tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 13 Feb 2009 20:57:19
From: Stapler
Subject: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people need the
means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with me!





 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 21:09:23
From: drew
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 13, 3:57=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com > wrote:
> Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people need t=
he
> means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with me!

If you feel insecure and you need to carry a weapon, you shouldn't
let the law deny you your mental health.

I write this without sarcasm.

But please don't advocate for the whole of society.

Responsible governments restrict access to guns wherever and however
they can. It is a fact that easy availability to guns and ammunition
makes it easy for stupid and violent people to kill others. These
same monkeys wouldn't have the wherewithall to craft anything more
sophisticated than a sharp object or a club if the alternative was a
homemade device.

Good people won't be secure in an environment where good and bad
people all carry weapons. They'll be more secure in an environment
where bad people have a harder time getting guns and ammo.

If you feel so inclined, get yourself an illegal piece and for
chissakes learn how to use it and keep it locked in a place where only
you can get your hands on it.



  
Date: 14 Feb 2009 05:51:01
From: robin
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 14 Feb, 11:03, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2Tvll.190$Bl.18@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
>
>
> > "drew" <d...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> >news:43c4fefb-9696-4825-9deb-38127641a3a9@r29g2000vbp.googlegroups.com..=
.
> >>>>>If you feel insecure and you need to carry a weapon, =A0you shouldn'=
t
> > let the law deny you your mental health.
>
> > I write this without sarcasm.
>
> > But please don't advocate for the whole of society.
>
> > Responsible governments restrict access to guns wherever and however
> > they can. =A0It is a fact that easy availability to guns and ammunition
> > makes it easy for stupid and violent people to kill others. =A0These
> > same monkeys wouldn't have the wherewithall to craft anything more
> > sophisticated than a sharp object or a club if the alternative was a
> > homemade device.
>
> > Good people won't be secure in an environment where good and bad
> > people all carry weapons. =A0They'll be more secure in an environment
> > where bad people have a harder time getting guns and ammo.
>
> > If you feel so inclined, get yourself an illegal piece and for
> > chissakes learn how to use it and keep it locked in a place where only
> > you can get your hands on it.<<<<
>
> > There is nothing responsible about going defenseless against the scum o=
f
> > society. In fact it is a mental illness to believe like you do.
>
> the first thing Hitler did after gaining power was to bring in gun contro=
l.

Godwin's law.


  
Date: 14 Feb 2009 02:26:42
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 14 Feb, 09:09, "Stapler" <d...@d.com > wrote:
> "drew" <d...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>
> news:43c4fefb-9696-4825-9deb-38127641a3a9@r29g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...=
>>>>If you feel insecure and you need to carry a weapon, =A0you shouldn't
>
> let the law deny you your mental health.
>
> I write this without sarcasm.
>
> But please don't advocate for the whole of society.
>
> Responsible governments restrict access to guns wherever and however
> they can. =A0It is a fact that easy availability to guns and ammunition
> makes it easy for stupid and violent people to kill others. =A0These
> same monkeys wouldn't have the wherewithall to craft anything more
> sophisticated than a sharp object or a club if the alternative was a
> homemade device.
>
> Good people won't be secure in an environment where good and bad
> people all carry weapons. =A0They'll be more secure in an environment
> where bad people have a harder time getting guns and ammo.
>
> If you feel so inclined, get yourself an illegal piece and for
> chissakes learn how to use it and keep it locked in a place where only
> you can get your hands on it.<<<<
>
> There is nothing responsible about going defenseless against the scum of
> society. In fact it is a mental illness to believe like you do.

Ok fuck guns - what about tasers or those sonic weapons the Japanese
are using on greenpeace ?


   
Date: 14 Feb 2009 12:03:08
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
"ghell666" <matt.tippen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:ee1cfa8b-436e-4590-b702-f871be4be3f6@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>Ok fuck guns - what about tasers or those sonic weapons the Japanese
are using on greenpeace ?<<<


Nothing else has the stopping power of supersonic lead. Bang bang.



    
Date: 14 Feb 2009 12:17:14
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:03:08 GMT, "Stapler" <d@d.com > wrote:

>"ghell666" <matt.tippen@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ee1cfa8b-436e-4590-b702-f871be4be3f6@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>Ok fuck guns - what about tasers or those sonic weapons the Japanese
>are using on greenpeace ?<<<
>
>
>Nothing else has the stopping power of supersonic lead. Bang bang.

Rafa's drop dead finger odor?


    
Date: 14 Feb 2009 23:15:31
From: Edward McArdle
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
In article <0qyll.192$Bl.162@nwrddc01.gnilink.net >, "Stapler" <d@d.com> wrote:

>"ghell666" <matt.tippen@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ee1cfa8b-436e-4590-b702-f871be4be3f6@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>Ok fuck guns - what about tasers or those sonic weapons the Japanese
>are using on greenpeace ?<<<
>
>
>Nothing else has the stopping power of supersonic lead. Bang bang.

When I think of all the people I have known who were killed by a gun...
umm, there aren't any.
I know people are killed by guns in Australia, and I have lived here for
71 years, but I haven't...
Wait! There was a man who worked in the local bank years ago. He took home
the bank's gun one night and killed himself. And I had a student at a
school about fifty years ago who was murdered by his father. That may have
involved a gun.

--
Edward McArdle


  
Date: 14 Feb 2009 09:09:18
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
"drew" <drew@technologist.com > wrote in message
news:43c4fefb-9696-4825-9deb-38127641a3a9@r29g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>>>If you feel insecure and you need to carry a weapon, you shouldn't
let the law deny you your mental health.

I write this without sarcasm.

But please don't advocate for the whole of society.

Responsible governments restrict access to guns wherever and however
they can. It is a fact that easy availability to guns and ammunition
makes it easy for stupid and violent people to kill others. These
same monkeys wouldn't have the wherewithall to craft anything more
sophisticated than a sharp object or a club if the alternative was a
homemade device.

Good people won't be secure in an environment where good and bad
people all carry weapons. They'll be more secure in an environment
where bad people have a harder time getting guns and ammo.

If you feel so inclined, get yourself an illegal piece and for
chissakes learn how to use it and keep it locked in a place where only
you can get your hands on it.<<<<


There is nothing responsible about going defenseless against the scum of
society. In fact it is a mental illness to believe like you do.



   
Date: 14 Feb 2009 11:03:02
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
"Stapler" <d@d.com > wrote in message
news:2Tvll.190$Bl.18@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> "drew" <drew@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:43c4fefb-9696-4825-9deb-38127641a3a9@r29g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>If you feel insecure and you need to carry a weapon, you shouldn't
> let the law deny you your mental health.
>
> I write this without sarcasm.
>
> But please don't advocate for the whole of society.
>
> Responsible governments restrict access to guns wherever and however
> they can. It is a fact that easy availability to guns and ammunition
> makes it easy for stupid and violent people to kill others. These
> same monkeys wouldn't have the wherewithall to craft anything more
> sophisticated than a sharp object or a club if the alternative was a
> homemade device.
>
> Good people won't be secure in an environment where good and bad
> people all carry weapons. They'll be more secure in an environment
> where bad people have a harder time getting guns and ammo.
>
> If you feel so inclined, get yourself an illegal piece and for
> chissakes learn how to use it and keep it locked in a place where only
> you can get your hands on it.<<<<
>
>
> There is nothing responsible about going defenseless against the scum of
> society. In fact it is a mental illness to believe like you do.

the first thing Hitler did after gaining power was to bring in gun control.




    
Date: 14 Feb 2009 11:08:14
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:03:02 GMT, "Iceberg"
<big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:

>"Stapler" <d@d.com> wrote in message
>news:2Tvll.190$Bl.18@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>> "drew" <drew@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> news:43c4fefb-9696-4825-9deb-38127641a3a9@r29g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>If you feel insecure and you need to carry a weapon, you shouldn't
>> let the law deny you your mental health.
>>
>> I write this without sarcasm.
>>
>> But please don't advocate for the whole of society.
>>
>> Responsible governments restrict access to guns wherever and however
>> they can. It is a fact that easy availability to guns and ammunition
>> makes it easy for stupid and violent people to kill others. These
>> same monkeys wouldn't have the wherewithall to craft anything more
>> sophisticated than a sharp object or a club if the alternative was a
>> homemade device.
>>
>> Good people won't be secure in an environment where good and bad
>> people all carry weapons. They'll be more secure in an environment
>> where bad people have a harder time getting guns and ammo.
>>
>> If you feel so inclined, get yourself an illegal piece and for
>> chissakes learn how to use it and keep it locked in a place where only
>> you can get your hands on it.<<<<
>>
>>
>> There is nothing responsible about going defenseless against the scum of
>> society. In fact it is a mental illness to believe like you do.
>
>the first thing Hitler did after gaining power was to bring in gun control.
>


who was hitler ? did he invent 7543 ?


 
Date: 14 Feb 2009 14:01:55
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
Stapler wrote:
> Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people need
> the means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with me!


Raja doesn't live in these countries so what's your point....?



 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 21:59:25
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
"Stapler" <d@d.com > wrote in message
news:P8lll.70$hm.16@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people need
> the means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with
> me!

well I like it that our police don't carry guns, shows we're the most
civilised nation in the world, but I also agree that normal people should be
able to carry guns, the trouble banning guns meant shooting clubs had to
close, places where thugs could get their rocks off with a firearm saving
them from using real people as target practice.




 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 13:09:22
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 13, 8:57=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com > wrote:
> Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people need t=
he
> means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with me!

You are a moron.

I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicides
in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million

(odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)

In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.

so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
moron,

It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 16:39:55
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 21:10, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 19:21, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 15 Feb, 18:57, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > My advice for you is to do some growing up and, next time you want to
> > > debate an issue online, try to behave more like an adult. Also, it
> > > doesn't reflect well on you when you refer to basic statements of
> > > conditional probability as "fancy formula".
>
> > It's also not mutually exclusive: it doesn't hold that strict gun
> > control laws mean high rates of murder through other means, and that
> > liberalised gun laws mean high rates of murder through guns but low
> > rates of murder through other means. It is a FACT that there are
>
> It is not necessarily the case, but that doesn't mean you can just
> rule it out, which is what you are doing when you refuse discussion on
> gun control versus total homicide. In terms of the Switzerland versus
> UK case. If you allow the UK's lower gun homicide as evidence
> supporting gun control as a means for reducing gun crime, you must
> also consider that the UK's higher overall higher homicide rate may be
> related. Provided a mechanism can be provided - which it was. Of
> course, the UK's higher homicide rate may be for other reasons, but
> then so might it's lower gun crime. The point is that you must be
> consistant in how you consider evidence.
>
> > countries with low rates of murder using guns and also low rates of
> > murder through other means: Australia, Spain, and New Zealand are
> > examples of these. Just compare the murder rate with firearms with the
> > murder rate that excludes firearms:
>
> Sure, looking at all countries I'd be willing to believe that there is
> an overall link between gun control and lower homicide, but I'd have
> to see it demonstrated in a more systematic way. For example, the five
> countries with the lowest homicide rate and the five with the highest
> (in the developed world), and the corresponding gun laws in those
> countries. Now, I haven't found out and summarised that data, but then
> neither has anyone else in this debate. So really none of us can talk
> of having demonstrated the case with facts. It's just grabbing
> anecdotal examples, on both sides, at present. Not that I am actually,
> in truth, on the anti-gun control side.
>
>
>
> >http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_non_hom_rat_per_100...
>
> > Switzerland would also likely be one of these countries if it had
> > stricter gun controls, as its murder rate excluding firearms is
> > extremely low.
>
> Or it might be worse. This is pure conjecture.

