Travel Checklist: airline, rental car, insurance, mobile phone, gun – LOL

[Toad]

Nashwan's already on record as saying the ban didn't change the gun crime rate after Hungerford and Dunblane.

Which again points out that your politicians don't have a clue, they're just knee-jerk reactors.

[Lizking]

I have had a steak that made me want to retch.  That doesn't mean all steak is bad.

[lazs2]

zulu... I don't think you are deranged... just pompous and a busybody and silly and effeminate and.... wrong.   Not deranged tho I wouldn't imagine.

lazs

[Sparks]

Grits are seriously bizarre ...........

My mother-in-law in NC posts boxes of instant grits to my wife and daughter - I reckon liking them is a genetic thing. Or maybe they are the cause - genetic modifying

Tasted 'em once and escaped with only saying "have a nice day y'all" for about 2 hours - close shave.

Good for holding tiles down though ............

[Nashwan]

Nashwan's already on record as saying the ban didn't change the gun crime rate after Hungerford and Dunblane.

Which again points out that your politicians don't have a clue, they're just knee-jerk reactors.

I thought that was the case with all politicians?

Or are you claiming the "assault weapon" ban was well thought out?

In defence of British politicians, they did at least act against a fairly logical definition of gun types, not ban guns they didn't like the "look" of.

Lovely theory. Totally invalid, of course.

Met several people who handed me guns simply based on the fact that I liked English labradors and came over to get one.

None asked me if I'd like to shoot the Queen or any other subject of hers.

Once again, a typical forlorn hope on the part of your lawmakers.

I hesitate to bring up the fact that 10% of US presidents have been assasinated, compared to 1 British PM (and no monarchs).

However, if you look at the events of 1981; Hinckley was deranged, had no trouble getting a gun (in fact, several, he was arrested for possesion whilst stalking Carter), and managed to shoot Reagan and Brady and 2 policemen (iirc).

A couple of months later, Marcus Sarjeant, inspired by Hinckley, decided to shoot the Queen. He couldn't get a real gun, and settled for using a blank firing pistol instead. He fired 6 blanks from a distance of a few yards, and would have stood a pretty good chance of killing the Queen if he'd been able to get a real gun.

[Toad]

You'll not find me defending politicians. Ours, however, were forced to include a "sunset" on the so-called assault weapons ban.

Also, quite obviously, the "assault weapon ban" didn't ban anything really. The very same guns were sold with different stocks and with the bayonet lug removed.

So, where was the ban, exactly? As compared to your handgun ban I mean?]

Marcus Sarjeant, inspired by Hinckley? I'm guessing old Marcus wasn't too awfully intelligent then? First he was inspired by Hinckley who's a nutjob of the first rank. Second, if Marcus had an ounce of intelligence, he could have gotten a gun.

Next time I come over, I'm going to see how long it takes me to get my hands on a pistol.   I don't think it will be all that long. Ya just gotta know who to ask... or rob.

Any way, do you or do you not recall saying that the post-Hungerford/Dunblane ban had little or no effect?

[Zulu7]

Lazs!!!

So I'm effeminate because I'm not into your gun thing!?

To be honest thats a bit of a lame thing to chuck at me isn't it.

Come on mate I expect better.

[Otto]

"This is my Rifle,
this is my gun,
this ones for shooting,
this ones for fun"

[Zulu7]

Otto YAWN zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Nashwan]

Also, quite obviously, the "assault weapon ban" didn't ban anything really. The very same guns were sold with different stocks and with the bayonet lug removed.

But doesn't that make it even sillier? Banning a gun based on what it looks like, rather than what it does?

Marcus Sarjeant, inspired by Hinckley? I'm guessing old Marcus wasn't too awfully intelligent then?

Going ahead with an assasination attempt with a blank firing gun when you couldn't get a real one doesn't suggest he was the brightest.

Second, if Marcus had an ounce of intelligence, he could have gotten a gun.

Well, I'd suggest if the effect of Britain's gun laws was to prevent deranged idiots getting hold of guns, that's a success in itself. As you said, Hinckley was a nutjob, and he had no difficulty getting hold of guns on at least two occasions (I'm assuming the police didn't give his first gun back to him after arresting him for stalking Carter)

But I don't think Sarjeant could have got a handgun, not without pretty good criminal connections.

He'd probably have stood a better chance getting a shotgun, but he's going to look pretty conspicuous in the Mall during trooping the colour with a shotgun.

Next time I come over, I'm going to see how long it takes me to get my hands on a pistol.

