284
2
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2013
On 1/21/2013 12:27 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:01:51 -0500, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/20/2013 10:55 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:29:56 -0500, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:

>>
>>
>> Snip>
>>
>>>> Should everybody be permitted to store atomic weapons, machine guns,
>>>> howitzers, and chemical weapons, etc.
>>>
>>> I think any American should be able to own any weapon he or she
>>> chooses to own...as long as they can prove they are a member of a
>>> well-regulated militia.
>>>

>>
>>
>> Certain weapons should only be owned by a well regulated militia.
>> i suspect that most of our weapons of war are the property of our
>> government.
>> Other weapons may be owned by individuals. Which weapons,and to what
>> extent individuals may own them is a matter of legitimate discussion.

>
> Peter, your irony meter needs adjustment.
>
>


Yeah! I had been on the road all day, and was a bit tired.
We decided to bypass DC on the way home. The VA peanut country makes for
some interesting photo ops at sunset. Unfortunately, we were unable to
stop as there was no convenient place to pull over.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2013
On 1/21/2013 1:53 AM, nick c wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>> On 1/19/2013 6:39 PM, nick c wrote:
>>> On 1/19/2013 9:04 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>> On 2013-01-19 04:24:47 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/19/2013 2:45 AM, DanP wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, 19 January 2013 09:45:59 UTC, RichA wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about "criminal control?" Or is that too direct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you achieve that? How do you stop a killer before committing
>>>>>> the murder?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DanP
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In this land of make believe it seems the only time the government
>>>>> trusts you to have a weapon of mass destruction is when you get
>>>>> drafted into military service. Then officialdom is only too anxious to
>>>>> not only arm you with an automatic weapon but you can also get all the
>>>>> ammo, hand-grenades, mortar shells, satchel-bombs, etal. that you can
>>>>> carry. However, even though you put your life on the line to protect
>>>>> and preserve the seat of government, when you get home, one would get
>>>>> the impression this gratuitous government, which adorns one with
>>>>> medals, doesn't trust you to own a firearm.
>>>>>
>>>>> My main camera bag alone has about $10,000 USD worth of equipment and
>>>>> when I applied for a concealed permit ('cause I'm not in fighting
>>>>> shape) I was told not to endanger myself, just insure my equipment and
>>>>> have done with it. Yes sir, in this land of opportunities, crime pays.
>>>>> I have to wonder, when I was in military service why didn't someone
>>>>> tell me not to endanger myself. (<<<G>>>)
>>>>
>>>> What State do you live in?
>>>
>>> California. The land of fruits and nuts.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then depending on State and the political climate in different areas of
>>>> various states (California for example) in some jurisdictions it is
>>>> almost impossible to get a CCW permit (San Francisco County) and in
>>>> other counties a mere formality.
>>>
>>> Mere formality? Not in LA county.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then there are the different State regulations with differences in the
>>>> way the CCW permits are issued and regulated. The one "denial" State is
>>>> Illinois, other states are divided into "Shall Issue", "May Issue", and
>>>> some restricted to State residents within the two other types.
>>>> All CCW permits are still dependent on clearing screening, background
>>>> check, etc.
>>>> This site gives a pretty good run down of the local weapons laws
>>>> pertaining to CCW permits.
>>>> < http://www.handgunlaw.us/ >
>>>>
>>>> Retired law enforcement officers are permitted to carry a concealed
>>>> firearm in all 50 states on the condition they qualify with their carry
>>>> weapons annually.
>>>
>>> The Second Amendment says nothing about the need to qualify.
>>>
>>>> So I can carry either one of these (the two weapons I am qualified with
>>>> for concealed carry).
>>>> < http://db.tt/fxUzPGcL >
>>>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...ageduck+Kw.jpg >
>>>
>>> There's that the word "qualify" again.
>>>
>>> At one time (as recent as the 40's and 50's) one could openly carry
>>> almost any firearm in California. That was before the advent of "common
>>> sense" or "compromise" took hold of peoples imaginations and a movement
>>> began to circumvent the Constitution.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...and for "gun control" do this:
