Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on December 02, 2002, 08:52:36 PM
-
several people emalied me this article from the Daily Telegraph.. one, beetles countryman... I would say this to my english friends who decide not to be terrorized by the brutal.... better judged by twelve than carried by 6 That might not translate to well but in our country we would rather take our chances with a jury than a burglar... As is noted in the article... there are way more burglaries in england than here. What isn't said is that 50% of english burglars are "hot" burglars... they don't care if you are home are not... In the U.S. they know if you are home you might shoot em... they don't come with their own guns because the penalties are increased if caught and... they ain't into shootouts anyhow... Anyhow... for my british friends... good luck to you.
"By Alan Judd
(Filed: 02/12/2002)
A retired man I know who lives in a village was recently awoken by the noise
of his front door being smashed in. He got up, was confronted by four
aggressive burglars and pressed the panic button on his alarm.
A very bright light was shone on him and he was threatened. When he tried to
go downstairs he was sprayed with something that hurt his eyes. The burglars
continued removing his furniture, safe in the knowledge that they would not
be harmed.
The police were prompt, but too late. The scenes of crime people took two
days to appear. They had had 15 other break-ins to attend, mostly commercial
properties, which, it seems, take priority over crimes in which people are
threatened or attacked in their homes.
A neighbour of mine was similarly attacked, only this time it was broken
bottles rather than spray and it took the police two hours to arrive from a
town 30 miles distant. Another couple had their dogs sprayed and were forced
back to their bedroom while the thugs completed their work.
These people live in the Home Counties, not the Wild West, and their cases
are not exceptional. Thieves know how vulnerable country properties are, and
how thinly policed are whole swathes of our countryside. The police say,
with reason, that they are over-stretched just keeping the lids on the towns
and can't spare more than a token presence outside them.
But if the police can't protect us, who can? Only ourselves. There's no one
else.
Another neighbour now sleeps with his shotgun beneath the bed. How else, he
asks, could he defend himself and his family against four men armed with he
knows not what? What would he use - poker, kitchen knife? With any hand
weapon he'd have to grapple closely and he'd probably lose. He needs to be
able to intimidate and, if necessary, harm from a distance, and that usually
means a gun. But what would our authorities say?
They wouldn't like it. First, they would argue that it's better to let the
thieves take what they will than risk injury by fighting them. After all,
possessions are only things, they're mostly insured and nothing's worth a
knife in your pancreas. Secondly, they would urge expensive security
measures - alarms, lights, security marking and bugging, perhaps even rape
gates (an iron grille across the top of the stairs) so that you remain safe
in your cage while your house is cleared beneath you.
These are valid points but they ignore the emotional connotations of "home",
the violation that household burglary represents. Granted, it is not quite
the same as violation of your person but it's so close as to make little
difference. It often involves the threat or fact of physical attack and some
victims of burglary are permanently traumatised; many move home.
Our authorities might also argue that we are, in fact, permitted to use
"reasonable force" in defending ourselves and our own. But what is
"reasonable force"? Beating off frontal attack probably would count, whereas
attacking a fleeing assailant might be construed as retaliation. In
practice, however, distinctions are less clear.
On the one hand, Tony Martin was famously convicted for killing (by shooting
in the back) a thief who had broken into his home. Another man was convicted
for repeatedly stabbing a burglar who had broken into the flat in which he
believed his children were sleeping.
A man who felled a violent schizophrenic who was strangling someone, then
kicked him when he tried to get up and resume, was arrested by the police
(unlike the schizophrenic) and prosecuted by the CPS for kicking. Yet when
another man stabbed to death one intruder and seriously wounded another, the
CPS found his use of force "reasonable" and did not prosecute.
What such cases indicate, wrote The Sunday Telegraph's Alasdair Palmer, is
that the CPS "clearly can't decide where the boundary between the reasonable
and unreasonable use of force lies, and thus what the law actually is".
How can it be right to prosecute people when the law itself is confused and
contradictory? If the lawyers, safe in their offices, can't say what is
right, how can we be expected to weigh up the pros and cons during some
desperate struggle in the dark? Unclear law is unfair law.