I'll send you a cake with a file in it, if you like

Seriously, I suspect you'd find it difficult.

You might find a friend with an old unlicenced handgun, but is your friend the sort that would supply it to a criminal?

It's not really a fair test for a retired airline pilot to find an ex colonel who's kept a war souvenir, becuase the ex colonel might supply it to you, but certainly wouldn't give it to the sort of person that would actually use it.

Any way, do you or do you not recall saying that the post-Hungerford/Dunblane ban had little or no effect?

Yes. We had perfectly good guns laws before that.

What I'm against is trying to extend that, by claiming because a ban in Britain had no effect, bans have no effect.

There's a world of difference between going from very tight regulation to a virtual ban and going from almost no regulation to a virtual ban.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nashwan
But doesn't that make it even sillier? Banning a gun based on what it looks like, rather than what it does?

Actually I think banning guns is silly.

The "assault weapon ban" here was the current pinnacle of silliness.

As I said, you won't find me defending the moronic politicians who passed that one thinking they actually "did something" about crime.

Well, I'd suggest if the effect of Britain's gun laws was to prevent deranged idiots getting hold of guns, that's a success in itself.

Perhaps. I assume, however, that a moderately intelligent fellow with a bit of cash could find one. I may test that hypothesis next time I come over. Might be a book deal in it.

As you said, Hinckley was a nutjob, and he had no difficulty getting hold of guns on at least two occasions

True, despite numerous gun laws already here on the books. Hinkley shot Reagan in DC. I'm sure you're aware of the DC laws?

What I'm against is trying to extend that, by claiming because a ban in Britain had no effect, bans have no effect.

No, this is in the "Beet context". He seems to enjoy the delusion that the post-Hungerford/Dunblane ban made a difference in your gun crime rate.

There's a world of difference between going from very tight regulation to a virtual ban and going from almost no regulation to a virtual ban. [/B][/QUOTE]

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
No, this is in the "Beet context". He seems to enjoy the delusion that the post-Hungerford/Dunblane ban made a difference in your gun crime rate.

Mr. Toad, you're ASSuming again. I never said anything of the kind. As we all know, Britain already had very strict gun control since about 1920. To tell you the truth, I don't know what the 1997 (or was it 1996?) gun "ban" did, ie. what it banned. Something to do with the diameter of the hole that the bullets come out of? As I have said all along, and as Nashwan would agree, any gun legislation in the 90s would have been a small extension to what we already had - a codicil of sorts. What I actually said, in this thread on 28th Oct. 2004, was

British gun ban myths

Mr. Toad is very fond of referring to certain 1997 British firearms legislation as a “gun ban”. In his own “short story” excerpt, Mr. Toad points out that "Thus the Firearms Act of 1920 sailed through Parliament. Britons who had formerly enjoyed a right to arms were now allowed to possess pistols and rifles only if they proved they had "good reason" for receiving a police permit.” Thus, guns were effectively banned in 1920. That being the case, how could guns be banned again in 1996/1997 when they were already banned? They couldn’t. And that’s because the 96/97 legislation was not a “gun ban”. It was an addendum or codicil to existing legislation, under which guns have been “banned” for generations.

And we never had any "gun rights" in the way America has, because our country evolved in a completely different way in a different time, before guns were invented. It's just that there was a time when no gun control legislation existed because our society was formed before guns were invented and before they became the "tools of the trade" for criminals. Nice titbit of NRA propaganda though.

I'll send you a cake with a file in it, if you like

- and I was drinking coffee at the time! (Tomato made it, and I'll be awake for 3 days now - lol)

Thing is, Toad, I wouldn't take your gun acquisition experiment too lightly. The very act of a friend supplying you with a gun would make you both criminals. As for acquiring one from the criminal undergound, you could easily find yourself the target of a police sting operation, in which case you'll look forward to getting that cake from Nashwan - LOL - corker!

Actually I think banning guns is silly.

How do you feel about banning sharp instruments from aircraft cabins?

[Lazerus]

The answer is here

[Zulu7]

That last link is just plain daft!

I'm suprised you guys still have guns anyway. Haven't all the manufacturers been sued by now for breaching some kind of safety thing. You guys sue everybody all the time.

Maybe your guns come with a 100 page health warning including the phrase "not to be eaten" or something similar.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Zulu7
Maybe your guns come with a 100 page health warning including the phrase "not to be eaten" or something similar.

LOL! I'm going to ask Tomato to make a chocolate gun to give to Mr. Toad.