I found this study, although it is quite old:

http://www.unicri.it/wwk/publications/books/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP.pdf

Conclusions

The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms
the
results of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the
first
International Crime Survey.31 Substantial correlations were found
between gun
ownership and gun-related as well as total suicide and homicide rates.
Widespread
gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal
events
committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and
other
potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are
available, but more
guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide.

Since the present analysis is based on a cross-sectional design, the
interpretation of the correlations observed is complicated by the
ambiguity of the
causal order and the presence of eventual third variables. Although we
have seen
above that alternative interpretations are intuitively not very
plausible, the ultimate
answer is that they cannot be ruled out. However, it seems not
reasonable to trust
that any such - theoretically possible, though yet unknown -
intervening variable will
be responsible for the correlations observed. What we know is that
guns do not
reduce fatal events due to other means, but that they go along with
more shootings.
Although we do not know why exactly this is so, we have a good reason
to suspect
guns to play a - fatal - role in this.


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 13:21:57
From: number_six
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 15, 10:50=A0am, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> snip <
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_non_hom_rat_per_100...
>
> FACT: Switzerland has the 2nd highest murder rate using guns in the
> world.

I don't think that's a fact at all. There are many countries that do
not even report reliable numbers.

I think the old Helvetic Confederation probably stacks up quite well
against, say, Congo.

South Africa's position on this list is due to the combination of a
high murder rate *and* a modern reporting and tracking
infrastructure. You will not find the second element in Sudan,
Somalia, etc.

A statistical overview of this kind -- or any kind -- is only as good
as the input.


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 13:10:15
From: robin
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 19:21, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 18:57, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My advice for you is to do some growing up and, next time you want to
> > debate an issue online, try to behave more like an adult. Also, it
> > doesn't reflect well on you when you refer to basic statements of
> > conditional probability as "fancy formula".
>
> It's also not mutually exclusive: it doesn't hold that strict gun
> control laws mean high rates of murder through other means, and that
> liberalised gun laws mean high rates of murder through guns but low
> rates of murder through other means. It is a FACT that there are

It is not necessarily the case, but that doesn't mean you can just
rule it out, which is what you are doing when you refuse discussion on
gun control versus total homicide. In terms of the Switzerland versus
UK case. If you allow the UK's lower gun homicide as evidence
supporting gun control as a means for reducing gun crime, you must
also consider that the UK's higher overall higher homicide rate may be
related. Provided a mechanism can be provided - which it was. Of
course, the UK's higher homicide rate may be for other reasons, but
then so might it's lower gun crime. The point is that you must be
consistant in how you consider evidence.

> countries with low rates of murder using guns and also low rates of
> murder through other means: Australia, Spain, and New Zealand are
> examples of these. Just compare the murder rate with firearms with the
> murder rate that excludes firearms:

Sure, looking at all countries I'd be willing to believe that there is
an overall link between gun control and lower homicide, but I'd have
to see it demonstrated in a more systematic way. For example, the five
countries with the lowest homicide rate and the five with the highest
(in the developed world), and the corresponding gun laws in those
countries. Now, I haven't found out and summarised that data, but then
neither has anyone else in this debate. So really none of us can talk
of having demonstrated the case with facts. It's just grabbing
anecdotal examples, on both sides, at present. Not that I am actually,
in truth, on the anti-gun control side.

>
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_non_hom_rat_per_100...
>
> Switzerland would also likely be one of these countries if it had
> stricter gun controls, as its murder rate excluding firearms is
> extremely low.

Or it might be worse. This is pure conjecture.



  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 11:32:17
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 19:17, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 19:02, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 15 Feb, 18:57, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 15 Feb, 18:29, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 15 Feb, 18:00, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > However, this is clearly not the case. Firstly, there will be cases
> > > > > where murders are carried out with guns which would have equally been
> > > > > carried out with other means where there is stricter gun control.
>
> > > > Heard this argument a million times before, and you don't need to use
> > > > fancy formulae to spell it out. It's nonsense because it is clearly
> > > > much easier to kill someone using a gun than by other means. It's the
> > > > same with the suicide rate: Switzerland has a very high suicide rate
> > > > using firearms, as well as a high rate of murders using firearms,
> > > > because it is easier to kill yourself with a gun than by other means.
> > > > Is this really so difficult to understand? Don't you know that this
> > > > very subject is debated in Switzerland itself:
>
> > > >http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2709342,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-a...
>
> > > > Switzerland's the only country that requires its soldiers to keep guns
> > > > at home. But concerns over high suicide rates and killings within
> > > > families have caused some to ask whether having them there is simply
> > > > too dangerous.
>
> > > > The only country with a higher rate of suicide with guns than
> > > > Switzerland is the United States. And it's not just suicide: every
> > > > month or so, a Swiss man turns his gun on his family. The country has
> > > > the highest rate of domestic violence using guns in Europe.
>
> > > > "This only happened because the gun was right here at home," she said.
> > > > "My husband wouldn't have gone out looking for one. If the gun hadn't
> > > > been here I think he'd still be alive."
>
> > > > > Secondly, guns offer the weak and frail the capacity to threaten the
> > > > > young and strong. Thus acting as a deterent to would be assailants,
> > > > > who would have otherwise been relatively invulnerable in such
> > > > > circumstances.
>
> > > > This is more nonsense - do you seriously believe this CRAP? The idea
> > > > behind gun control is to restict the supply of guns so that even those
> > > > members of society who are potentially "assailants", i.e. criminals,
> > > > cannot obtain them anyway. Anything that involves *increasing* the gun
> > > > supply is going to result in more gun crime - it's very disappointing
> > > > that you are unable to grasp this very basic point.
>
> > > > Why don't you just answer the fucking question: why does Switzerland,
> > > > the country with the second highest gun ownership rate in the world,
> > > > have the second highest murder rate *with firearms* and suicide rate
> > > > *with firearms* in the world? Why is that? Are you gonna answer the
> > > > fucking question? How does the data I presented fit into your dogma
> > > > about liberalised gun ownership being a good thing? It clearly shows
> > > > that the more guns around, the more gun crime/suicides committed. The
> > > > "other means" argument only holds true if it is just as easy to kill
> > > > someone by other means than with a gun, but this clearly isn't the
> > > > case.
>
> > > > > So clearly, P(other


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 11:21:07
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 18:57, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:

> My advice for you is to do some growing up and, next time you want to
> debate an issue online, try to behave more like an adult. Also, it
> doesn't reflect well on you when you refer to basic statements of
> conditional probability as "fancy formula".

It's also not mutually exclusive: it doesn't hold that strict gun
control laws mean high rates of murder through other means, and that
liberalised gun laws mean high rates of murder through guns but low
rates of murder through other means. It is a FACT that there are
countries with low rates of murder using guns and also low rates of
murder through other means: Australia, Spain, and New Zealand are
examples of these. Just compare the murder rate with firearms with the
murder rate that excludes firearms:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_non_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

Switzerland would also likely be one of these countries if it had
stricter gun controls, as its murder rate excluding firearms is
extremely low.


   
Date: 15 Feb 2009 21:12:32
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns

On 15-Feb-2009, Wayne <waynetv50@yahoo.com > wrote:

> On 15 Feb, 18:57, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My advice for you is to do some growing up and, next time you want to
> > debate an issue online, try to behave more like an adult. Also, it
> > doesn't reflect well on you when you refer to basic statements of
> > conditional probability as "fancy formula".
>
> It's also not mutually exclusive: it doesn't hold that strict gun
> control laws mean high rates of murder through other means, and that
> liberalised gun laws mean high rates of murder through guns but low
> rates of murder through other means. It is a FACT that there are
> countries with low rates of murder using guns and also low rates of
> murder through other means: Australia, Spain, and New Zealand are
> examples of these. Just compare the murder rate with firearms with the
> murder rate that excludes firearms:
>
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_non_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop
>
> Switzerland would also likely be one of these countries if it had
> stricter gun controls, as its murder rate excluding firearms is
> extremely low.

I say stick to running the furniture business your dad left you and you'll
be OK. Lonely, but OK.


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 11:17:33
From: robin
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 19:02, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 18:57, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 15 Feb, 18:29, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 15 Feb, 18:00, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > However, this is clearly not the case. Firstly, there will be cases
> > > > where murders are carried out with guns which would have equally been
> > > > carried out with other means where there is stricter gun control.
>
> > > Heard this argument a million times before, and you don't need to use
> > > fancy formulae to spell it out. It's nonsense because it is clearly
> > > much easier to kill someone using a gun than by other means. It's the
> > > same with the suicide rate: Switzerland has a very high suicide rate
> > > using firearms, as well as a high rate of murders using firearms,
> > > because it is easier to kill yourself with a gun than by other means.
> > > Is this really so difficult to understand? Don't you know that this
> > > very subject is debated in Switzerland itself:
>
> > >http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2709342,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-a...
>
> > > Switzerland's the only country that requires its soldiers to keep guns
> > > at home. But concerns over high suicide rates and killings within
> > > families have caused some to ask whether having them there is simply
> > > too dangerous.
>
> > > The only country with a higher rate of suicide with guns than
> > > Switzerland is the United States. And it's not just suicide: every
> > > month or so, a Swiss man turns his gun on his family. The country has
> > > the highest rate of domestic violence using guns in Europe.
>
> > > "This only happened because the gun was right here at home," she said.
> > > "My husband wouldn't have gone out looking for one. If the gun hadn't
> > > been here I think he'd still be alive."
>
> > > > Secondly, guns offer the weak and frail the capacity to threaten the
> > > > young and strong. Thus acting as a deterent to would be assailants,
> > > > who would have otherwise been relatively invulnerable in such
> > > > circumstances.
>
> > > This is more nonsense - do you seriously believe this CRAP? The idea
> > > behind gun control is to restict the supply of guns so that even those
> > > members of society who are potentially "assailants", i.e. criminals,
> > > cannot obtain them anyway. Anything that involves *increasing* the gun
> > > supply is going to result in more gun crime - it's very disappointing
> > > that you are unable to grasp this very basic point.
>
> > > Why don't you just answer the fucking question: why does Switzerland,
> > > the country with the second highest gun ownership rate in the world,
> > > have the second highest murder rate *with firearms* and suicide rate
> > > *with firearms* in the world? Why is that? Are you gonna answer the
> > > fucking question? How does the data I presented fit into your dogma
> > > about liberalised gun ownership being a good thing? It clearly shows
> > > that the more guns around, the more gun crime/suicides committed. The
> > > "other means" argument only holds true if it is just as easy to kill
> > > someone by other means than with a gun, but this clearly isn't the
> > > case.
>
> > > > So clearly, P(other