It is also a question of attitude. Increasingly, our legal and judicial
authorities seem more concerned with covering their own backs in this
rights-based culture, turning victims into perpetrators and perpetrators
into victims. A friend who kept a pick-handle by his door was warned by the
police that it could constitute an offensive weapon and that he shouldn't
contemplate using it. There was no concern for how he might best deter
intruders, no sense, indeed, that the victim should have a right to defend
himself and his own, and that the intruder was wholly wrong in being there.
Over centuries there evolved an implicit contract between us and the
authorities: in return for our renouncing our right to defend ourselves and
to wreak vengeance on those who harm us, the authorities arrogated those
rights to themselves and undertook to protect us.
But now it's breaking down. They cannot defend us adequately - ask any rural
police force - but are reluctant to redress the balance by permitting us to
do more to protect ourselves. If I killed or injured someone in self-defence
in my own home I would be regarded by the law as potentially at least as
criminal as my assailant, and my assailant's evidence could be given equal
weight to my own.
Yet is it reasonable to expect me, during those few fearful seconds on the
stairs when menaced by broken bottles, to guess what the law would say when
the law itself doesn't know? Or to feel that I must not defend my family, my
property and myself if that means damaging my attackers?
This is deeply unfair, yet we could easily right it. We don't need new,
over-prescriptive legislation, nor a firearms free-for-all. All we need is a
shift of emphasis, of bias, for the courts to make it clear that there is a
strong presumption against prosecuting any occupant who injures an assailant
while resisting invasion.
They won't, of course, without great public pressure. The police, the CPS
and the judiciary are monopoly-holders who dislike the individual
self-assertion involved in our defending ourselves, even when they
demonstrably can't do it for us. They argue that if householders used guns
in their defence, then so would burglars in attack.
Yet in America, where the law is more robustly on the side of the victim,
the rate of domestic burglary is reportedly only one fifth of ours. And in
London the Metropolitan Police will tell you, off the record, why we no
longer hear about armed bank robbers: because a few years ago they started
shooting them.
All we need is for the law-enforcement bias to be clarified and corrected in
favour of the victim, and then applied sensibly. We need a change of
attitude in which victims who put up a fight are praised by the police, not
criticised or prosecuted. Why not try it as a 10-year experiment? We'll
never rid ourselves of violent burglaries but we might significantly reduce
them."
-
I thought the letter below was interesting. I didn't know England had a bill of rights.
****************
The Daily Telegraph
Letters to the Editor
Re: Modern changes ignore old gun laws
Date: 3 December 2002
Sir - Alan Judd is hesitant to advocate a "firearms free-for-all" (Comment, Dec 2), but one might recall that, before the First World War, when almost any British citizen could possess and carry any gun without a licence (and frequently did so, for there was a massive domestic firearms industry), armed crime in London ran at only two per cent of what it is today.
In 1946, the year the Home Office first moved against the licensing of pistols for self-defence, there were only 25 armed robberies in London: today, we have more than that every fortnight.
Confusion over our right to self-defence has not arisen because, as Mr Judd at one point suggests, we have "renounced" that capability. It is a right enshrined in our central constitutional document, the Bill of Rights of 1689, which is still in force as statute law. The right to possess arms for self-defence was one of only two rights of the individual guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and was indeed the ultimate surety of the subject's other liberties.
While it had been the Restoration disarmament of Protestants that provoked the arms provision of the Bill of Rights, the equal right of Catholics to self-defence was guaranteed in the same year, and case law upheld the right to bear arms for self-defence through to the 20th century.
When the first Firearms Act was introduced in 1920, it was recognised that the normal justification for owning a revolver was self-defence; it was only in 1946 that the Labour Home Secretary indicated that this would no longer necessarily be accepted as a good reason.
When the Home Office advised Lord Cullen, in the prelude to the pistol ban of 1997, that "as a matter of policy" British law did not permit the citizen any weapons for self-defence, it was therefore asserting a new policy without legal foundation that simply chose to ignore the Bill of Rights.