>>>> < http://db.tt/Q8XAaCLW >
>>>>
>>>> All joking aside, there is a need for some change to our national
>>>> concept of our "gun culture".
>>>
>>> "Gun culture"? Oh yes, that's the new party line. No, there isn't a "gun
>>> culture" excepting what exists in an anti-gunners mind. What there is a
>>> need of is for people to realize what the blazing hell we have gone to
>>> war to preserve. Since mankind has walked in an upright position he has
>>> made means to defend himself against those who may do him harm.
>>>
>>> I wasn't born with a gun in my hand. Who was it that gave me weapons and
>>> told me to kill; the seat of government. The farmer remains a farmer,
>>> the engineer remains an engineer, the teacher remains a teacher, etc.,
>>> etc., etc., regardless of whoever takes over the seat of government,
>>> so... in times of war, what are we killing people for if not to protect
>>> what we hold dear .... such as our rights and freedoms. Where-the-hell
>>> in the Constitution does it say that "compromise" shall be the governing
>>> factor in the observance of Constitutional rights.
>>>
>>>> I feel that a logical start is a stronger
>>>> screening & background check policy. Also there is an ignorance among
>>>> non-gun folks regarding their perception of the description
>>>> "semi-automatic". There is a big difference between "semi-automatic",
>>>> "selective fire" and "automatic" when it comes to the function of
>>>> firearms.
>>>
>>> You just gotta be a Democrat. That appears to be the most recent party
>>> line. I heard TV news commentators say the same thing. [<<G>>]
>>>
>>> People may be politically ignorant but I think they know the difference
>>> between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic. Geeze ... even my wife
>>> knows the difference and she is a card-carrying, full-fledged,
>>> honest-to-goodness, anti-gunner.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The idea of armed teachers is one gun advocates might like, but folks
>>>> need to be aware that even well trained, and regularly qualified
>>>> professionals with years of practice and thousands of rounds fired, can
>>>> find a combat situation beyond their ability to handle. To expect a
>>>> teacher to react as a trained combat specialist under stress is
>>>> unreasonable. I would not expect these teachers to be spending their
>>>> free time on a range to perfect their combat and defense shooting
>>>> skills. These are teachers, and I wouldn't expect more than a small
>>>> percentage to take up firearms with any enthusiasm.
>>>
>>> Trained combat specialist? You mean to say only those trained by
>>> officialdom should be considered as being a trained combat specialists?
>>> I know of ill-informed Sheriff's who don't know crap about the
>>> particulars of firearms. A point of note is, any person who was exposed
>>> to military combat conditions could qualify as being a combat
>>> specialist. That term should not be reserved for just the law
>>> enforcement agencies of the country nor agents thereof. No law
>>> enforcement person I ever knew, when in the performance of their
>>> civilian law enforcement duties, constantly spent days on end with
>>> nerves on the verge of cracking.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, for now my vote goes to improved and enforced screening &
>>>> background
>>>> checks with longer wait periods, perhaps even as much as up to a month
>>>> before a weapon can be delivered to a properly screened buyer. The rest
>>>> of the gun control proposals are a distraction from the real issue,
>>>> which is, the mentally ill, and/or criminals having access to firearm,
>>>> legal or contraband.
>>>
>>> "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>>> State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
>>> infringed." Remember those words? What's so difficult to understand why
>>> they were written.
>>>
>>> It's the right of the people (not just government controlled agencies
>>> nor agents there of) to keep and bear arms. Since when did those words
>>> mean "negotiate" or "compromise." As far as I'm concerned one can own
>>> whatever firearm they can bear to carry. Search the Internet and one can
>>> find ways and means to create ways to kill off lots of people thereby
>>> having no guns being used in the accomplishment of that task.
>>>
>>> During the LA Watt's riots, when stores were being looted and woman were
>>> assaulted, the police just drove by the rioters. It wasn't the police or
>>> the National Guard that stopped the rioters, it was an armed citizenry
>>> that openly displayed their arms and threatened to shoot anyone who
>>> invaded their property. They stood in their front yards and on roof tops
>>> in defiance of the rioters. The police did little to nothing to protect
>>> property and rioters kept their loot.
>>>

>>
>> Should everybody be permitted to store atomic weapons, machine guns,
>> howitzers, and chemical weapons, etc.
>>