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 11:02:19
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 18:57, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 18:29, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 15 Feb, 18:00, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > However, this is clearly not the case. Firstly, there will be cases
> > > where murders are carried out with guns which would have equally been
> > > carried out with other means where there is stricter gun control.
>
> > Heard this argument a million times before, and you don't need to use
> > fancy formulae to spell it out. It's nonsense because it is clearly
> > much easier to kill someone using a gun than by other means. It's the
> > same with the suicide rate: Switzerland has a very high suicide rate
> > using firearms, as well as a high rate of murders using firearms,
> > because it is easier to kill yourself with a gun than by other means.
> > Is this really so difficult to understand? Don't you know that this
> > very subject is debated in Switzerland itself:
>
> >http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2709342,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-a...
>
> > Switzerland's the only country that requires its soldiers to keep guns
> > at home. But concerns over high suicide rates and killings within
> > families have caused some to ask whether having them there is simply
> > too dangerous.
>
> > The only country with a higher rate of suicide with guns than
> > Switzerland is the United States. And it's not just suicide: every
> > month or so, a Swiss man turns his gun on his family. The country has
> > the highest rate of domestic violence using guns in Europe.
>
> > "This only happened because the gun was right here at home," she said.
> > "My husband wouldn't have gone out looking for one. If the gun hadn't
> > been here I think he'd still be alive."
>
> > > Secondly, guns offer the weak and frail the capacity to threaten the
> > > young and strong. Thus acting as a deterent to would be assailants,
> > > who would have otherwise been relatively invulnerable in such
> > > circumstances.
>
> > This is more nonsense - do you seriously believe this CRAP? The idea
> > behind gun control is to restict the supply of guns so that even those
> > members of society who are potentially "assailants", i.e. criminals,
> > cannot obtain them anyway. Anything that involves *increasing* the gun
> > supply is going to result in more gun crime - it's very disappointing
> > that you are unable to grasp this very basic point.
>
> > Why don't you just answer the fucking question: why does Switzerland,
> > the country with the second highest gun ownership rate in the world,
> > have the second highest murder rate *with firearms* and suicide rate
> > *with firearms* in the world? Why is that? Are you gonna answer the
> > fucking question? How does the data I presented fit into your dogma
> > about liberalised gun ownership being a good thing? It clearly shows
> > that the more guns around, the more gun crime/suicides committed. The
> > "other means" argument only holds true if it is just as easy to kill
> > someone by other means than with a gun, but this clearly isn't the
> > case.
>
> > > So clearly, P(other


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 10:57:56
From: robin
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 18:29, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 18:00, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > However, this is clearly not the case. Firstly, there will be cases
> > where murders are carried out with guns which would have equally been
> > carried out with other means where there is stricter gun control.
>
> Heard this argument a million times before, and you don't need to use
> fancy formulae to spell it out. It's nonsense because it is clearly
> much easier to kill someone using a gun than by other means. It's the
> same with the suicide rate: Switzerland has a very high suicide rate
> using firearms, as well as a high rate of murders using firearms,
> because it is easier to kill yourself with a gun than by other means.
> Is this really so difficult to understand? Don't you know that this
> very subject is debated in Switzerland itself:
>
> http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2709342,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-a...
>
> Switzerland's the only country that requires its soldiers to keep guns
> at home. But concerns over high suicide rates and killings within
> families have caused some to ask whether having them there is simply
> too dangerous.
>
> The only country with a higher rate of suicide with guns than
> Switzerland is the United States. And it's not just suicide: every
> month or so, a Swiss man turns his gun on his family. The country has
> the highest rate of domestic violence using guns in Europe.
>
> "This only happened because the gun was right here at home," she said.
> "My husband wouldn't have gone out looking for one. If the gun hadn't
> been here I think he'd still be alive."
>
> > Secondly, guns offer the weak and frail the capacity to threaten the
> > young and strong. Thus acting as a deterent to would be assailants,
> > who would have otherwise been relatively invulnerable in such
> > circumstances.
>
> This is more nonsense - do you seriously believe this CRAP? The idea
> behind gun control is to restict the supply of guns so that even those
> members of society who are potentially "assailants", i.e. criminals,
> cannot obtain them anyway. Anything that involves *increasing* the gun
> supply is going to result in more gun crime - it's very disappointing
> that you are unable to grasp this very basic point.
>
> Why don't you just answer the fucking question: why does Switzerland,
> the country with the second highest gun ownership rate in the world,
> have the second highest murder rate *with firearms* and suicide rate
> *with firearms* in the world? Why is that? Are you gonna answer the
> fucking question? How does the data I presented fit into your dogma
> about liberalised gun ownership being a good thing? It clearly shows
> that the more guns around, the more gun crime/suicides committed. The
> "other means" argument only holds true if it is just as easy to kill
> someone by other means than with a gun, but this clearly isn't the
> case.
>
> > So clearly, P(other


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 10:50:28
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 18:29, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote:

> that the more guns around, the more gun crime/suicides committed. The
> "other means" argument only holds true if it is just as easy to kill
> someone by other means than with a gun, but this clearly isn't the
> case.

And the other point to raise, is if it's true that it is just as easy
to kill someone by other means as it is with a gun, then surely we
would expect Switzerland's homcide rate *excluding guns* to be not
that far off its homicide rate *using guns*. Yet Switzerland is not
even in the top 32 for highest homicide rates *excluding use of guns*
in the world:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_non_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

FACT: Switzerland has the 2nd highest murder rate using guns in the
world.
FACT: Switzerland has an extremely low murder rate using *other means*
of murder.
CONCLUSION: Switzerland's liberalised gun laws mean that the gun,
rather than "other means", is the choice method for murder in
Switzerland.
IMPLICATION: It is NOT as easy to kill someone by other means as it is
with a gun, otherwise the Swiss murder rate for *other means* should
be higher but it is one of the lowest rates in the world.




  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 10:29:38
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 18:00, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:

> However, this is clearly not the case. Firstly, there will be cases
> where murders are carried out with guns which would have equally been
> carried out with other means where there is stricter gun control.

Heard this argument a million times before, and you don't need to use
fancy formulae to spell it out. It's nonsense because it is clearly
much easier to kill someone using a gun than by other means. It's the
same with the suicide rate: Switzerland has a very high suicide rate
using firearms, as well as a high rate of murders using firearms,
because it is easier to kill yourself with a gun than by other means.
Is this really so difficult to understand? Don't you know that this
very subject is debated in Switzerland itself:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2709342,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf

Switzerland's the only country that requires its soldiers to keep guns
at home. But concerns over high suicide rates and killings within
families have caused some to ask whether having them there is simply
too dangerous.

The only country with a higher rate of suicide with guns than
Switzerland is the United States. And it's not just suicide: every
month or so, a Swiss man turns his gun on his family. The country has
the highest rate of domestic violence using guns in Europe.

"This only happened because the gun was right here at home," she said.
"My husband wouldn't have gone out looking for one. If the gun hadn't
been here I think he'd still be alive."

> Secondly, guns offer the weak and frail the capacity to threaten the
> young and strong. Thus acting as a deterent to would be assailants,
> who would have otherwise been relatively invulnerable in such
> circumstances.

This is more nonsense - do you seriously believe this CRAP? The idea
behind gun control is to restict the supply of guns so that even those
members of society who are potentially "assailants", i.e. criminals,
cannot obtain them anyway. Anything that involves *increasing* the gun
supply is going to result in more gun crime - it's very disappointing
that you are unable to grasp this very basic point.

Why don't you just answer the fucking question: why does Switzerland,
the country with the second highest gun ownership rate in the world,
have the second highest murder rate *with firearms* and suicide rate
*with firearms* in the world? Why is that? Are you gonna answer the
fucking question? How does the data I presented fit into your dogma
about liberalised gun ownership being a good thing? It clearly shows
that the more guns around, the more gun crime/suicides committed. The
"other means" argument only holds true if it is just as easy to kill
someone by other means than with a gun, but this clearly isn't the
case.

> So clearly, P(other


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 10:03:26
From: robin
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 17:24, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 15:52, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You are completely missing the point. A 20 year old man does not need
> > a gun to mug the average elderly person. In the UK there are an
> > appalling number of vicious crimes against the elderly, often
> > resulting in injury or death. A gun would not guarantee that an
> > elderly person would fight of an young fit person. Clearly, the young
> > fit person will still have the advantage, even if the elderly person
> > is armed. Without guns, however, the young person has a pretty much
> > 100% chance of pulling of the mugging/assault/murder with no risk of
> > injury.
>
> Yes, so let's just give out more and more guns. Great idea. I can't
> believe that there are people in this NG actually foolish enough to
> believe that the relationship between gun availability and crime is
> actually inverse: the more guns around, the less crime. We've truly
> come full circle.

Why don't you answer the *actual* point I was making in the post you
are responding to, rather than engaging in this childish strawman.


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 10:00:12
From: robin
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 17:22, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 16:00, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not at all. Clearly, if guns are freely available, and someone is
> > going to commit a homicide, they are more likely to use a gun.
>
> Correct. Which is why it makes more sense to have *less* guns around
> rather than more. I thought this would be obvious but no-one in this
> NG seems able to grasp the point.
>
> > However, it makes no difference to the quality of life in a country
> > whether homicides are carried out using guns, knifes or blunt
> > instruments. What matters is the overall homicide rate.
>
> That isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing the link between
> the availability of guns (i.e. the degree of liberalisation of gun
> laws) and the affect of that on murder rates. The correct data set to
> look at is NOT the overall homicide rate but the number of homicides
> committed *using guns*. Why would the overall homcide rate be a more
> valid measure when it includes murders that were committed via means
> *in addition* to guns i.e. stabbings, strangluation, whatever? Clearly
> the best measure of what we're discussing is *specifcially* the murder
> rate *using* firearms and I don't see how any rational person could
> disagree with this.
>
> The murder rate using firearms is a *subset* of the overall murder
> rate and is therefore the data that is most relevant to the
> discussion.
>
> >Are people
> > more likely to commit homicide in the first place, if guns are more
> > freely available. Clearly, the liberal gun laws in Switzerland have
> > not lead to a high homicide rate, since Switzerland has a low homicide
> > rate - lower than the UK.
>
> Only if you are including all means of killing someone, which as
> already explained is NOT the most valid data set. Please explain to me
> why the murder rate *using firearms* in Switzerland is five times
> higher than that of the UK? Does anyone have any idea as to why this
> might be?
>
> > assaults. Certainly, the UK, which has very tight gun controls, is a
> > pit of depravity when it comes to violent crime - by far the worst in
> > the developed world, nearly twice that of even the US.
>
> Right, so by your absurd "logic" - if we can even call it logic - the
> UK's strict gun laws have made no difference to their rates of violent
> crime, yet their murder rate using guns is 5 times lower than that of
> Switzerland.
>
> It also doesn't seem to have occured to you that Switzerland's overall
> homicide rate is likely to be even lower if they had gun laws that
> were as strict as the UK's i.e. Switzerland has a very low (lower than
> the UK) overall homicide rate but a comparatively high (higher than
> the UK) homicide rate *using guns*. If they could reduce the latter
> then the former would also be even lower, get it?

No, that does not follow.

Let P(homicide) be the chance of getting murdered.
Let P(gun) be the chance of getting murdered with a gun.
Let P(other) be the chance of getting murdered by other means.

Clearly P(gun


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 09:57:11
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 17:24, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 15:52, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You are completely missing the point. A 20 year old man does not need
> > a gun to mug the average elderly person. In the UK there are an
> > appalling number of vicious crimes against the elderly, often
> > resulting in injury or death. A gun would not guarantee that an
> > elderly person would fight of an young fit person. Clearly, the young
> > fit person will still have the advantage, even if the elderly person
> > is armed. Without guns, however, the young person has a pretty much
> > 100% chance of pulling of the mugging/assault/murder with no risk of
> > injury.
>
> Yes, so let's just give out more and more guns. Great idea. I can't
> believe that there are people in this NG actually foolish enough to
> believe that the relationship between gun availability and crime is
> actually inverse: the more guns around, the less crime. We've truly
> come full circle.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

Argument

Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high
gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a
high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for
gun regulation than gun liberalization.

Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more
heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that
most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in
case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic,
military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their
issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly
accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in
that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually
discovered by the authorities.

As for civilian weapons, the cantons (states) issue licenses for
handgun purchases on a "must issue" basis. Most, but not all, cantons
require handgun registration. Any ammunition bought on the private
market is also registered. Ammunition can be bought unregistered at
government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, one must use all
the ammunition at the range. (Unfortunately, this law is not really
enforced, and gives Swiss gun owners a way to collect unregistered
ammunition.) Because so many people own rifles, there is no regulation
on carrying them, but 15 of the 26 cantons have regulations on
carrying handguns.

Despite these regulations, Switzerland has the second highest handgun
ownership and handgun murder rate in the industrialized world. A
review of the statistics:

Percent of households with a handgun, 1991 (1)

United States 29%
Switzerland 14
Finland 7
Germany 7
Belgium 6
France 6
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Australia 2
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom 1

Handgun murders (1992) (2)

Handgun 1992 Handgun Murder
Country Murders Population Rate (per 100,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------
United States 13,429 254,521,000 5.28
Switzerland 97 6,828,023 1.42
Canada 128 27,351,509 0.47
Sweden 36 8,602,157 0.42
Australia 13 17,576,354 0.07
United Kingdom 33 57,797,514 0.06
Japan 60 124,460,481 0.05

By contrast, Germany, France, Canada, Great Britain and Japan have
virtually banned handguns and assault weapons to the general public.


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 09:24:49
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 15:52, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:

> You are completely missing the point. A 20 year old man does not need
> a gun to mug the average elderly person. In the UK there are an
> appalling number of vicious crimes against the elderly, often
> resulting in injury or death. A gun would not guarantee that an
> elderly person would fight of an young fit person. Clearly, the young
> fit person will still have the advantage, even if the elderly person
> is armed. Without guns, however, the young person has a pretty much
> 100% chance of pulling of the mugging/assault/murder with no risk of
> injury.

Yes, so let's just give out more and more guns. Great idea. I can't
believe that there are people in this NG actually foolish enough to
believe that the relationship between gun availability and crime is
actually inverse: the more guns around, the less crime. We've truly
come full circle.



  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 09:22:18
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns

On 15 Feb, 16:00, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:

> Not at all. Clearly, if guns are freely available, and someone is
> going to commit a homicide, they are more likely to use a gun.

Correct. Which is why it makes more sense to have *less* guns around
rather than more. I thought this would be obvious but no-one in this
NG seems able to grasp the point.

> However, it makes no difference to the quality of life in a country
> whether homicides are carried out using guns, knifes or blunt
> instruments. What matters is the overall homicide rate.

That isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing the link between
the availability of guns (i.e. the degree of liberalisation of gun
laws) and the affect of that on murder rates. The correct data set to
look at is NOT the overall homicide rate but the number of homicides
committed *using guns*. Why would the overall homcide rate be a more
valid measure when it includes murders that were committed via means
*in addition* to guns i.e. stabbings, strangluation, whatever? Clearly
the best measure of what we're discussing is *specifcially* the murder
rate *using* firearms and I don't see how any rational person could
disagree with this.

The murder rate using firearms is a *subset* of the overall murder
rate and is therefore the data that is most relevant to the
discussion.

>Are people
> more likely to commit homicide in the first place, if guns are more
> freely available. Clearly, the liberal gun laws in Switzerland have
> not lead to a high homicide rate, since Switzerland has a low homicide
> rate - lower than the UK.

Only if you are including all means of killing someone, which as
already explained is NOT the most valid data set. Please explain to me
why the murder rate *using firearms* in Switzerland is five times
higher than that of the UK? Does anyone have any idea as to why this
might be?

> assaults. Certainly, the UK, which has very tight gun controls, is a
> pit of depravity when it comes to violent crime - by far the worst in
> the developed world, nearly twice that of even the US.

Right, so by your absurd "logic" - if we can even call it logic - the
UK's strict gun laws have made no difference to their rates of violent
crime, yet their murder rate using guns is 5 times lower than that of
Switzerland.

It also doesn't seem to have occured to you that Switzerland's overall
homicide rate is likely to be even lower if they had gun laws that
were as strict as the UK's i.e. Switzerland has a very low (lower than
the UK) overall homicide rate but a comparatively high (higher than
the UK) homicide rate *using guns*. If they could reduce the latter
then the former would also be even lower, get it?


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 09:12:30
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 15, 4:00=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 10:04, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 13 Feb, 22:00, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, Switzerland would be a good counter case - very liberal gun laws
> > > and low homicide rate.
>
> > No - Switzerland is NOT a "good counter case" as by looking
> > (presumably) at the overall homicide rate, you are looking at the
> > wrong data. The correct data set is specifically the Homicide rate
> > *using guns* and in the case of Switzerland the murder rate with
> > firearms in Switzerland is 0.00534117 per 1,000 people, which is about
> > five times that in the UK. Could it be higher because Switzerland has
> > more liberal guns laws? I wonder..........
>
> >http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murder...
>
> Not at all. Clearly, if guns are freely available, and someone is
> going to commit a homicide, they are more likely to use a gun.
> However, it makes no difference to the quality of life in a country
> whether homicides are carried out using guns, knifes or blunt
> instruments. What matters is the overall homicide rate. Are people
> more likely to commit homicide in the first place, if guns are more
> freely available. Clearly, the liberal gun laws in Switzerland have
> not lead to a high homicide rate, since Switzerland has a low homicide
> rate - lower than the UK.
>
> 'Fan' also raises the very good point; the fact that the average
> citizen may be armed can serve as a deterent to muggings and random
> assaults. Certainly, the UK, which has very tight gun controls, is a
> pit of depravity when it comes to violent crime - by far the worst in
> the developed world, nearly twice that of even the US.

Yes in the UK I would advocate only allowing plastic cutlery, banning
glass bottles, banning air rifles, keeping guns banned, chopping off
the arms of people who fight in pubs, locking up people who are drunk
in the streets, and throwing people caught with knives on them to the
lions. Only then will we be safe.

-------- Only joking, but yes the UK is SHIT.


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 09:09:21
From: Fan
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 15, 5:00=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:

> 'Fan' also raises the very good point; the fact that the average
> citizen may be armed can serve as a deterent to muggings and random
> assaults. Certainly, the UK, which has very tight gun controls, is a
> pit of depravity when it comes to violent crime - by far the worst in
> the developed world, nearly twice that of even the US.

I was advocating mostly for homeowner gun ownership, not for carrying
guns on the street. We had to move twice because the crime in our
neighborhood. Fortunately, we were young and with our rising income,
we could afford to move to a better neighborhoods. Many are not that
fortunate and spend their "golden" years living in terror of hoodlums
who might break into their homes and rob them, brutalize them and
murder them.

These people should all purchase handguns for home protection and
learn to use it. The homeowner would have the element of surprise and
that would be enough to eliminate the intruder. A word of caution from
the movie =93The Good, the Bad and the Ugly=94; =93If you=92re gonna shoot,
shoot! Don=92t talk.=94

In some states, the state does not even charge the homeowner who
shoots an intruder.




  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 08:00:19
From: robin
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 10:04, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 13 Feb, 22:00, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, Switzerland would be a good counter case - very liberal gun laws
> > and low homicide rate.
>
> No - Switzerland is NOT a "good counter case" as by looking
> (presumably) at the overall homicide rate, you are looking at the
> wrong data. The correct data set is specifically the Homicide rate
> *using guns* and in the case of Switzerland the murder rate with
> firearms in Switzerland is 0.00534117 per 1,000 people, which is about
> five times that in the UK. Could it be higher because Switzerland has
> more liberal guns laws? I wonder..........
>
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murder...

Not at all. Clearly, if guns are freely available, and someone is
going to commit a homicide, they are more likely to use a gun.
However, it makes no difference to the quality of life in a country
whether homicides are carried out using guns, knifes or blunt
instruments. What matters is the overall homicide rate. Are people
more likely to commit homicide in the first place, if guns are more
freely available. Clearly, the liberal gun laws in Switzerland have
not lead to a high homicide rate, since Switzerland has a low homicide
rate - lower than the UK.

'Fan' also raises the very good point; the fact that the average
citizen may be armed can serve as a deterent to muggings and random
assaults. Certainly, the UK, which has very tight gun controls, is a
pit of depravity when it comes to violent crime - by far the worst in
the developed world, nearly twice that of even the US.


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 07:52:38
From: robin
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 13:06, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 12:54=A0pm, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 1:45=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 15, 10:41=A0am, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 15 Feb, 10:33, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
>
> > > > That might be true in the U.S where guns are already much more easi=
ly
> > > > accessible, but this argument doesn't hold in countries such as the=
UK
> > > > which have always had much stricter gun control. IOW, your argument=
is
> > > > valid in places where liberal gun laws are present but isn't a vali=
d
> > > > argument for introducing liberal gun laws in countries that don't
> > > > currently have them e.g. UK (where homicide rate with guns is far
> > > > lower than both Switzerland and U.S - see data I posted earlier).
>
> > > Yes most of the most serious crimes that take place within the UK ---
> > > such as rapes and murders and even robberies generally happen without
> > > guns.
>
> > Criminals are brutes and do not need guns against elderly citizen. It
> > is the less physical elderly citizens who would be well served if they
> > owned and knew how to use handguns.
>
> until the gun got turned on them you mean? don't be stupid.

You are completely missing the point. A 20 year old man does not need
a gun to mug the average elderly person. In the UK there are an
appalling number of vicious crimes against the elderly, often
resulting in injury or death. A gun would not guarantee that an
elderly person would fight of an young fit person. Clearly, the young
fit person will still have the advantage, even if the elderly person
is armed. Without guns, however, the young person has a pretty much
100% chance of pulling of the mugging/assault/murder with no risk of
injury.



  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 05:30:54
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 12:45, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Yes most of the most serious crimes that take place within the UK ---
> such as rapes and murders and even robberies generally happen without
> guns.

Yes, funny how lovely, peaceful Switzerland has low all-round crime
rates apart from the rate of crimes committed with guns. Someone might
come to the conclusion that this may be related to their liberal gun
laws.......but no..... this is clearly nonsense.



  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 05:29:04
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 12:54, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Criminals are brutes and do not need guns against elderly citizen. It
> is the less physical elderly citizens who would be well served if they
> owned and knew how to use handguns.- Hide quoted text -

lol


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 05:06:35
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 15, 12:54=A0pm, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 1:45=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 10:41=A0am, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 15 Feb, 10:33, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
>
> > > That might be true in the U.S where guns are already much more easily
> > > accessible, but this argument doesn't hold in countries such as the U=
K
> > > which have always had much stricter gun control. IOW, your argument i=
s
> > > valid in places where liberal gun laws are present but isn't a valid
> > > argument for introducing liberal gun laws in countries that don't
> > > currently have them e.g. UK (where homicide rate with guns is far
> > > lower than both Switzerland and U.S - see data I posted earlier).
>
> > Yes most of the most serious crimes that take place within the UK ---
> > such as rapes and murders and even robberies generally happen without
> > guns.
>
> Criminals are brutes and do not need guns against elderly citizen. It
> is the less physical elderly citizens who would be well served if they
> owned and knew how to use handguns.

until the gun got turned on them you mean? don't be stupid.