From:
Richard Munday, Much Hadham, Herts
-
See the movie Bowling for Columbine
-
Lets hope that no ones kids get hurt with these and if they do prosecute the parents to the full extent
-
And we don't want your myriad postings about your tools. Even beetle has had the good sense to leave this one alone, for at least a few days. Thank god.
The Daily Telegraph is a tory rag, BTW, read by octogenarians and those who would sorely like to be octogenarians. Or at least living in the Empire circa 1936. As for the article, it calls for a change in the approach to victims, not a reversal on gun control.
I didn't know England had a bill of rights.
Surprisingly, there was a whole world with an entire history before 1777. ;)
-
Dowding! No, not good sense - I was away for a few days, in Winchester. Speaking of history, did you know that Winchester was once the capital of England - probably before 1777?
Lazs - I read this article with interest. I am all in favour of extra police. Unfortunately, we have a government that is taking us in a wrong direction and cannot do anything right. We have the absolute farce of a Deputy Prime Minister who had been given the task of settling the Fire Fighters' strike, and yet he himself was, in 1966, the instigator of the Dock Strike - Britain's greatest peacetime crisis since the 1926 General Strike. The Telegraph, whose article you quote, recently said of John Prescott's stance: "perhaps the most startling example of poacher turned gamekeeper".
One of this Government's other traits is promising great things, but failing to deliver: More Police, Better hospitals with shorter waiting lists, better education and schools. Taxes rise to pay for it all, but then the promised benefits fail to be delivered - but we're still paying the tax. The police are overstretched and hidebound by paperwork. That's one problem. And the other is that with our prisons bursting at the seams, today's cons often get away with suspended sentences or very brief sentences. Thugs can be seen laughing themselves silly outside our courtrooms having been acquitted of distatseful crimes, and are free to reoffend that evening. Unfortunately, this Government will be with us till at least 2005, and probably 2009 because right now we have no credible Opposition. We need another Margaret Thatcher so badly...
But Lazs, the article goes on to say:We don't need new,
over-prescriptive legislation, nor a firearms free-for-all. All we need is a
shift of emphasis, of bias, for the courts to make it clear that there is a
strong presumption against prosecuting any occupant who injures an assailant
while resisting invasion.
I don't want to live in a society in which I feel obligated to sleep with a gun under my pillow. That's not the answer. We need more police. My village can't even afford a Traffic Warden, so we have folks parking on the double yellows at the end of the road, creating a safety hazard. They know they won't get a ticket. The one thing that's worse than not having a law is having a law and not enforcing it. Right now we have the situation of not being able to enforce laws effectively. But a gun in every home is not the answer.
-
Living where I do, I'd appreciate if I had the means to effectively protect myself.
Because no one else will. If you live in a safe environment, it is easy to be anti-guns. Living in an environment where there are almost daily disturbances that must be handled very delicately to prevent violence, the equation changes.
I KNOW that if guns were allowed here, overall deaths related to guns would skyrocket. On the other hand, even with that, overall my chances would probably be better, due to the place where I live.
Of course, as soon as I can I am moving, leaving it to be SEP (Somebody Elses Problem). And then I can be anti-guns again.
Just being sarcastic here.
-
I beleive giving children a good education and giving adults good jobs to feed their kids would cure a great deal of things, what brings guns into our world is fear, greed etc all of our good qualites, the I have to be better than you because.... fill in your own justification, so you would have to get rid of class societys and thats not likely to happen now, how do we overcome the blessing one child receives in a super IQ and the benefits its likely to bring against another kid who struggles just to get through grade school and the opposing dynamics this will create in adulthood multiplied who knows how many times over, seems the play is destined to play itself out over and over and the gun or somethiong like it will always be there, how the heck are we supposed to find the answer ?
Question is applied over the whole of humanity has the gun prevented what you fear from returning or living in your world, can we kill it all ? Should we?
Why do more white men own guns than any other race?
Why are gun relate d deaths in America on the order of 11k per year, and yet the problems are all still there, most the guns the in city kids get a hold of are sold illegally by the white males that owned them thuis justifying buying more guns and yet solving nothing except alying some of your personal fear !