>
> Lets see just how far your anti "bear arms"pendulum has swung. Could you
> "bear" (as in .. carry) an atomic bomb, howitzer, or even a mortar?
> Could you "bear" a 30cal water cooled heavy machine gun and baseplate?
> Then we have sub-machine guns to consider. Machine guns are presently
> permitted to be owned but a required yearly fee has to be paid. For
> example: Years ago, should a person seek to buy a Thompson Sub machine
> gun, a fee of about $1000/year fee had to be paid, after a investigation
> was conducted. Since I don't know anyone who seeks to own such a machine
> gun,


<http://www.knobcreekrange.com/events/featured-events/machine-gun-shoot>

Here is an interesting article discussing the psychology:

....I find it somewhat peculiar when people seem surprised by the
ongoing American love affair with guns. The country was acquired in a
way that required guns. Expansion of the American frontier was a
severely violent process in which the gun played a central role, its
sanitized memory has since become a pillar of white American nostalgia.
It represents notions of freedom, individualism and valor and all of
those things are tied to patriotism,


<http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2012/12/pete-muller/>

to my knowledge that law still exists but the fee has most likely
> changed considerably. As for chemical weapons, they are not considered
> to be an "arm" therefore are not covered by the Constitution.
>

<>



--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2013
On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:02:39 PM UTC, peterN wrote:
> On 1/21/2013 1:53 AM, nick c wrote:
>
> > Peter wrote:

>
> >> On 1/19/2013 6:39 PM, nick c wrote:

>
> >>> On 1/19/2013 9:04 AM, Savageduck wrote:

>
> >>>> On 2013-01-19 04:24:47 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>>> On 1/19/2013 2:45 AM, DanP wrote:

>
> >>>>>> On Saturday, 19 January 2013 09:45:59 UTC, RichA wrote:

>
> >>>>>>

>
> >>>>>>> How about "criminal control?" Or is that too direct?

>
> >>>>>>

>
> >>>>>> How do you achieve that? How do you stop a killer before committing

>
> >>>>>> the murder?

>
> >>>>>>

>
> >>>>>>

>
> >>>>>> DanP

>
> >>>>>>

>
> >>>>>

>
> >>>>> In this land of make believe it seems the only time the government

>
> >>>>> trusts you to have a weapon of mass destruction is when you get

>
> >>>>> drafted into military service. Then officialdom is only too anxiousto

>
> >>>>> not only arm you with an automatic weapon but you can also get all the

>
> >>>>> ammo, hand-grenades, mortar shells, satchel-bombs, etal. that you can

>
> >>>>> carry. However, even though you put your life on the line to protect

>
> >>>>> and preserve the seat of government, when you get home, one would get

>
> >>>>> the impression this gratuitous government, which adorns one with

>
> >>>>> medals, doesn't trust you to own a firearm.

>
> >>>>>

>
> >>>>> My main camera bag alone has about $10,000 USD worth of equipment and

>
> >>>>> when I applied for a concealed permit ('cause I'm not in fighting

>
> >>>>> shape) I was told not to endanger myself, just insure my equipment and

>
> >>>>> have done with it. Yes sir, in this land of opportunities, crime pays.

>
> >>>>> I have to wonder, when I was in military service why didn't someone

>
> >>>>> tell me not to endanger myself. (<<<G>>>)

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>> What State do you live in?

>
> >>>

>
> >>> California. The land of fruits and nuts.

>
> >>>

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>> Then depending on State and the political climate in different areasof

>
> >>>> various states (California for example) in some jurisdictions it is

>
> >>>> almost impossible to get a CCW permit (San Francisco County) and in

>
> >>>> other counties a mere formality.

>
> >>>

>
> >>> Mere formality? Not in LA county.

>
> >>>

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>> Then there are the different State regulations with differences in the

>
> >>>> way the CCW permits are issued and regulated. The one "denial" Stateis

>
> >>>> Illinois, other states are divided into "Shall Issue", "May Issue", and

>
> >>>> some restricted to State residents within the two other types.

>
> >>>> All CCW permits are still dependent on clearing screening, background

>
> >>>> check, etc.

>
> >>>> This site gives a pretty good run down of the local weapons laws

>
> >>>> pertaining to CCW permits.

>
> >>>> < http://www.handgunlaw.us/ >

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>> Retired law enforcement officers are permitted to carry a concealed

>
> >>>> firearm in all 50 states on the condition they qualify with their carry

>
> >>>> weapons annually.