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 04:54:47
From: Fan
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 15, 1:45=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 10:41=A0am, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 15 Feb, 10:33, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
>
> > That might be true in the U.S where guns are already much more easily
> > accessible, but this argument doesn't hold in countries such as the UK
> > which have always had much stricter gun control. IOW, your argument is
> > valid in places where liberal gun laws are present but isn't a valid
> > argument for introducing liberal gun laws in countries that don't
> > currently have them e.g. UK (where homicide rate with guns is far
> > lower than both Switzerland and U.S - see data I posted earlier).
>
> Yes most of the most serious crimes that take place within the UK ---
> such as rapes and murders and even robberies generally happen without
> guns.

Criminals are brutes and do not need guns against elderly citizen. It
is the less physical elderly citizens who would be well served if they
owned and knew how to use handguns.


   
Date: 15 Feb 2009 19:46:09
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns

"Fan" <TurnagainArm@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:debc9fe0-7524-44d2-a552-6ba31b3916c7@41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 15, 1:45 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 10:41 am, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 15 Feb, 10:33, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
>
> > That might be true in the U.S where guns are already much more easily
> > accessible, but this argument doesn't hold in countries such as the UK
> > which have always had much stricter gun control. IOW, your argument is
> > valid in places where liberal gun laws are present but isn't a valid
> > argument for introducing liberal gun laws in countries that don't
> > currently have them e.g. UK (where homicide rate with guns is far
> > lower than both Switzerland and U.S - see data I posted earlier).
>
> Yes most of the most serious crimes that take place within the UK ---
> such as rapes and murders and even robberies generally happen without
> guns.

>Criminals are brutes and do not need guns against elderly citizen. It
>is the less physical elderly citizens who would be well served if they
>owned and knew how to use handguns.


wtf is are we in the wild west or 21st century?




  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 04:45:39
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 15, 10:41=A0am, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 10:33, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
>
> That might be true in the U.S where guns are already much more easily
> accessible, but this argument doesn't hold in countries such as the UK
> which have always had much stricter gun control. IOW, your argument is
> valid in places where liberal gun laws are present but isn't a valid
> argument for introducing liberal gun laws in countries that don't
> currently have them e.g. UK (where homicide rate with guns is far
> lower than both Switzerland and U.S - see data I posted earlier).

Yes most of the most serious crimes that take place within the UK ---
such as rapes and murders and even robberies generally happen without
guns.


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 02:41:27
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 10:33, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

That might be true in the U.S where guns are already much more easily
accessible, but this argument doesn't hold in countries such as the UK
which have always had much stricter gun control. IOW, your argument is
valid in places where liberal gun laws are present but isn't a valid
argument for introducing liberal gun laws in countries that don't
currently have them e.g. UK (where homicide rate with guns is far
lower than both Switzerland and U.S - see data I posted earlier).





  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 02:33:59
From: Fan
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 14, 2:38=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> > And actually if you think about it logically, having a culture of gun-
> > ownership puts people in more danger from the so-called "bad guys."
> > For example if you were a criminal in Europe and decided to burgal a
> > house you wouldn't feel compelled to take a gun with you since you
> > would know that those who lived in whereever you were burgling would
> > not have one.
>
> > Same scenario in the U-S --- The burglar would feel they need a gun
> > because the homeowner would have one --- thus both the criminal and
> > civillian are in greater danger even if you think this is 'self-
> > defence.'
>
> Sure, but the burglar might change his mind about burgling if he
> suspected the victim has a gun & could kill him.

This is very true! Almost no mention is ever made of crimes and
murders prevented by law-abiding citizens who own guns. Criminals use
guns and criminals are better with knives and other weapons than
ordinary citizens are. It is especially true for older citizens living
alone. The criminals may beat them or stab them to death if they do
not find enough to steal.
My advice to anyone concerned with his/her safety is to purchase a
handgun and use it against those who break into their homes. It is
better to go to prison for killing a criminal who breaks into your
home than to have the criminal murder you and your family.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.


   
Date: 15 Feb 2009 22:10:36
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
Fan wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2:38 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Professor X wrote:
>>> And actually if you think about it logically, having a culture of gun-
>>> ownership puts people in more danger from the so-called "bad guys."
>>> For example if you were a criminal in Europe and decided to burgal a
>>> house you wouldn't feel compelled to take a gun with you since you
>>> would know that those who lived in whereever you were burgling would
>>> not have one.
>>> Same scenario in the U-S --- The burglar would feel they need a gun
>>> because the homeowner would have one --- thus both the criminal and
>>> civillian are in greater danger even if you think this is 'self-
>>> defence.'
>> Sure, but the burglar might change his mind about burgling if he
>> suspected the victim has a gun & could kill him.
>
> This is very true! Almost no mention is ever made of crimes and
> murders prevented by law-abiding citizens who own guns. Criminals use
> guns and criminals are better with knives and other weapons than
> ordinary citizens are. It is especially true for older citizens living
> alone. The criminals may beat them or stab them to death if they do
> not find enough to steal.
> My advice to anyone concerned with his/her safety is to purchase a
> handgun and use it against those who break into their homes. It is
> better to go to prison for killing a criminal who breaks into your
> home than to have the criminal murder you and your family.
> When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.


Generally agree with the concept, but luckily I don't live in a crime
area where that's an issue.



   
Date: 15 Feb 2009 10:59:39
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 02:33:59 -0800 (PST), Fan
<TurnagainArm@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 14, 2:38 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Professor X wrote:
>> > And actually if you think about it logically, having a culture of gun-
>> > ownership puts people in more danger from the so-called "bad guys."
>> > For example if you were a criminal in Europe and decided to burgal a
>> > house you wouldn't feel compelled to take a gun with you since you
>> > would know that those who lived in whereever you were burgling would
>> > not have one.
>>
>> > Same scenario in the U-S --- The burglar would feel they need a gun
>> > because the homeowner would have one --- thus both the criminal and
>> > civillian are in greater danger even if you think this is 'self-
>> > defence.'
>>
>> Sure, but the burglar might change his mind about burgling if he
>> suspected the victim has a gun & could kill him.
>
>This is very true! Almost no mention is ever made of crimes and
>murders prevented by law-abiding citizens who own guns. Criminals use
>guns and criminals are better with knives and other weapons than
>ordinary citizens are. It is especially true for older citizens living
>alone. The criminals may beat them or stab them to death if they do
>not find enough to steal.
>My advice to anyone concerned with his/her safety is to purchase a
>handgun and use it against those who break into their homes. It is
>better to go to prison for killing a criminal who breaks into your
>home than to have the criminal murder you and your family.
>When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

3 rotweillers work. my friend has a fenced compound and let's them
roam free. nobody ever bothers him. no salesmen or tax collectors
either. and, everybody calls him "sir".


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 02:04:23
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 13 Feb, 22:00, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:

> Yes, Switzerland would be a good counter case - very liberal gun laws
> and low homicide rate.

No - Switzerland is NOT a "good counter case" as by looking
(presumably) at the overall homicide rate, you are looking at the
wrong data. The correct data set is specifically the Homicide rate
*using guns* and in the case of Switzerland the murder rate with
firearms in Switzerland is 0.00534117 per 1,000 people, which is about
five times that in the UK. Could it be higher because Switzerland has
more liberal guns laws? I wonder..........

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-fi


  
Date: 14 Feb 2009 03:50:47
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 14, 5:45=A0am, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid > wrote:
> Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> >> > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good
> >> > people need the means to defend themselves. I think everyone on
> >> > RST will agree with me!
> >> You are a moron.
> >> so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have
> >> handguns... moron,
> >> It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the
> >> level of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious
> >> too.
>
> That is an oversimplification. Gun related deaths are not
> necessarily a crime. If only bad guys have guns, there will be a
> very high percentage of gun related crimes. If people are allowed to
> defend themselves with guns, there will be a significant number of
> shootings in self-defense.
>
> > p.s that's just murders, imagine how many extra shootings their
> > are and how much more gun-related crime their must be in the U.S.A
> > too.
>
> So you call the other guy a moron, and you do not know that the word
> "their" is possessive. Even my speech recognition using a stupid
> computer program gets it right. The word "there" refers to a place.
> How to avoid that mistake? To begin with, I would try using fewer
> iterations of "there are" since it sounds cheap anyway.
>
> --
> Are you a blissfully ignorant voter? Do you buy stuff made by
> faceless workers you will never meet or even chat with on the
> Internet? Your fellow citizen, not a politician, will safeguard
> democracy. Base trade on natural resources, not slave labor.


> That is an oversimplification. Gun related deaths are not
> necessarily a crime. If only bad guys have guns, there will be a
> very high percentage of gun related crimes. If people are allowed to
> defend themselves with guns, there will be a significant number of
> shootings in self-defense.

NO NO NO!! The statistics I presented were not "deaths arising from
the use of a gun" but HOMICIDES commited with a gun, i'm sure that if
a stat for just "gun related deaths" existed, then the figure would be
far higher, because of: Suicide, self defence, and from law
enforcement e.t.c e.t.c.
But my point is that most European countries do not allow guns and
have far lower rates of gun-crime, I don't see how you can argue
against that.

And actually if you think about it logically, having a culture of gun-
ownership puts people in more danger from the so-called "bad guys."
For example if you were a criminal in Europe and decided to burgal a
house you wouldn't feel compelled to take a gun with you since you
would know that those who lived in whereever you were burgling would
not have one.

Same scenario in the U-S --- The burglar would feel they need a gun
because the homeowner would have one --- thus both the criminal and
civillian are in greater danger even if you think this is 'self-
defence.'


   
Date: 15 Feb 2009 00:38:03
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
Professor X wrote:
> And actually if you think about it logically, having a culture of gun-
> ownership puts people in more danger from the so-called "bad guys."
> For example if you were a criminal in Europe and decided to burgal a
> house you wouldn't feel compelled to take a gun with you since you
> would know that those who lived in whereever you were burgling would
> not have one.
>
> Same scenario in the U-S --- The burglar would feel they need a gun
> because the homeowner would have one --- thus both the criminal and
> civillian are in greater danger even if you think this is 'self-
> defence.'


Sure, but the burglar might change his mind about burgling if he
suspected the victim has a gun & could kill him.



   
Date: 14 Feb 2009 12:29:25
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
"Professor X" <suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:8b75ff6a-5c6f-464f-92d2-98a6a49164d8@p13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 14, 5:45 am, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid > wrote:
> Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> >> > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good
> >> > people need the means to defend themselves. I think everyone on
> >> > RST will agree with me!
> >> You are a moron.
> >> so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have
> >> handguns... moron,
> >> It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the
> >> level of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious
> >> too.
>
> That is an oversimplification. Gun related deaths are not
> necessarily a crime. If only bad guys have guns, there will be a
> very high percentage of gun related crimes. If people are allowed to
> defend themselves with guns, there will be a significant number of
> shootings in self-defense.
>
> > p.s that's just murders, imagine how many extra shootings their
> > are and how much more gun-related crime their must be in the U.S.A
> > too.
>
> So you call the other guy a moron, and you do not know that the word
> "their" is possessive. Even my speech recognition using a stupid
> computer program gets it right. The word "there" refers to a place.
> How to avoid that mistake? To begin with, I would try using fewer
> iterations of "there are" since it sounds cheap anyway.
>
> --
> Are you a blissfully ignorant voter? Do you buy stuff made by
> faceless workers you will never meet or even chat with on the
> Internet? Your fellow citizen, not a politician, will safeguard
> democracy. Base trade on natural resources, not slave labor.