-
tyro... read "more guns less crime" unlike "bowling for columbine' it is not written by a buffoon and has actual facts in it... You might also be interested to know that over 40% of homicides guns or otherwise are black on black and that the majority of the "children" that mr moore talks about are 13-17 year old gang members.
beetle... I don't ask you to sleep with a gun in your house... only that you allow others to... I believe (and stats point it out) that more guns equal less crime... you would be enjoying the benifiet of others owning guns without haveing to do anything... a free ride for you... It is shirking your duty to your fellow man but if you can live with it then fine. I don't know what is ment by a "fire arms free for all" but have found that most brits that start to realize that some form of firearms related defense against criminals needs to happen... well... they haven't a clue... they distrust everyone but themselves with firearms ownership...It won't work that way. You can't be the one to pick and choose and it can't be half assed it has to be ANY law abiding citizen and it has to be accompanied by stiffer penalties for gun crime... get the guns in the hands of the citizens and out of the hands of the criminals... they allready have the advantage in ruthlessnes over a lot of us... why give em the advantage in armement?
lazs
-
beet1e,
The situation you describe sounds like what's happening here in Hawaii. Not enough police to go around and the prisons (only a handful here due to NIMB - Not In My Backyard feelings) are overcrowded. We had to send some inmates to Texas prisons, where they were complaining of being discriminated against :rolleyes: . Our police aren't being paid enough... folks who want to go into Law Enforcement can be paid more if they relocate to the mainland. Some already have. Although violent crime is pretty low here on the average, property crime is high. Lots of tourists who leave stuff in their hotel rooms, rental cars, finding their stuff gone. Purse snatchers who drove around shopping malls looking for some unsuspecting female walking too close to the road... reach out grab purse and drive off. Female is forced to either be dragged or lose her purse. Happened a bunch over the last few years. Folks with Honda's here have to be extra careful with their cars. Hondas are the #1 stollen/broken into cars here. My wife's friend just had his car broken into last week (Honda Accord). He had a car alarm that didn't go off, so they suspect it was the installers ripping him off. My previous car (not a Honda tho) was broken into in our own apartment's garage. A friend of my brother's was a victim too, in broad daylight. Anyways, it seems that since prisons are overcrowded, there's a revolving door sort of thing for property criminals.
It is unfortunate to have to depend solely on Law Enforcement to protect yourself. It is pointed out a lot over here in the states that LE is NOT obligated to protect the individual. You cannot sue the police for not coming to help you in time. Although lost property is not as severe as loss of life, you still had to pay hard earned money for your property. Someone just made off with your stuff that you worked a few days for, or even a year or more in the case of a car. And they'll probably just sell/strip it for parts in exchange for drugs/alcohol. When LE cannot stop property crime, folks can either take the BOHICA route, or try to do something. News about property crimes seem to contain the word "brazen" more often now. Some will break in regardless of whether the family is home or not. That is a fact. Lazs makes a good point... no one is advocating forcing everyone to go out and buy a gun. It may not be right for you as an individual. But for someone who has made the decision to do so...
mauser
-
Tyro48 the problem with your idea is that the world just doesn't work like that.
It doesn't matter how much you educate or house or clothe people, there will always be criminals.
I also agree that self-defense is necessary in certain areas of the country/world. Where I live there are so few cops (and we like it that way and couldn't afford to have enough cops to cover the county with 'protection' like in the city) that if I relied on police to protect me I'd probably already be dead.
I can't think of anyone in this area that isn't armed in some way. (firearm that is)
one other points on relying on police to protect you...
how do you defend yourself against a 'bad' cop ?
-
When was the last time any of you were assaulted or bothered by a "criminal in any way"?
-
criminal: none.. they know we have guns
animal: bear needed to be scared off this year though
-
Tyro48
Why does that mater? I am sure most of us hope we will never be accosted.
I had bum almost attack me not long ago, and a few months back, I had my car broken into, right outside my window.
Go back to your dream world, do not own a gun, and hope you never have to defend yourself.
Live the way you want and do not try and change the way I do.
-
Originally posted by Tyro48
Why do more white men own guns than any other race?
I have a lot of guns. I'm a white man. I have friends that have a lot of golf clubs. Why do white men have so dang many golf clubs?
