Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on February 10, 2005, 05:47:32 PM
-
I have a long standing invitation to visit a friend in Arkansas. I’ve been meaning to go for a long time, so decided to make it happen this April.
Hehe, things are different from what they were. When booking an international flight, now they want names, addresses, even dates of birth! And that airport tax is becoming a problem, now a sizeable proportion of the total fare – ie about one third!!!
The rental car companies have a new entity that I hadn’t heard of before. When adding additional drivers to a contract, the additional driver would in some cases be known as “spouse”. Apparently that’s politically incorrect in this day and age, so now the new generic term is “Life Partner”. Gawd… what would my father have said. :eek:
What happened to “collision damage waiver”? It seems to have become “loss damage waiver”. I guess driving standards have deteriorated. :lol
Some rental car outlets offer cell phones for short term rental. This one does not. Oh well, I’ll just have to bring a few rolls of quarters – and I was saving those for when I decide to fight streetstang in the DA – lol ;)
Finally, my gun. Going to be driving through some dogdy areas – TX, OK, AR – so I phoned Dollar to ask if they could provide me with a gun, and to amend my reservation if they could. (maybe get an insurance discount? –lol) Hehe, I put the agent on speakerphone and recorded the whole conversation! Got it saved as a .WMV file. I was thinking of posting it here, but I don’t want to give skuzzy any more grey hairs! ;)
LOL – I think the lady agent thought I was nuts – I think she’s right! The thought of needing a gun was highly amusing to her, and she could hardly contain her laughter. I’ll type a transcript tomorrow, if there’s sufficient interest – too tired tonight. Interestingly, this lady lives in OK herself – and does not carry a gun, ever. I put it to her that it was better to have one and not need it than not have one and need one, but she remained unconvinced. Am I going to get jumped in a gas station by an armed bandit? No, she assured me I’d be fine. Funny that – I thought the bad guys made a beeline for tourists – guess I’ll find out soon enough. :lol
Looking forward to eating some grits – even if I hate it, I want to try it. Didn't John Wayne make a movie about this particular delicacy?
I love you gun guys! :)
Toodle-Pip
Beet
-
That's one great thing about the US. If you want a handgun you can have one. If you don't, then that's fine too. You should post the audio file, it might be funny!
-
Wait....another gun post by bettle.
And I thought Hollywood had run out of ideas and was forced into plagarism.
For shame, for shame.
-
Insist on cheese-grits, and sprinkle some Tabasco on there, along with plenty of pepper and a little salt. And if you are going to Arkansas, watch yer cornhole, Bud.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
And if you are going to Arkansas, watch yer cornhole, Bud.
WATCH YOUR PIE-HOLE THERE LIZ-BREATH! You're about to let it overload your ARSE! :mad:
Don't listen to him Beetle. Texas has been pis*ed at Arkansas ever since Jones bought the Dallas Cowboys and U of A left for the SEC due to lack of competition. :D
BTW, you got to get down into Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama & the Carolinas before you run into "Grit Eaters." My family owned a Hunting Guide service and these guys just absolutely could not go out in the morning before they had their Grits! Even took "Instant Grits" to the Duck Blind with them! :rofl I have lived in Arkansas all my life and have never ate a "GRIT" or know of anyone that does. Stuff tastes like plaster of paris with about the same consistancy.
Enjoy your trip. :aok
-
Don't make me sic Nopoop on you, Jester.
-
Arkansas, Texas, whatever. They all hump sheep and milk steers.
-
And they think that's normal.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Arkansas, Texas, whatever. They all hump sheep and milk steers.
Exactly.
Saying "I'm going to Arkansas" is like saying "I'm going to Botswana". Whatever.... it's Africa.
"South" would suffice. We'd know what ya meant.
God speed, trooper.
-
But, about Beet's post.
I did all that he talks about.. without having a heart-to-heart chat with a res agent when I went to England.
I couldn't get a gun there. But a person with a firearms certificate could "loan" me theirs as long as they were within an arm's length of me while I was holding it. Otherwise, it would be illegal for me to even touch it.
Think about it.