>
> >>>

>
> >>> The Second Amendment says nothing about the need to qualify.

>
> >>>

>
> >>>> So I can carry either one of these (the two weapons I am qualified with

>
> >>>> for concealed carry).

>
> >>>> < http://db.tt/fxUzPGcL >

>
> >>>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...ageduck+Kw.jpg >

>
> >>>

>
> >>> There's that the word "qualify" again.

>
> >>>

>
> >>> At one time (as recent as the 40's and 50's) one could openly carry

>
> >>> almost any firearm in California. That was before the advent of "common

>
> >>> sense" or "compromise" took hold of peoples imaginations and a movement

>
> >>> began to circumvent the Constitution.

>
> >>>

>
> >>>

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>> ...and for "gun control" do this:

>
> >>>> < http://db.tt/Q8XAaCLW >

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>> All joking aside, there is a need for some change to our national

>
> >>>> concept of our "gun culture".

>
> >>>

>
> >>> "Gun culture"? Oh yes, that's the new party line. No, there isn't a "gun

>
> >>> culture" excepting what exists in an anti-gunners mind. What there isa

>
> >>> need of is for people to realize what the blazing hell we have gone to

>
> >>> war to preserve. Since mankind has walked in an upright position he has

>
> >>> made means to defend himself against those who may do him harm.

>
> >>>

>
> >>> I wasn't born with a gun in my hand. Who was it that gave me weapons and

>
> >>> told me to kill; the seat of government. The farmer remains a farmer,

>
> >>> the engineer remains an engineer, the teacher remains a teacher, etc.,

>
> >>> etc., etc., regardless of whoever takes over the seat of government,

>
> >>> so... in times of war, what are we killing people for if not to protect

>
> >>> what we hold dear .... such as our rights and freedoms. Where-the-hell

>
> >>> in the Constitution does it say that "compromise" shall be the governing

>
> >>> factor in the observance of Constitutional rights.

>
> >>>

>
> >>>> I feel that a logical start is a stronger

>
> >>>> screening & background check policy. Also there is an ignorance among

>
> >>>> non-gun folks regarding their perception of the description

>
> >>>> "semi-automatic". There is a big difference between "semi-automatic",

>
> >>>> "selective fire" and "automatic" when it comes to the function of

>
> >>>> firearms.

>
> >>>

>
> >>> You just gotta be a Democrat. That appears to be the most recent party

>
> >>> line. I heard TV news commentators say the same thing. [<<G>>]

>
> >>>

>
> >>> People may be politically ignorant but I think they know the difference

>
> >>> between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic. Geeze ... even my wife

>
> >>> knows the difference and she is a card-carrying, full-fledged,

>
> >>> honest-to-goodness, anti-gunner.

>
> >>>

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>> The idea of armed teachers is one gun advocates might like, but folks

>
> >>>> need to be aware that even well trained, and regularly qualified

>
> >>>> professionals with years of practice and thousands of rounds fired, can

>
> >>>> find a combat situation beyond their ability to handle. To expect a

>
> >>>> teacher to react as a trained combat specialist under stress is

>
> >>>> unreasonable. I would not expect these teachers to be spending their

>
> >>>> free time on a range to perfect their combat and defense shooting

>
> >>>> skills. These are teachers, and I wouldn't expect more than a small

>
> >>>> percentage to take up firearms with any enthusiasm.

>
> >>>

>
> >>> Trained combat specialist? You mean to say only those trained by

>
> >>> officialdom should be considered as being a trained combat specialists?

>
> >>> I know of ill-informed Sheriff's who don't know crap about the

>
> >>> particulars of firearms. A point of note is, any person who was exposed

>
> >>> to military combat conditions could qualify as being a combat

>
> >>> specialist. That term should not be reserved for just the law

>
> >>> enforcement agencies of the country nor agents thereof. No law

>
> >>> enforcement person I ever knew, when in the performance of their

>
> >>> civilian law enforcement duties, constantly spent days on end with

>
> >>> nerves on the verge of cracking.