They don't use a driver to putt with; they have a bag full of clubs that allows them to make choices on the best way to play their favorite game.
I don't use a rifle to shoot a flushed pheasant; I have a safe full of firearms that allows me to make choices on the best way to target shoot and to hunt different varieties and species of game.
Tyro48Why are gun relate d deaths in America on the order of 11k per year, and yet the problems are all still there, most the guns the in city kids get a hold of are sold illegally by the white males that owned them thuis justifying buying more guns and yet solving nothing except alying some of your personal fear !
[/b]
In 2000 there were 17,000+ alchol related vehicle fatalities in America. Yet the problems are still there. Most of the booze in city kids get a hold of are sold illegally by the white males that owned them or stolen from adults. Thus justifying buying more booze and yet solving nothing except alying some of your personal fear or drowning a few sorrows or just boozing it up for the heck of it.
Remember, booze the only designed purpose for booze is getting people drunk! And then they drive and KILL people! 17,000+ every year in the US alone!!!!!!!!
-
Why do you think the US homocide statistics are so much higher than other western coutries?
-
You did fine Toad.
Now if you would just start coming around and understand that guns are bad, freedom is overrated and accept the fact that there was a history prior to 1777, you and I might get along.
-
Primarily the different culture that has always existed.
-
Toad...I can see you now, beside your safe, as a burgler rummages through your house:
"hmmm....should I go for the Baretta or the Magnum? Tough call....I want to take this guy down in one shot....maybe the shotgun?...nah..too messy...need something that will do the job with the least amount of splatter...hmmmm"
Of course you could always use the 7 iron. ;)
-
lol
ever seen the movie Tremmors?
reminds me of the 'gun' guy :)
-
TYRO48 this is for you! about 5 years ago in South Carolina USA, a bank manager was taken hostage in her own house her husband and her were tied to there bed with duct tape, she was raped. the next morning these criminals took her to her bank, told her go in empty the vault or her husband would be killed (side point, the were not gun owners) she did as told , they then took her and her husband whom was in the trunk of the vehicle, some 30 miles away and dumped them off the roadside. these men were later caught in FLA USA in a shootout with the cops, they were injured but not dead. the bank manager and husband also survived , but she was never the same nor will ever be. when the cops questioned the criminals they were pissed, the assistant manager who was in charge of the vault stuck them with 3 bags of 1's and 5's. when they ask the criminals why they didn't take the assistant manager(they stalked both for 3 weeks prior) their point was that the assistant managers husband carried a pistol with him everywhere he went, and they felt it was to risky. THE Assistant Manager is MY WIFE, so when you ask who has been affected by a crime, now you know . I am licensed and carry a taurus 357 magnum wherever i go. It(my weapon) was a deterant in this case.
-
Actually, the (Tm) "Three Labradors" Burglar Alarm System would be going off and that would allow me to procede with the encounter along the guidelines that have been previously determined to be most effective.
You don't really think a responsible person has no plan whatsoever for such an eventuality, do you? I mean, either the plan is that the guns are locked up and stay that way or there is a gun available for use and proper plans and guidelines have been decided upon.
BTW, I don't golf. I find it incredibly boring. Sorry. :D
-
ditto on pasture pool (golf)
it be more fun if it were hockey (as per commercial)
-
krazyhorse:
:eek: gonna save your post for my library of articles if you don't mind.
Although this isn't an example of myself being directly bothered by a criminal, it comes close. When my car was broken into in our condo's garage the theif was caught red-handed by the security guard. Unfortunately, none of the guards are armed... with anything. Probably not wanting to get into a confrontation with the theif, the guard supposedly told the theif to stay put while he went to call his supervisor. What do you think the theif did? The theif was of course positively identified because his mother and step father lived in the condo (he didn't live there). I heard he went to jail, but was out in less than a year or two. An even closer example of being bothered by a criminal was when my brother and his friend (just two of them I think) caught a bunch of theives breaking into another friend's car in broad daylight in the high school parking lot. The theives outnumbered them and threatened them with screwdrivers, then punched holes in my brother's tires and sped off. Brother carried a baseball bat in his car after that.. he was so pissed. I remember when he called me on his cell phone right after it happened. Could tell his adrenaline level was up there and he was shaken.
