little acorn - for a start, i didn't say what you quoted me as saying...


I'm sure. Not that you'd argue, right. And that's your point. Yet, there is more gun crime in the US than the whole of Europe, so wow, those criminals must listen to what you say.

The point remains, the reason for the gun to exist is to kill. Not wound, kill. Thus it is still a killing machine, regardless of whether you use it; something that you've sidestepped twice, rather than agree or deny.

That said, you've described below how willing you think your fellow citizens are to use them.



OMG. moving on, how many passengers would have been able to get down the alley in the cabin at once? Once the terrorist is in the cockpit they're only guarding one direction. Unless you're suggesting that a passenger list of gun toters would have turned the cockpit into a sieve with their gunfire. The answer is PREVENTION. You PREVENT guns getting onto the plane. Hell, it works. The only reason it didn't then in the US was because of a LACK of checks, too much denial of potential problems.


I give up. Who ever said it was England's laws?

We've discussed the "very specific" wording, and in fact, it comes right down to interpretation. You and others would have the words be read and applied to the social environment that exists now, not the very different one that existed when the framers went to work. If it were updated to now by a neutral, it would updated to fit with modern times, not just translated to modern words. I don't really care what you do in your country. I've got no agenda, no loss of percieved rights tainting my view on this. Just stop trying to tell me i can't discuss it because i'm not from the US!!!

As for the flying brothels, if it was legal, then i suspect it would be going on openly, because they'd be no reason to hide - just like the online casinos that are illegal in the US. Just because you're in the air, between countries, doesn't mean there are no laws! The airline company will have rules you must adhere to, but laws, i don't think so. If it is true, i'll set up an "execution express" on the "hanging" London to Cairo route...

Actual you have brought those laws up Now I am not in law enforcement, but if I was I might take offense to some of your words. The United States has 385.75 million sq kilometers. With a population of 295.6 million. That means one person per 1.3 sq km. whereas England has 383 people per sq. km. Maybe just maybe we are comparing apples to oranges.

We have a lot more rural areas that can and do have a lot to do with police reaction times.

Take all the offense you want; it is a common caricature of the US police force, rather than the UK one.

I wasn't talking about the rural areas, i was talking about "civilised areas". The same would be the case for rural areas, regarding reaction times. But it isn't the case in cities either. It has nothing to do with distance, it has to do with amount of crime, and number of police, plus the US Constitution.

As your stats nicely show, there are more people in less space in the UK. Therefore more people to manage and police in per square mile. Again, reaction times, although mentioned in passing, weren't the point.

[quote=Ptarmigan,Feb 16 2005, 10:22 AM]
It is an interesting topic..

In the UK, we are allowed to act in self defence, so long as we act in a way commensurate with the threat posed.

My understanding is that crime has skyrocketed in the UK since the advent of complete gun control.

And here is my opinion of why, its the Risk vs. Reward equation of any business venture.

If I'm contemplating a career in robbery, one of the decision factors is RISK/REWARD. What will I be paid, and what are the inherent risks FOR that pay.

Certainly, I might be willing to break into a house for $1000.00 worth of stuff to sell, provided I LOWER the risks to what to me is an acceptable level. My risks are getting caught and getting injured.

I can LOWER the risks of getting caught by decent target selection, but that isn't foolproof. SO, now what? my thought process says, so if there is someone in the house, and the law says he has no gun, I'm not likely to get hurt, because over $1000 worth of stuff, he is not going to attack me, because I have the element of surprise on my side, AND commensurate with the threat posed puts him with no advantage, (particularly since my victim has no indication of the threat posed) AND, I'm willing to be a criminal, probably I'm willing to have an illegal gun, which means I DO and my victim doesn't!! Now i've eliminated most of the risk. I AIM my gun, and he stops. Even if I get arrested its only armed robbery, ugly, but an acceptable risk. I guess being a crook is looking pretty good.

On the other hand, If I am contemplating this life and I live in a town where 50% of the homes have a gun. Is the $1,000 worth the now present 50% risk of getting shot? Is the $1,000 worth the risk of a murder conviction if I have to shoot him? Maybe flipping burgers is looking better all the time.

I could do all of that, or I could do what most rational burglars do - the ones that are not out of their heads on crack or what-have-you that can make the kinds of calculation you talk about - and make sure that the people inside the house are not in when I make my unscheduled call. That way, I can steal their guns as well as their DVD player and laptop PC.

Remember, most housebreaking happens in urban areas, where there are lots of roads and alleys to get away on, and lots or doors to try before you find one that is ajar. And lots of parked vehicles with people in during the day, so the householder is not going to know which ones are suspicious would-be burglar casing their joint (as it were) and which ones are sales reps munching on a sandwich while listening to the radio.

And for the drug-related crime of choice, the perpetrators are either already high, or driven by the need to get cash for their next fix. In neither case are they in much of a position to sit and rationalise their decision to break the law.

Oh, and gun crime has "sky-rocketed" in the UK since the ban largely because drug crime has also sky-rocketed, and because the end of civil wars in the Balkans and their need for ready cash has led to vastly greater availability and lower costs for black market guns.

The two are not related; the handgun ban was designed to prevent another Dunblane massacre (similar kind of thing to Columbine) and, as there has not been a similar mass killing since, one would have to say that the law has been pretty successful.