>
> >>>

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>> So, for now my vote goes to improved and enforced screening &

>
> >>>> background

>
> >>>> checks with longer wait periods, perhaps even as much as up to a month

>
> >>>> before a weapon can be delivered to a properly screened buyer. The rest

>
> >>>> of the gun control proposals are a distraction from the real issue,

>
> >>>> which is, the mentally ill, and/or criminals having access to firearm,

>
> >>>> legal or contraband.

>
> >>>

>
> >>> "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free

>
> >>> State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be

>
> >>> infringed." Remember those words? What's so difficult to understand why

>
> >>> they were written.

>
> >>>

>
> >>> It's the right of the people (not just government controlled agencies

>
> >>> nor agents there of) to keep and bear arms. Since when did those words

>
> >>> mean "negotiate" or "compromise." As far as I'm concerned one can own

>
> >>> whatever firearm they can bear to carry. Search the Internet and one can

>
> >>> find ways and means to create ways to kill off lots of people thereby

>
> >>> having no guns being used in the accomplishment of that task.

>
> >>>

>
> >>> During the LA Watt's riots, when stores were being looted and woman were

>
> >>> assaulted, the police just drove by the rioters. It wasn't the policeor

>
> >>> the National Guard that stopped the rioters, it was an armed citizenry

>
> >>> that openly displayed their arms and threatened to shoot anyone who

>
> >>> invaded their property. They stood in their front yards and on roof tops

>
> >>> in defiance of the rioters. The police did little to nothing to protect

>
> >>> property and rioters kept their loot.

>
> >>>

>
> >>

>
> >> Should everybody be permitted to store atomic weapons, machine guns,

>
> >> howitzers, and chemical weapons, etc.

>
> >>

>
> >

>
> > Lets see just how far your anti "bear arms"pendulum has swung. Could you

>
> > "bear" (as in .. carry) an atomic bomb, howitzer, or even a mortar?

>
> > Could you "bear" a 30cal water cooled heavy machine gun and baseplate?

>
> > Then we have sub-machine guns to consider. Machine guns are presently

>
> > permitted to be owned but a required yearly fee has to be paid. For

>
> > example: Years ago, should a person seek to buy a Thompson Sub machine

>
> > gun, a fee of about $1000/year fee had to be paid, after a investigation

>
> > was conducted. Since I don't know anyone who seeks to own such a machine

>
> > gun,

>
>
>
> <http://www.knobcreekrange.com/events/featured-events/machine-gun-shoot>
>
>
>
> Here is an interesting article discussing the psychology:
>
>
>
> ...�I find it somewhat peculiar when people seem surprised by the
>
> ongoing American love affair with guns. The country was acquired in a
>
> way that required guns. Expansion of the American frontier was a
>
> severely violent process in which the gun played a central role, its
>
> sanitized memory has since become a pillar of white American nostalgia.
>
> It represents notions of freedom, individualism and valor and all of
>
> those things are tied to patriotism,�
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2012/12/pete-muller/>
>
>
>
> to my knowledge that law still exists but the fee has most likely
>
> > changed considerably. As for chemical weapons, they are not considered

>
> > to be an "arm" therefore are not covered by the Constitution.

>


What still confuses me is that with or without guns america seems to have more of it's citizens locked up as criminals than most other countries.
The number of people (criminals and teh innocent) both seem to be higher too .

I'd vote for america to keep it's guns and for teh UK to keep it's restrictions and hopefully those that want to play wioth guns will find somewhere safe to do so.



>
>
>
> --
>
> PeterN


 
Reply With Quote
 
DanP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2013
On Monday, 21 January 2013 03:55:02 UTC, Tony Cooper wrote:

>
> I think any American should be able to own any weapon he or she
> chooses to own...as long as they can prove they are a member of a
> well-regulated militia.
>


Or own the type of weapons that were in use at the time of the Second Amendment. Like a long double barrel shotgun.

The revolver was invented some 30 years later.


DanP
 
Reply With Quote
 
nick c
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2013
On 1/20/2013 11:48 PM, DanP wrote:
> On Monday, January 21, 2013 2:02:34 AM UTC, nick c wrote:
>> On 1/20/2013 1:19 PM, DanP wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:24:58 AM UTC, nick c wrote:

>>
>>>

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>> I used to think the Brit's and Aussies were, shall we say ... privileged

>>
>>>> people (leastwise, in my eyes). That is to say, I've always held them in

>>
>>>> high esteem regardless of political disagreements that may surface from

>>
>>>> time to time. Though I may have been at odds, at times with their

>>
>>>> politics, should any nation threaten them, then I would get ****ed-off.