If I decided to off the Queen as she rode past the peg on her charger, the loaner was somehow going to stop me? Just another example of laws made by people that have no clue about how things actually work in real life.
Come to think of it, that's pretty standard, isn't it?
-
Oooh! good haul...
Originally posted by Toad
If I decided to off the Queen as she rode past the peg on her charger, the loaner was somehow going to stop me? Just another example of laws made by people that have no clue about how things actually work in real life.
No, you're missing the point or, as I suspect, being deliberately obtuse. The point is that the loaner would have had to satisfy the authorities that he was sufficiently responsible to have a gun, and satisfy them that he was not the type to hand his gun to some wacko who wanted to top the Queen. :rolleyes:
SOB - I could post the .WMV, my name is mentioned in the recording - and my res. # - and I wouldn't put it past someone like ra/onewordanswer to call Dollar and cancel my reservation. :lol
-
audacity.sourceforge.net : get in there, delete the identifying information, and let it fly man!
-
even tho they wouldn't rent you the gun.... Lo9ok on the bright side.... when you do get attacked at a gas station your surviving relatives can sue the rental company because you have a tape of their agent telling you that you would be "perfectly all right"
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
even tho they wouldn't rent you the gun.... Lo9ok on the bright side.... when you do get attacked at a gas station your surviving relatives can sue the rental company because you have a tape of their agent telling you that you would be "perfectly all right"
lazs
That's one of the reasons I don't want to post the .WMV file - they could then countersue my surviving relatives because I recorded a telephone call without telling them they were being recorded.
Does your granny still live in AR? I guess I could borrow her gun for a few days.
-
yep... granny lives in Ak. 96 and doing well.. She never really learned how to shoot.. she allways depended on the men around her who had tons (literaly) of guns. My grandfather answered the door with a big smile and a gun behind his back... he took walks at night with a gun in his pocket. Never traveled without one. I belive he only showed it to people who meant him some harm about 3 or four times. No telling if he really needed it or not but.. It was better than a cheap life insurance policy.
I have allways found it interesting that women in my life at first seem a little put off by the guns in my bags or laying around the house but latter on.... they seem to depend on me having them.. even going so far as to ask "did you bring your gun?" when things look weird. I think it has more to do with familiarity and trust than with paranoia or lack thereof.
Better to have the option than to brag that you don't need it.
lazs
-
Better to have the option than to brag that you don't need it.
Oooh, dunno - my position is that of a circus trapeze artist performing without a safety net - much more exciting, and gets the crowd in a sweat! ;)
Maybe we can stop by your granny's house? I could take her some McVitie's chocolate digestives, and some PG Tips tea bags. She'd like that.
-
I'd love to see the transcript or hear the conversation. She probably thought you were nuts!
Enjoy your visit, Beet1e. I'm sure you'll probably survive. ;)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The point is that the loaner would have had to satisfy the authorities that he was sufficiently responsible to have a gun, and satisfy them that he was not the type to hand his gun to some wacko who wanted to top the Queen. :rolleyes:
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.
-
Originally posted by Toad
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 was right - again. You are being obtuse.
-
No, your lawmakers are totally obtuse on the subject of guns.
-
Originally posted by Toad
No, your lawmakers are totally obtuse on the subject of guns.
It's not the subject of guns, it's the subject of licensing, and whether someone is deemed fit to qualify for a licence.
-
No, it's the entired subject of guns as is evidenced by the ban.
-
Originally posted by Toad
No, it's the entired subject of guns as is evidenced by the ban.
No, we had gun licences even before the ban.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
It's not the subject of guns, it's the subject of licensing, and whether someone is deemed fit to qualify for a licence.
Here you don't have to be fit to own a gun Beet- that's the difference between England and the USA. :p
-
I tried grits once. Don't think I'll do it again.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No, we had gun licences even before the ban.
Yep.
And essentially the same gun crime rate before and after licensing.
And essentially the same gun crime rate before and after the ban.
Your lawmakers are totally obtuse on the subject of guns.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yep.
And essentially the same gun crime rate before and after licensing.
And essentially the same gun crime rate before and after the ban.
Your lawmakers are totally obtuse on the subject of guns.