> That is an oversimplification. Gun related deaths are not
> necessarily a crime. If only bad guys have guns, there will be a
> very high percentage of gun related crimes. If people are allowed to
> defend themselves with guns, there will be a significant number of
> shootings in self-defense.

NO NO NO!! The statistics I presented were not "deaths arising from
the use of a gun" but HOMICIDES commited with a gun, i'm sure that if
a stat for just "gun related deaths" existed, then the figure would be
far higher, because of: Suicide, self defence, and from law
enforcement e.t.c e.t.c.
But my point is that most European countries do not allow guns and
have far lower rates of gun-crime, I don't see how you can argue
against that.

And actually if you think about it logically, having a culture of gun-
ownership puts people in more danger from the so-called "bad guys."
For example if you were a criminal in Europe and decided to burgal a
house you wouldn't feel compelled to take a gun with you since you
would know that those who lived in whereever you were burgling would
not have one.

Same scenario in the U-S --- The burglar would feel they need a gun
because the homeowner would have one --- thus both the criminal and
civillian are in greater danger even if you think this is 'self-
defence.'

****
No, unfortunately you're too naive/innocent to think like or know much about
criminals - it's proven they carry weapons because they know the victim
won't be armed, muggers wouldn't carry knives otherwise. This was proven by
that town where they mandated guns for every household(I forget the name)
and burglarly fell by 70% overnight.




  
Date: 14 Feb 2009 02:25:01
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 14 Feb, 09:39, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 10:29=A0pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 13 Feb, 22:14, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 13, 10:09=A0pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 13 Feb, 21:24, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 13 Feb, 21:09, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 13, 8:57=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good p=
eople need the
> > > > > > > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agre=
e with me!
>
> > > > > > You are a moron.
>
> > > > > > I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 ho=
micides
> > > > > > in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 millio=
n
>
> > > > > > (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>
> > > > > > In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 300=
00
> > > > > > homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 milli=
on
> > > > > > Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 i=
n a
> > > > > > million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are =
100x
> > > > > > more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>
> > > > > > so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handgun=
s...
> > > > > > moron,
>
> > > > > > It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the =
level
> > > > > > of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>
> > > > > The UK may have relatively low gun crime, but it does have a mass=
ive
> > > > > problem with violent crime, in general.
>
> > > > > chance of being a victim of violent assault (united nations repor=
t) -
> > > > > UK worst in developed world...
> > > > > 1.2 % in America
> > > > > 0.1 % in Japan
> > > > > 0.2 % in Italy
> > > > > 0.8 % in Austria
> > > > > England and Wales 2.8 %.
> > > > > Scotland 3 %
>
> > > > I think uk has the highest rate of underage pregnancies too , at le=
ast
> > > > in Europe .
>
> > > > A 13 yr old became a father yesterday - apparently hes going to rai=
se
> > > > his own kid with his pocket money..
>
> > > > If you ask me a lot of its to do with alcohol and this negative
> > > > supressed attitude that turns into violence when they fold to peer
> > > > pressure or simply go on an ego trip.
>
> > > > Some poor nations turn to sport - uk turns to shite instead ..
>
> > > > amen
>
> > > yo give me a glasgow handshake!
>
> > > Yes and we even glorify it, hence we have programs called "booze
> > > britain" and "britains toughest pubs" that glamorise the scum of
> > > society.
>
> > Dont forget =A0X-factor or Gordon Ramsay
>
> I like gordan/gordon/gorden, i can't spell his first name ramsey, but
> simon cowell is a douche.

I like Flash Gordon but Gordon R just a ned in chefs clothing .

His insults on staff are bit tiresome and weary like Whisper 10 yrs
ago..

It would be funnier if he went into celebrities homes and insulted
their cooking - oops , theres another reality show..


  
Date: 14 Feb 2009 01:39:03
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 13, 10:29=A0pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 13 Feb, 22:14, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 10:09=A0pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 13 Feb, 21:24, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 13 Feb, 21:09, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 13, 8:57=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good peo=
ple need the
> > > > > > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree =
with me!
>
> > > > > You are a moron.
>
> > > > > I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homi=
cides
> > > > > in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>
> > > > > (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>
> > > > > In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
> > > > > homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
> > > > > Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in =
a
> > > > > million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 10=
0x
> > > > > more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>
> > > > > so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns.=
..
> > > > > moron,
>
> > > > > It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the le=
vel
> > > > > of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>
> > > > The UK may have relatively low gun crime, but it does have a massiv=
e
> > > > problem with violent crime, in general.
>
> > > > chance of being a victim of violent assault (united nations report)=
-
> > > > UK worst in developed world...
> > > > 1.2 % in America
> > > > 0.1 % in Japan
> > > > 0.2 % in Italy
> > > > 0.8 % in Austria
> > > > England and Wales 2.8 %.
> > > > Scotland 3 %
>
> > > I think uk has the highest rate of underage pregnancies too , at leas=
t
> > > in Europe .
>
> > > A 13 yr old became a father yesterday - apparently hes going to raise
> > > his own kid with his pocket money..
>
> > > If you ask me a lot of its to do with alcohol and this negative
> > > supressed attitude that turns into violence when they fold to peer
> > > pressure or simply go on an ego trip.
>
> > > Some poor nations turn to sport - uk turns to shite instead ..
>
> > > amen
>
> > yo give me a glasgow handshake!
>
> > Yes and we even glorify it, hence we have programs called "booze
> > britain" and "britains toughest pubs" that glamorise the scum of
> > society.
>
> Dont forget =A0X-factor or Gordon Ramsay

I like gordan/gordon/gorden, i can't spell his first name ramsey, but
simon cowell is a douche.


  
Date: 14 Feb 2009 04:20:58
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 13, 8:57 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>> Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people
>> need the means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will
>> agree with me!
>
> You are a moron.
>
> I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicides
> in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>
> (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>
> In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
> homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
> Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
> million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
> more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>
> so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
> moron,
>
> It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
> of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.


Well said Professor.




  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 15:18:26
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 13 Feb, 22:29, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 13 Feb, 22:14, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 10:09=A0pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 13 Feb, 21:24, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 13 Feb, 21:09, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 13, 8:57=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good peo=
ple need the
> > > > > > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree =
with me!
>
> > > > > You are a moron.
>
> > > > > I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homi=
cides
> > > > > in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>
> > > > > (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>
> > > > > In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
> > > > > homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
> > > > > Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in =
a
> > > > > million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 10=
0x
> > > > > more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>
> > > > > so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns.=
..
> > > > > moron,
>
> > > > > It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the le=
vel
> > > > > of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>
> > > > The UK may have relatively low gun crime, but it does have a massiv=
e
> > > > problem with violent crime, in general.
>
> > > > chance of being a victim of violent assault (united nations report)=
-
> > > > UK worst in developed world...
> > > > 1.2 % in America
> > > > 0.1 % in Japan
> > > > 0.2 % in Italy
> > > > 0.8 % in Austria
> > > > England and Wales 2.8 %.
> > > > Scotland 3 %
>
> > > I think uk has the highest rate of underage pregnancies too , at leas=
t
> > > in Europe .
>
> > > A 13 yr old became a father yesterday - apparently hes going to raise
> > > his own kid with his pocket money..
>
> > > If you ask me a lot of its to do with alcohol and this negative
> > > supressed attitude that turns into violence when they fold to peer
> > > pressure or simply go on an ego trip.
>
> > > Some poor nations turn to sport - uk turns to shite instead ..
>
> > > amen
>
> > yo give me a glasgow handshake!
>
> > Yes and we even glorify it, hence we have programs called "booze
> > britain" and "britains toughest pubs" that glamorise the scum of
> > society.
>
> Dont forget =A0X-factor or Gordon Ramsay

Oh one more thing they really need here is death penalty .

I vote use criminals in labs instead of innocent animals , if you saw
what they did to them youd see why..


  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 14:34:03
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 13, 5:08=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:

> Oh well. "There is" is a structure that has nothing to do with the
> word "there" that has to do with a place. But I am not going to teach
> basic English to an English professor more closely...

1. "Their is" is simply an error. Many people have trouble
distinguishing homophones, and bad spelling results. It's the same
with you're/your and it's/its.

2. "There is" and "there are" are common ways of referring to the
basic existence of something. In Spanish, the equivalent would be the
verb "hay." As you note, this usage is essentially unrelated to the
meaning of "there" as a reference to location. "There" has many uses
in English, however, and most of them do not relate to a literal
concept of place. For example, the expression "there's the rub" (e.g.,
in "Hamlet") means "that is the problem." It does not refer to a
place.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 14:29:25
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 13 Feb, 22:14, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 10:09=A0pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 13 Feb, 21:24, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 13 Feb, 21:09, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 13, 8:57=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good peopl=
e need the
> > > > > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree wi=
th me!
>
> > > > You are a moron.
>
> > > > I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homici=
des
> > > > in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>
> > > > (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>
> > > > In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
> > > > homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
> > > > Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
> > > > million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
> > > > more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>
> > > > so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
> > > > moron,
>
> > > > It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the leve=
l
> > > > of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>
> > > The UK may have relatively low gun crime, but it does have a massive
> > > problem with violent crime, in general.
>
> > > chance of being a victim of violent assault (united nations report) -
> > > UK worst in developed world...
> > > 1.2 % in America
> > > 0.1 % in Japan
> > > 0.2 % in Italy
> > > 0.8 % in Austria
> > > England and Wales 2.8 %.
> > > Scotland 3 %
>
> > I think uk has the highest rate of underage pregnancies too , at least
> > in Europe .
>
> > A 13 yr old became a father yesterday - apparently hes going to raise
> > his own kid with his pocket money..
>
> > If you ask me a lot of its to do with alcohol and this negative
> > supressed attitude that turns into violence when they fold to peer
> > pressure or simply go on an ego trip.
>
> > Some poor nations turn to sport - uk turns to shite instead ..
>
> > amen
>
> yo give me a glasgow handshake!
>
> Yes and we even glorify it, hence we have programs called "booze
> britain" and "britains toughest pubs" that glamorise the scum of
> society.

Dont forget X-factor or Gordon Ramsay


  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 14:14:20
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 13, 10:09=A0pm, ghell666 <matt.tip...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 13 Feb, 21:24, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 13 Feb, 21:09, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 13, 8:57=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people =
need the
> > > > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with=
me!
>
> > > You are a moron.
>
> > > I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicide=
s
> > > in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>
> > > (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>
> > > In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
> > > homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
> > > Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
> > > million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
> > > more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>
> > > so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
> > > moron,
>
> > > It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
> > > of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>
> > The UK may have relatively low gun crime, but it does have a massive
> > problem with violent crime, in general.
>
> > chance of being a victim of violent assault (united nations report) -
> > UK worst in developed world...
> > 1.2 % in America
> > 0.1 % in Japan
> > 0.2 % in Italy
> > 0.8 % in Austria
> > England and Wales 2.8 %.
> > Scotland 3 %
>
> I think uk has the highest rate of underage pregnancies too , at least
> in Europe .
>
> A 13 yr old became a father yesterday - apparently hes going to raise
> his own kid with his pocket money..
>
> If you ask me a lot of its to do with alcohol and this negative
> supressed attitude that turns into violence when they fold to peer
> pressure or simply go on an ego trip.
>
> Some poor nations turn to sport - uk turns to shite instead ..
>
> amen

yo give me a glasgow handshake!