>>
>>>> But when they sheepishly gave up their firearms to government entities,

>>
>>>> (it was for the children) that was a thumbs-down move and it dimmed my

>>
>>>> respect for them. Somehow, I think the survivors of Dunkirk would not

>>
>>>> have approved their actions.

>>
>>>

>>
>>> UK and Australia are democracies and at least in the case of gun control they do what the people want them to do, ban guns. There is overwhelming support for gun control. Your speculations of what the survivors of Dunkirk think are just that, speculations

>>
>>
>>
>> I'm aware that the UK news media managed to conduct an successful
>> campaign gathering over some 700,000 signatures from a horrified public
>> after the Dunblane incident in 96, which was then sent to the PM, John
>> Major.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the UK has a population of about 50 million people and the way I
>> see the issue is that about 700,000 plus signatures is not really a
>> representative figure of a majority of people. I suppose there were many
>> who didn't own a firearm and had nothing to surrender, yet signed the
>> petition because Dunblane was such a horrific incident. However, nothing
>> has actually changed in the UK that would insure such an incident would
>> never happen again, perhaps not with guns but by other means, unless
>> loony's obey laws.
>>

>
> Again, you speak about public opinion in UK, you have no idea what the UK public thinks. I live in UK.


As with anyone interested in this issue, who doesn't live in the UK, my
thoughts are formed from prevailing published data and news reports.
Personal opinions I take as being just that, a personal opinion; subject
to personal comprehensions and interpretations.

Funny how people all over the world can form opinions of the US yet if I
(in the US) have an opinion of the UK, then I that's a no-no. (sigh)

>
> A drug dealer on the run in Manchester killed 2 policewomen last year by reporting a burglary and shooting them when they arrived. The regular police do not carry guns. There were some voices saying the police should carry guns, the police force spoke against the idea.


I was not aware that the police force spoke against being armed,
however, I was told (by British engineers I used to work with) that
police (or those in law enforcement) had that option. Have to say
though, that was some time ago.

>
> Nothing can be done to "make sure it never happens again", this kind of speak is either deluded or insincere. Is owning guns a solution to solve the problem once and for all?


Owning guns may not be a problem solving solution but then again banning
guns may not be a solution either. I tend to think whatever brings one
peace of mind can be the onset to a solution, even if it's just a
personal solution.

Aside question:

I'm familiar with shotguns made by the British firm Purdey. They are
supposed to be the finest shotguns that can be humanly made. They are
also extremely expensive as all Purdey shotguns are custom built. Some
double-barrel, gold inlay/engraved Purdey's can cost up to a hundred
thousand dollars. When last I heard, Purdey had world-wide back-orders
of more than eight months. Are they too banned? If so, were those that
were turned in destroyed or were they cherry-picked for their
craftsmanship and value and kept aside.

>
> Look up some figures per 100.000 population for murders in US and UK, ignore the gun related deaths.


If such representative UK figures are like the data gathered in the US
then they too become somewhat questionable. I can recall a couple of
past news reports (during the Clinton administration) where the Brady
gun control camp managed to get gun related suicide deaths counted as
murders.

Another news report was when the CDC (Center for Disease Control)
published gun related data whereby their data gathering method was
highly questionable.

As the King of Siam once suppoesdly said "Tis a puzzlement."