No, but we need to go further back in history. According to Lazs, we "gave up our rights" c1920 - I think the 1920 Firearms Act might have had something to do with it. Gun control legislation was being contemplated as long ago as 1911. In the calendar years 1908-1912, a total of 6 police officers were shot and killed and 92 wounded in metropolitan areas alone. By extrapolation (because there isn't sufficient empirical data available, and because of legislation in 1920) that equates to 24 police shot and killed in a 20 year period. In fact it would have got worse, what with all those guns coming back from WW1.
Compare that to what we have in modern times. In the 20 calendar years 1984-2003, only 2 police officers have been shot and killed. So, with regard to police victims, the gun control laws have resulted in drop in police homicides to the tune of more than 90% - and that's despite the modern day problems of drugs, racial tensions, gangs, larger population and all the other problems that exist now that didn't exist in 1912 or earlier.
Sorry Mr. Toad, but your quoted comments fall squarely within the catchment area encompassed by Nashwan's quote which can be seen in my sig.
:aok
-
!Guns!
Again!
How about going to the NRA BBs
Beetle please old chap
Not more gun talk!
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Now now, Zulu7. You're clearly exhibiting a personality disorder. ;)
-
i am deranged hadn't you guessed by now
:p ;) :D :cool: :eek: :) :rofl :aok
multiple personality disorder!
-
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 have had a steak that made me want to retch. That doesn't mean all steak is bad.
-
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
-
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 :confused:
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'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.
-
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?
-
Lazs!!!
So I'm effeminate because I'm not into your gun thing!? :rofl
To be honest thats a bit of a lame thing to chuck at me isn't it.
Come on mate I expect better.
-
"This is my Rifle,
this is my gun,
this ones for shooting,
this ones for fun"
-
Otto YAWN zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
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.
-
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]
-
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 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133705) 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. :aok I'll send you a cake with a file in it, if you like
:lol - 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?
-
The answer is here (http://www.saf.org/viewpr.asp?id=139)
-
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.
-
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. :D
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
That last link is just plain daft!
Can you argue against the logic??
-
nashwan... if you are upper class you get your guns from the upperclass lawbreakers who feel you are one of them... if you are a criminal you can spot the criminals in any country who will get you a gun based on the profit and unlikely chance that you are a cop or a snitch. If you want a gun in any country you can get one save a very tiny island ( even smaller than yours) with very crowded and racist/authoritive people like say japan.
zulu... all the lawsuits being aimed at gun manufacturers are failing. I am hoping for some protection against these suits now that Bush is at the helm again tho as they are expensiv3e and are driving the costr of guns up slightly.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I never said anything of the kind.
[/b]
Of course you have. In one of the many discussions we've had over how pointless it was for your politicoes to pass those post-Hungerford/Dunblane laws. And I have no doubt you will again in some other thread.
How do you feel about banning sharp instruments from aircraft cabins?
That it's a sop to political correctness. Just like when they took my Gillette track two razor away from me post-9/11. In those early days, it was deemed to dangerous for cockpit crew to have a double-edged plastic razor I guess.
The real problem as I see it is their screening process. As Grun used to post, it' isn't the 90 year old Norwegian Buddhist grandmothers that are doing this stuff.
That being said, my entire time in commercial aviation there has been a prohibition of knives with blades longer than 3 inches in the cabin. Not a single problem with that that I can remember but times do change.
If you're going to take the position that the population of an airliner cabin is directly analagous to the situation and behavior of society as a whole, go ahead. That'll just look like a Zulu post by Beet.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Of course you have. In one of the many discussions we've had over how pointless it was for your politicoes to pass those post-Hungerford/Dunblane laws. And I have no doubt you will again in some other thread.
No, I reposted what I actually said a few posts back ^ The issue was whether the 1990s legislation was an initial BAN or an extension to already tight gun control legislation, first passed in 1920. I have always said it was the latter. That's WHY we have all these arguments - you and others keep asking what the "gun ban" achieved, and I have to keep reminding you that we already had tight gun control legislation from decades past. In all honesty, I don't know what changed in 1996/97. If you're going to take the position that the population of an airliner cabin is directly analagous to the situation and behavior of society as a whole, go ahead. That'll just look like a Zulu post by Beet.