Yes and we even glorify it, hence we have programs called "booze
britain" and "britains toughest pubs" that glamorise the scum of
society.


  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 14:12:17
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 13, 9:55=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c05c83a1-d7a1-48ee-9ab6-6aab43ed3ed5@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 9:09 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 8:57 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people ne=
ed
> > > the
> > > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with m=
e!
>
> > You are a moron.
>
> > I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicides
> > in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>
> > (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>
> > In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
> > homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
> > Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
> > million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
> > more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>
> > so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
> > moron,
>
> > It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
> > of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>
> >p.s that's just murders, imagine how many extra shootings their are
> >and how much more gun-related crime their must be in the U.S.A too.
>
> There isn't any correlation between gun ownership and gun crime, in fact
> almost every nation that has had more gun control introduced has seen gun
> crime rocket - the UK being one such case - when you make it legal for on=
ly
> crims to carry arms that's what happens. It's relative though really - in
> Switzerland AND Finland me thinks, you can own an automatic (beware of
> crossing Sakari/TT/Vari) and there was that town in yankland where they m=
ade
> it mandatory for every household to own a gun, burglary fell (almost
> overnight) by 70%.

their isn't any correlation between gun ownership and gun-crime, did I
SERIOUSLY just see you write that?
Can't be bothered to look up statistics but off the top of my head i'm
pretty sure that their were two pretty severe school shootings in
Finland within the last year or so. When was the last time that
happened in the UK?

And actually I would rather get stabbed simply because i'd imagine
you'd have a better chance of survival, although I am not sure.
Regardless, this may sound gross, but knowing a little bit about
physiology, it is ONLY your skin that FEELS. So if you got stabbed/
shot you wouldn't feel anything when it went through the skin.


   
Date: 14 Feb 2009 06:07:27
From: John Doe
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
Professor X <suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

> "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:

>> There isn't any correlation between gun ownership and gun crime,
>> in fact almost every nation that has had more gun control
>> introduced has seen gun crime rocket - the UK being one such case
>> - when you make it legal for only crims to carry arms that's what
>> happens. It's relative though really - in Switzerland AND Finland
>> me thinks, you can own an automatic (beware of crossing
>> Sakari/TT/Vari) and there was that town in yankland where they
>> made it mandatory for every household to own a gun, burglary fell
>> (almost overnight) by 70%.
>
> their isn't any correlation between gun ownership and gun-crime,
> did I SERIOUSLY just see you write that?

The correlation is probably the inverse. When you outlaw guns, only
outlaws have guns.

The state of New Hampshire (USA) has the lowest murder rate in the
country, and the second lowest rates of aggravated assaults and
burglaries. CQ based its rankings on FBI uniform crime reports from
the year 2006. Crime rates are based on incidents per 100,000
citizens.

http://www.alpinelakes.com/blog/2008/04/02/granite-state-is-the-
safest-place-to-live-in-the-nation/

New Hampshire also has the most liberal gun laws, you can carry a
loaded (unconcealed) handgun without a permit.

http://freestateblogs.net/nhgunfaq



--
Land Skis (rough terrain skates). The first rollerblades with a big
front wheel and small trailing wheels, to help roll over obstacles
while maintaining a low stance.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/3056505603


  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 14:09:33
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 13 Feb, 21:24, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 13 Feb, 21:09, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 8:57=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people ne=
ed the
> > > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with m=
e!
>
> > You are a moron.
>
> > I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicides
> > in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>
> > (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>
> > In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
> > homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
> > Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
> > million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
> > more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>
> > so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
> > moron,
>
> > It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
> > of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>
> The UK may have relatively low gun crime, but it does have a massive
> problem with violent crime, in general.
>
> chance of being a victim of violent assault (united nations report) -
> UK worst in developed world...
> 1.2 % in America
> 0.1 % in Japan
> 0.2 % in Italy
> 0.8 % in Austria
> England and Wales 2.8 %.
> Scotland 3 %

I think uk has the highest rate of underage pregnancies too , at least
in Europe .

A 13 yr old became a father yesterday - apparently hes going to raise
his own kid with his pocket money..

If you ask me a lot of its to do with alcohol and this negative
supressed attitude that turns into violence when they fold to peer
pressure or simply go on an ego trip.

Some poor nations turn to sport - uk turns to shite instead ..

amen


  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 14:07:44
From: Alex
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 13, 9:55=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c05c83a1-d7a1-48ee-9ab6-6aab43ed3ed5@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 9:09 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 8:57 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people ne=
ed
> > > the
> > > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with m=
e!
>
> > You are a moron.
>
> > I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicides
> > in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>
> > (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>
> > In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
> > homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
> > Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
> > million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
> > more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>
> > so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
> > moron,
>
> > It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
> > of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>
> >p.s that's just murders, imagine how many extra shootings their are
> >and how much more gun-related crime their must be in the U.S.A too.
>
> There isn't any correlation between gun ownership and gun crime, in fact
> almost every nation that has had more gun control introduced has seen gun
> crime rocket - the UK being one such case - when you make it legal for on=
ly
> crims to carry arms that's what happens. It's relative though really - in
> Switzerland AND Finland me thinks, you can own an automatic (beware of
> crossing Sakari/TT/Vari) and there was that town in yankland where they m=
ade
> it mandatory for every household to own a gun, burglary fell (almost
> overnight) by 70%.

their isn't any correlation between gun ownership and gun-crime, did I
SERIOUSLY just see you write that?
Can't be bothered to look up statistics but off the top of my head i'm
pretty sure that their were two pretty severe school shootings in
Finland within the last year or so. When was the last time that
happened in the UK?

And actually I would rather get stabbed simply because i'd imagine
you'd have a better chance of survival, although I am not sure.
Regardless, this may sound gross, but knowing a little bit about
physiology, it is ONLY your skin that FEELS. So if you got stabbed/
shot you wouldn't feel anything when it went through the skin.


  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 14:00:12
From: robin
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 13 Feb, 21:55, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c05c83a1-d7a1-48ee-9ab6-6aab43ed3ed5@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 9:09 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 8:57 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people need
> > > the
> > > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with me!
>
> > You are a moron.
>
> > I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicides
> > in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>
> > (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>
> > In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
> > homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
> > Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
> > million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
> > more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>
> > so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
> > moron,
>
> > It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
> > of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>
> >p.s that's just murders, imagine how many extra shootings their are
> >and how much more gun-related crime their must be in the U.S.A too.
>
> There isn't any correlation between gun ownership and gun crime, in fact
> almost every nation that has had more gun control introduced has seen gun
> crime rocket - the UK being one such case - when you make it legal for only
> crims to carry arms that's what happens. It's relative though really - in
> Switzerland AND Finland me thinks, you can own an automatic (beware of
> crossing Sakari/TT/Vari) and there was that town in yankland where they made
> it mandatory for every household to own a gun, burglary fell (almost
> overnight) by 70%.

Yes, Switzerland would be a good counter case - very liberal gun laws
and low homicide rate.


  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 13:58:42
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 13 Feb, 21:09, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 8:57=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people need=
the
> > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with me!
>
> You are a moron.
>
> I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicides
> in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>
> (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>
> In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
> homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
> Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
> million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
> more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>
> so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
> moron,
>
> It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
> of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.

Yea, but wouldnt you rather be shot than knifed ?



  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 13:48:06
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 13, 9:38=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:12:22 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
>
>
> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 13, 9:09=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 13, 8:57=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people n=
eed the
> >> > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with =
me!
>
> >> You are a moron.
>
> >> I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicides
> >> in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>
> >> (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>
> >> In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
> >> homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
> >> Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
> >> million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
> >> more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>
> >> so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
> >> moron,
>
> >> It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
> >> of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>
> >p.s that's just murders, imagine how many extra shootings their are
> >and how much more gun-related crime their must be in the U.S.A too.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what is it with this "their are" thing that I
> see in rst all the time? For someone like me who was learnt English at
> school, it seems absurd. It is not like it is the hardest thing in
> English language. There are (heh) many words in English that sound
> like each other, but nobody makes mistakes with them. So why so many
> with this? This is not to nitpick, I am just curious.

+ most people in Europe speak better English that those of us in
England.


  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 13:47:22
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 13, 9:38=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:12:22 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
>
>
> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 13, 9:09=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 13, 8:57=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people n=
eed the
> >> > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with =
me!
>
> >> You are a moron.
>
> >> I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicides
> >> in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>
> >> (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>
> >> In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
> >> homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
> >> Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
> >> million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
> >> more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>
> >> so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
> >> moron,
>
> >> It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
> >> of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>
> >p.s that's just murders, imagine how many extra shootings their are
> >and how much more gun-related crime their must be in the U.S.A too.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what is it with this "their are" thing that I
> see in rst all the time? For someone like me who was learnt English at
> school, it seems absurd. It is not like it is the hardest thing in
> English language. There are (heh) many words in English that sound
> like each other, but nobody makes mistakes with them. So why so many
> with this? This is not to nitpick, I am just curious.

I don't know I think it's because their are (lol) grey areas... It's
supposed to be

their -- when you are saying something belongs to several people ie:
"Their car was lovely" - possessive
there - to do with a place

however, who/what does 30,000 murders belong to? USA the place,
(there) or the people of the USA, their.

??

I don't know.


   
Date: 14 Feb 2009 00:08:00
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:47:22 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 13, 9:38 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:12:22 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>>
>>
>> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 13, 9:09 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 13, 8:57 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people need the
>> >> > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with me!
>>
>> >> You are a moron.
>>
>> >> I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicides
>> >> in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>>
>> >> (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>>
>> >> In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
>> >> homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
>> >> Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
>> >> million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
>> >> more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>>
>> >> so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
>> >> moron,
>>
>> >> It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
>> >> of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>>
>> >p.s that's just murders, imagine how many extra shootings their are
>> >and how much more gun-related crime their must be in the U.S.A too.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, what is it with this "their are" thing that I
>> see in rst all the time? For someone like me who was learnt English at
>> school, it seems absurd. It is not like it is the hardest thing in
>> English language. There are (heh) many words in English that sound
>> like each other, but nobody makes mistakes with them. So why so many
>> with this? This is not to nitpick, I am just curious.
>
>I don't know I think it's because their are (lol) grey areas... It's
>supposed to be
>
>their -- when you are saying something belongs to several people ie:
>"Their car was lovely" - possessive
>there - to do with a place
>
>however, who/what does 30,000 murders belong to? USA the place,
>(there) or the people of the USA, their.
>
>??
>
>I don't know.

Oh well. "There is" is a structure that has nothing to do with the
word "there" that has to do with a place. But I am not going to teach
basic English to an English professor more closely...