>
>
> DanP
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
nick c
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2013
On 1/21/2013 12:31 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:20:20 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:02:34 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/20/2013 1:19 PM, DanP wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:24:58 AM UTC, nick c wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I used to think the Brit's and Aussies were, shall we say ... privileged
>>>>>> people (leastwise, in my eyes). That is to say, I've always held them in
>>>>>> high esteem regardless of political disagreements that may surface from
>>>>>> time to time. Though I may have been at odds, at times with their
>>>>>> politics, should any nation threaten them, then I would get ****ed-off.
>>>>>> But when they sheepishly gave up their firearms to government entities,
>>>>>> (it was for the children) that was a thumbs-down move and it dimmed my
>>>>>> respect for them. Somehow, I think the survivors of Dunkirk would not
>>>>>> have approved their actions.
>>>>> UK and Australia are democracies and at least in the case of gun control they do what the people want them to do, ban guns. There is overwhelming support for gun control. Your speculations of what the survivors of Dunkirk think are just that, speculations
>>>> I'm aware that the UK news media managed to conduct an successful
>>>> campaign gathering over some 700,000 signatures from a horrified public
>>>> after the Dunblane incident in 96, which was then sent to the PM, John
>>>> Major.
>>>>
>>>> I think the UK has a population of about 50 million people and the way I
>>>> see the issue is that about 700,000 plus signatures is not really a
>>>> representative figure of a majority of people. I suppose there were many
>>>> who didn't own a firearm and had nothing to surrender, yet signed the
>>>> petition because Dunblane was such a horrific incident. However, nothing
>>>> has actually changed in the UK that would insure such an incident would
>>>> never happen again, perhaps not with guns but by other means, unless
>>>> loony's obey laws.
>>>>
>>>> In any event, guns were banned and crime appears to have increased up to
>>>> 35% .
>>>
>>> I'm not aware of any evidence that there is any connection.

>>
>> No evidence of a connection?
>>
>> "The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly
>> terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England
>> and Wales soared by 35% last year."

>
> That's not quite the claim I was responding to. 'Gun Crime' is not the
> same as 'Crime'.


The subject discussed is gun related related crime.

>>
>>>
>>>> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...anned-n1464528
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-soars-35.html
>>>>
>>>> One has to wonder how gun related crimes in the UK can soar 35% (I've
>>>> read other sites that say 40%) in a nation were guns are banned.
>>>
>>> For reasons which have notyhing to do with guns.

>>
>> The posted disclosures are about gun related stats. What do you think is
>> driving what is said to be a "soaring" crime rate.

>
> Drugs
>
> Gangs


Who have acquired guns?

>>

>
>>>>> The Second Amendment was inspired by an English law passed a century earlier to allow Protestants to protect themselves against a Catholic Monarch. Some 30 years after the Second Amendment UK had to introduce gun control, too many soldiers returning from the Napoleonic Wars found themselves without a job and with a gun.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> DanP
>>>>>


 
Reply With Quote
 
nick c
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2013
On 1/21/2013 1:01 AM, sid wrote:
> nick c wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm aware that the UK news media managed to conduct an successful
>> campaign gathering over some 700,000 signatures from a horrified public
>> after the Dunblane incident in 96, which was then sent to the PM, John
>> Major.
>>
>> I think the UK has a population of about 50 million people and the way I
>> see the issue is that about 700,000 plus signatures is not really a
>> representative figure of a majority of people. I suppose there were many
>> who didn't own a firearm and had nothing to surrender, yet signed the
>> petition because Dunblane was such a horrific incident. However, nothing
>> has actually changed in the UK that would insure such an incident would
>> never happen again, perhaps not with guns but by other means, unless
>> loony's obey laws.
>>
>> In any event, guns were banned and crime appears to have increased up to
>> 35% .
>>
>> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...rime-soars-in-

> england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-soars-35.html
>>
>> One has to wonder how gun related crimes in the UK can soar 35% (I've
>> read other sites that say 40%) in a nation were guns are banned.

>
> If you are going to post links at least post ones that are up to date. 10
> year old Daily Mail links are hardly the gospel on anything


My bad. Quick glance at the heading saw Jan 21, 2013.

>
> www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf


Couldn't get this site.

>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...des-ownership-
> world-list


This site page displayed "Sorry - we haven't been able to serve the page
you asked for."

>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...me-statistics-
> england-wales


Ditto, for this site page.

>
> I'm pretty sure those three completely disprove all you've said about the UK


I expressed an opinion founded upon many pro and con articles written
about the subject, both here (in newspaper reports) and on the Internet.

A question of just idle curiosity :

There was a noted female reporter in London that was murdered (shot to
death) on the doorstep of her home. For a while, it was headline news.
Was the assailant ever captured?