ROFL! (http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/jester.gif)
-
Beet, essentially you either don't know or don't understand or refuse to accept the history and reasoning of gun control in England.
You demonstrated one of the above in the last thread.
I said what I meant about the way you discuss things now and there's really no point in rehashing it.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Otto YAWN zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
"Nighty night....,
sleep tight......,
don't let the bedbugs bite"
-
Originally posted by Toad
Beet, essentially you either don't know or don't understand or refuse to accept the history and reasoning of gun control in England.
Even if that were true, it still wouldn't change the fact that gun control was extremely tight prior to 1996. The legislation that followed made it even tighter.
I said what I meant about the way you discuss things now and there's really no point in rehashing it.
- and you were wrong, as my statement of 28 Oct. 2004 amply demonstrates.
-
It may have been tighter. Doesn't change the truth that it was entirely unnecessary and had no effect other than to strip folks of their handguns to no purpose.
I'll let our readers judge who was right or wrong. I'm not going to interfere with your delusions.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It may have been tighter. Doesn't change the truth that it was entirely unnecessary and had no effect other than to strip folks of their handguns to no purpose.
You're saying that I could have bought a handgun in 1995? Bullshirt.
-
You could have if the little monarch in your local police station had decided you had a legitimate reason.
But typically, once again you throw out a red herring.
No, what I said is what I've always said.
The post-Dunblane/Hungerford bans were a political knee-jerk reaction that did not lower your gun crime rate. They were unnecessary. They had no real effect on gun crime but they did strip lawful gun owners of their handguns. The law was pointless.
Nashwan, if you have noticed, is essentially of the same opinion.
-
Mr. Toad,
As I have said all along, the 1997 legislation did bugger all and that's because gun control was already very tight indeed. I have posted statements I made last October to that effect, but you don't seem to want to accept them. You are so consumed with your erroneous belief that the REAL gun ban was in 1997, to the point where you believe that Britain was a nation of gun enthusiasts, and that large numbers of Britons were "forced to hand in their weapons" against their wishes. It's true, the amnesties pulled in thousands of guns, but highly unlikely that these were held legitimately. Your NRA source said "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.” Nobody had "enjoyed a right" to arms. In Britain, that has never existed as a right the way it has in America with the 2nd amendment. Those who carried arms did so in many cases to protect themselves against highwaymen and their ilk on long coach journeys, for example, in the days when said coach was drawn by horses.
Any notion you or the NRA has about people in Britain going out to shoot guns at the range just for the hell of it is largely false. Of course, the NRA is able to couch its propaganda in terms like that because the target audience is American, many of whom have never left their home state, and therefore cannot conceive the idea of an unarmed society. Neither, it seems, can you. You could have if the little monarch in your local police station had decided you had a legitimate reason.
Once again you're doing what you berate zulu7 for doing - posting like a male donkey. The little monarch in question in 1920 was His Majesty King George V, grandfather of the current Queen. He was not in the habit of hanging around at the local nick. And any legitimate reason for having a gun would not include the mere fact that you wanted one to go plinking at tin cans etc., or to exercise any "rights", because there WERE no rights. Stick that up your shotgun barrel and smoke it.
-
Didn't even read it Beet. You're just don't know enough about the subject to bother.
-
so long as you can remain a tiny little island that is behind the times and "traditional" and regulated.... you will be ok... when you catch up to the times you will find that you will indeed need more guns to =less crime. you are starting allready by arming your police.
lazs
-
Lazs
The current process by which the British police are become armed as a matter of routine will merely harmonise Britain with the rest of Europe.
-
you are starting allready by arming your police.
What surprised me is that we are not arming the police more. I thought the numbers had soared, but apparently not.
The number of police officers trained and authorised to use guns went from 6738 in 1996/97 to 6096 in 2003/04. That's out of around 130,000 police officers.
They are issued guns more frequently than before, though.
-
soooo... the solution you have used is to arm more people... the solution to crime is to add more guns into the society. Of course, criminals who used to compete on at least an even basis will now have to arm themselves to a certain extent... The only people who will get the shaft are law abiding..... subjects.
lazs