  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 13:33:22
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 13, 9:24=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 13 Feb, 21:09, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 8:57=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people ne=
ed the
> > > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with m=
e!
>
> > You are a moron.
>
> > I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicides
> > in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>
> > (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>
> > In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
> > homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
> > Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
> > million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
> > more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>
> > so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
> > moron,
>
> > It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
> > of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>
> The UK may have relatively low gun crime, but it does have a massive
> problem with violent crime, in general.
>
> chance of being a victim of violent assault (united nations report) -
> UK worst in developed world...
> 1.2 % in America
> 0.1 % in Japan
> 0.2 % in Italy
> 0.8 % in Austria
> England and Wales 2.8 %.
> Scotland 3 %

Yes i remember hearing that scotland was the most violent country in
the developed world a couple of years back w/england & wales second.
But yes, in that case we should be even more thankful that people DONT
have access to guns then!!!


  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 13:24:27
From: robin
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 13 Feb, 21:09, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 8:57=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people need=
the
> > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with me!
>
> You are a moron.
>
> I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicides
> in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>
> (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>
> In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
> homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
> Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
> million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
> more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>
> so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
> moron,
>
> It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
> of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.

The UK may have relatively low gun crime, but it does have a massive
problem with violent crime, in general.

chance of being a victim of violent assault (united nations report) -
UK worst in developed world...
1.2 % in America
0.1 % in Japan
0.2 % in Italy
0.8 % in Austria
England and Wales 2.8 %.
Scotland 3 %


  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 13:12:22
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Feb 13, 9:09=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 8:57=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people need=
the
> > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with me!
>
> You are a moron.
>
> I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicides
> in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>
> (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>
> In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
> homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
> Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
> million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
> more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>
> so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
> moron,
>
> It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
> of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.

p.s that's just murders, imagine how many extra shootings their are
and how much more gun-related crime their must be in the U.S.A too.


   
Date: 15 Feb 2009 10:33:10
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On 15 Feb, 18:03, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:

> Why don't you answer the *actual* point I was making in the post you
> are responding to, rather than engaging in this childish strawman.

It's honestly hard to believe that you are making such dumb arguments.
For a start, how would the assailant even know that the old person was
armed? For there to be a deterrent he would have to believe that there
was a reasonable chance that the old man was armed. Secondly, as has
been pointed out to you already, anything that involves increasing the
gun supply cannot possibly be a good thing, hence Switzerland with the
second highest gun ownership in the world and the second highest
murder/suicide rate using firearms, a fact you don't seem able to
address.


   
Date: 15 Feb 2009 10:06:13
From: Fan
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
Trying to separate handgun murders from other murders is a misuse of
statistics. Guns do not kill people. People kill people. Any gun
statistic should include not only the people killed by guns but also
the people who were not murdered because the intended victims
protected themselves with guns.


   
Date: 14 Feb 2009 05:45:25
From: John Doe
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
Professor X <suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:

>> > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good
>> > people need the means to defend themselves. I think everyone on
>> > RST will agree with me!

>> You are a moron.

>> so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have
>> handguns... moron,

>> It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the
>> level of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious
>> too.

That is an oversimplification. Gun related deaths are not
necessarily a crime. If only bad guys have guns, there will be a
very high percentage of gun related crimes. If people are allowed to
defend themselves with guns, there will be a significant number of
shootings in self-defense.

> p.s that's just murders, imagine how many extra shootings their
> are and how much more gun-related crime their must be in the U.S.A
> too.

So you call the other guy a moron, and you do not know that the word
"their" is possessive. Even my speech recognition using a stupid
computer program gets it right. The word "there" refers to a place.
How to avoid that mistake? To begin with, I would try using fewer
iterations of "there are" since it sounds cheap anyway.



--
Are you a blissfully ignorant voter? Do you buy stuff made by
faceless workers you will never meet or even chat with on the
Internet? Your fellow citizen, not a politician, will safeguard
democracy. Base trade on natural resources, not slave labor.


   
Date: 13 Feb 2009 21:55:50
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
"Professor X" <suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:c05c83a1-d7a1-48ee-9ab6-6aab43ed3ed5@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 13, 9:09 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 8:57 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people need
> > the
> > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with me!
>
> You are a moron.
>
> I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicides
> in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>
> (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>
> In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
> homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
> Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
> million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
> more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>
> so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
> moron,
>
> It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
> of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>
>p.s that's just murders, imagine how many extra shootings their are
>and how much more gun-related crime their must be in the U.S.A too.

There isn't any correlation between gun ownership and gun crime, in fact
almost every nation that has had more gun control introduced has seen gun
crime rocket - the UK being one such case - when you make it legal for only
crims to carry arms that's what happens. It's relative though really - in
Switzerland AND Finland me thinks, you can own an automatic (beware of
crossing Sakari/TT/Vari) and there was that town in yankland where they made
it mandatory for every household to own a gun, burglary fell (almost
overnight) by 70%.




    
Date: 14 Feb 2009 04:29:52
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
Iceberg wrote:
> "Professor X" <suebokaian@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c05c83a1-d7a1-48ee-9ab6-6aab43ed3ed5@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 9:09 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 8:57 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people
>>> need the
>>> means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with
>>> me!
>>
>> You are a moron.
>>
>> I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49
>> homicides in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60
>> million (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>>
>> In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
>> homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
>> Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
>> million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
>> more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>>
>> so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
>> moron,
>>
>> It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
>> of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>>
>> p.s that's just murders, imagine how many extra shootings their are
>> and how much more gun-related crime their must be in the U.S.A too.
>
> There isn't any correlation between gun ownership and gun crime, in
> fact almost every nation that has had more gun control introduced has
> seen gun crime rocket - the UK being one such case - when you make it
> legal for only crims to carry arms that's what happens.

What country legalised guns for criminals?




    
Date: 14 Feb 2009 00:15:26
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:55:50 GMT, "Iceberg"
<big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:

>"Professor X" <suebokaian@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:c05c83a1-d7a1-48ee-9ab6-6aab43ed3ed5@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>On Feb 13, 9:09 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 8:57 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people need
>> > the
>> > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with me!
>>
>> You are a moron.
>>
>> I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicides
>> in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>>
>> (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>>
>> In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
>> homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
>> Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
>> million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
>> more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>>
>> so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
>> moron,
>>
>> It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
>> of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>>
>>p.s that's just murders, imagine how many extra shootings their are
>>and how much more gun-related crime their must be in the U.S.A too.
>
>There isn't any correlation between gun ownership and gun crime, in fact
>almost every nation that has had more gun control introduced has seen gun
>crime rocket - the UK being one such case - when you make it legal for only
>crims to carry arms that's what happens. It's relative though really - in
>Switzerland AND Finland me thinks, you can own an automatic (beware of
>crossing Sakari/TT/Vari) and there was that town in yankland where they made
>it mandatory for every household to own a gun, burglary fell (almost
>overnight) by 70%.

What Vari has got to do with this? Anyway, I guess we have more
liberal gun laws than many countries, but that's because many people
are into hunting. Absolutely nobody has a gun "to protect himself",
like they do in USA. It is an absurd idea that a normal city family
would have a gun at home. And now that two guys have used their guns
for school massacres recently, there is a lot of talk of making
stricter laws.




   
Date: 13 Feb 2009 23:38:34
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:12:22 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 13, 9:09 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 8:57 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people need the
>> > means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with me!
>>
>> You are a moron.
>>
>> I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicides
>> in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>>
>> (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>>
>> In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
>> homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
>> Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
>> million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
>> more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>>
>> so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
>> moron,
>>
>> It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
>> of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>
>p.s that's just murders, imagine how many extra shootings their are
>and how much more gun-related crime their must be in the U.S.A too.

Just out of curiosity, what is it with this "their are" thing that I
see in rst all the time? For someone like me who was learnt English at
school, it seems absurd. It is not like it is the hardest thing in
English language. There are (heh) many words in English that sound
like each other, but nobody makes mistakes with them. So why so many
with this? This is not to nitpick, I am just curious.



    
Date: 14 Feb 2009 16:29:23
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:12:22 -0800 (PST), Professor X
> <suebokaian@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 13, 9:09 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 13, 8:57 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people need the
>>>> means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with me!
>>> You are a moron.
>>>
>>> I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicides
>>> in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>>>
>>> (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>>>
>>> In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
>>> homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
>>> Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
>>> million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
>>> more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>>>
>>> so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
>>> moron,
>>>
>>> It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
>>> of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>> p.s that's just murders, imagine how many extra shootings their are
>> and how much more gun-related crime their must be in the U.S.A too.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what is it with this "their are" thing that I
> see in rst all the time? For someone like me who was learnt English at
> school, it seems absurd. It is not like it is the hardest thing in
> English language. There are (heh) many words in English that sound
> like each other, but nobody makes mistakes with them. So why so many
> with this? This is not to nitpick, I am just curious.
>


Their are a lot of dumb people who speak English.



     
Date: 14 Feb 2009 05:36:40
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:29:23 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:12:22 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>> <suebokaian@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 13, 9:09 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 13, 8:57 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people need the
>>>>> means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with me!
>>>> You are a moron.
>>>>
>>>> I can't find the statistics for last year, but their were 49 homicides
>>>> in the uk with a gun in 2006/7 out of a population of 60 million
>>>>
>>>> (odds of being murdered with a gun - over 1 in a million)
>>>>
>>>> In the USA in 1999 -latest figures i could find- their were 30000
>>>> homicides commited with a gun. out of a population of 300 million
>>>> Thus odds of being murdered with a gun are 1 in 10,000 or 100 in a
>>>> million as opposed to 1 in a million in the UK... Thus you are 100x
>>>> more likely to be murdered with a gun in the USA.
>>>>
>>>> so actually I think it's pretty damn good we don't have handguns...
>>>> moron,
>>>>
>>>> It's well known that a positive correlation exists between the level
>>>> of gun ownership and gun crime, and it's fucking obvious too.
>>> p.s that's just murders, imagine how many extra shootings their are
>>> and how much more gun-related crime their must be in the U.S.A too.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, what is it with this "their are" thing that I
>> see in rst all the time? For someone like me who was learnt English at
>> school, it seems absurd. It is not like it is the hardest thing in
>> English language. There are (heh) many words in English that sound
>> like each other, but nobody makes mistakes with them. So why so many
>> with this? This is not to nitpick, I am just curious.
>>
>
>
>Their are a lot of dumb people who speak English.

Their are a lot of dumb people who can't speak. I wish you were one.


 
Date: 13 Feb 2009 23:04:02
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:57:19 GMT, "Stapler" <d@d.com > wrote:

>Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people need the
>means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with me!

If good people need guns to defend themselves, there is something
really, really, really wrong in the society.


  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 23:57:53
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:04:02 +0200, Sakari Lund
<sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:57:19 GMT, "Stapler" <d@d.com> wrote:
>
>>Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people need the
>>means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with me!
>
>If good people need guns to defend themselves, there is something
>really, really, really wrong in the society.

is there any doubt whatsoever ?

1. where did the trillions go ?

2. why aren't the greedy people responsible in jail ?



  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 17:53:02
From: mimus
Subject: Re: The UK & Australia should un-ban handguns
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:04:02 +0200, Sakari Lund wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:57:19 GMT, "Stapler" <d@d.com> wrote:
>
>> Since banning only kept them in the hand of criminals, good people need
>> the means to defend themselves. I think everyone on RST will agree with
>> me!
>
> If good people need guns to defend themselves, there is something
> really, really, really wrong in the society.

The police only get there afterward.

--

Take a deep breath, take a walk, cool off, plot a bit, and serve again.