>


 
Reply With Quote
 
nick c
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2013
On 1/21/2013 5:11 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:28:09 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/2013 12:31 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:20:20 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:02:34 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/20/2013 1:19 PM, DanP wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:24:58 AM UTC, nick c wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I used to think the Brit's and Aussies were, shall we say ... privileged
>>>>>>>> people (leastwise, in my eyes). That is to say, I've always held them in
>>>>>>>> high esteem regardless of political disagreements that may surface from
>>>>>>>> time to time. Though I may have been at odds, at times with their
>>>>>>>> politics, should any nation threaten them, then I would get ****ed-off.
>>>>>>>> But when they sheepishly gave up their firearms to government entities,
>>>>>>>> (it was for the children) that was a thumbs-down move and it dimmed my
>>>>>>>> respect for them. Somehow, I think the survivors of Dunkirk would not
>>>>>>>> have approved their actions.
>>>>>>> UK and Australia are democracies and at least in the case of gun control they do what the people want them to do, ban guns. There is overwhelming support for gun control. Your speculations of what the survivors of Dunkirk think are just that, speculations
>>>>>> I'm aware that the UK news media managed to conduct an successful
>>>>>> campaign gathering over some 700,000 signatures from a horrified public
>>>>>> after the Dunblane incident in 96, which was then sent to the PM, John
>>>>>> Major.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the UK has a population of about 50 million people and the way I
>>>>>> see the issue is that about 700,000 plus signatures is not really a
>>>>>> representative figure of a majority of people. I suppose there were many
>>>>>> who didn't own a firearm and had nothing to surrender, yet signed the
>>>>>> petition because Dunblane was such a horrific incident. However, nothing
>>>>>> has actually changed in the UK that would insure such an incident would
>>>>>> never happen again, perhaps not with guns but by other means, unless
>>>>>> loony's obey laws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any event, guns were banned and crime appears to have increased up to
>>>>>> 35% .
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not aware of any evidence that there is any connection.
>>>>
>>>> No evidence of a connection?
>>>>
>>>> "The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly
>>>> terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England
>>>> and Wales soared by 35% last year."
>>>
>>> That's not quite the claim I was responding to. 'Gun Crime' is not the
>>> same as 'Crime'.

>>
>> The subject discussed is gun related related crime.

>
> Not in your sentence to which I was responding.
>
> Now go on: perpetuate the argument about this. I dare you.
> I'll ignore it.


Huh!!!


>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...anned-n1464528
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-soars-35.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One has to wonder how gun related crimes in the UK can soar 35% (I've
>>>>>> read other sites that say 40%) in a nation were guns are banned.
>>>>>
>>>>> For reasons which have notyhing to do with guns.
>>>>
>>>> The posted disclosures are about gun related stats. What do you think is
>>>> driving what is said to be a "soaring" crime rate.
>>>
>>> Drugs
>>>
>>> Gangs

>>
>> Who have acquired guns?
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> The Second Amendment was inspired by an English law passed a century earlier to allow Protestants to protect themselves against a Catholic Monarch. Some 30 years after the Second Amendment UK had to introduce gun control, too many soldiers returning from the Napoleonic Wars found themselves without a job and with a gun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DanP
>>>>>>>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2013
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:21:10 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Aside question:
>
>I'm familiar with shotguns made by the British firm Purdey. They are
>supposed to be the finest shotguns that can be humanly made. They are
>also extremely expensive as all Purdey shotguns are custom built. Some
>double-barrel, gold inlay/engraved Purdey's can cost up to a hundred
>thousand dollars. When last I heard, Purdey had world-wide back-orders
>of more than eight months. Are they too banned? If so, were those that
>were turned in destroyed or were they cherry-picked for their
>craftsmanship and value and kept aside.


Shotguns were never banned in the UK or never confiscated. They are
registered, and often kept at shooting clubs instead of in the home,
but a properly registered shotgun can be kept at home.

Just pistols are banned.


--
Tony Cooper, Orlando FL
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: OT: Gn Control Poll Tony Cooper Digital Photography 1 01-21-2013 03:52 AM
select.poll.poll() never blocks birdsong Python 2 02-12-2009 07:14 AM
Re: select.poll.poll() never blocks Jean-Paul Calderone Python 3 02-12-2009 06:09 AM
Poll: ASP.NET Repeater Control Rocky Moore ASP .Net 0 08-28-2004 05:02 AM
Poll for new mail? William W. Plummer Firefox 1 07-03-2004 06:26 PM



Advertisments