Even in a place which is supposed to be considered a "paradise" we have these things occuring. We aren't devoid of gang activity, or drugs either. I heard this USED to be a place where folks could leave their door unlocked, welcomed strangers in to their homes without fear, and times were good (sounds like how a lot of less urban places start out). Criminals will be everywhere, and to think they follow some kind of ethical code is foolhardy.
mauser
-
From The Arizona Republic (http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/1203shoot03.html)
Would-be robber killed in Peoria home invasion
By Susan Carroll
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 3, 2002
A botched home invasion in Peoria left one would-be robber dead and closed down five area schools as police searched for a second man.
Two men dressed in black and wearing face masks broke into a home in the 13400 block of North 68th Drive at about 8:30 a.m. Monday, police said.
"Once inside, they were confronted by a resident of the house, who shot and killed one of them," said Sgt. Clark Collier, a Peoria police spokesman. "The other one got away."
Police informed Peoria Unified School District about the man's escape, warning that he may be armed.
The warning prompted the district to lock down Oakwood Elementary, 12900 N. 71st Ave., which is about a half mile from the home. Paseo Verde and Frontier elementary schools as well as Cactus and Centennial high schools also were closed as a precaution, said Jim Cummings, district spokesman. The lockdown was lifted at 10:45 a.m.
Police did not release the identities of the dead man or his shooter.
The man who escaped remained at large Monday night, but Collier said two men were detained for questioning.
Collier added that shooting intruders and defending one's self are issues homeowners often have questions about.
"That comes up a lot," he said. "There is a lot of things we look at. We have to ask, 'Did the guy get shot in the back or the front and was he armed?"
Homeowners can resort to violence if they feel threatened, he said.
"You are allowed to defend yourself and your property and use deadly force if you feel your life is in danger," Collier said.
Reporter Sara Thorson contributed to this article.
-
BTW since that happened my wife is also now licensed to carry a gun and does , a colt 380
-
Mr. Toad!
No - leave that to Lazs! LOL
But seriously - all these guns going around... sounds like we're backsliding into the Wild West days.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Actually, the (Tm) "Three Labradors" Burglar Alarm System would be going off.
You don't really think a responsible person has no plan whatsoever for such an eventuality, do you?
BTW, I don't golf. I find it incredibly boring. Sorry. :D
Speaking of the three Tm system...any news re: a chocolate lab pup? Any pregnant squeakes?
Golf boring?! :confused: frustrating maybe..but not boring, surely?
krazyhorse..wow!
-
From The Arizona Republic
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would-be robber killed in Peoria home invasion
By Susan Carroll
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 3, 2002
A botched home invasion in Peoria left one would-be robber dead and closed down five area schools as police searched for a second man.
Two men dressed in black and wearing face masks broke into a home in the 13400 block of North 68th Drive at about 8:30 a.m. Monday, police said.
"Once inside, they were confronted by a resident of the house, who shot and killed one of them," said Sgt. Clark Collier, a Peoria police spokesman. "The other one got away."
This is the story I was refering to in my post "One Less Piece of Garbage"
Since Arizona is a conealed carry state, and we have lots of guns anyway, citizens can actually defend themselves and others.
About 5 years ago, 2 or 3 illegal Mexican immigrants shot and killed a Phoenix Police officer. A local citizen witnessed the shooting and shot 1 or two of the Mexicans from his truck window as the crime unfolded. He had to fire left handed out the driver's window. It resulted in all of these guys being caught.
Phoenix police praised this man's actions. If it hadn't been for this man, these piles of watermelon would probably have slithered back into Mexico.
-
Curval, we just bred the Chocolate to the yellow "Irish squeak". Unfortunately, she's notoriously hard to "settle" and rarely has large litters if any at all. We'll be doing an X-ray in 3 weeks to see if she caught. I'll put you second on the list..... after me..... if you like. No chocolates though; these will be black or yellow.
The planned chocolate/chocolate breeding failed this Fall when the guy that owned the squeak went off to Sunday church on the appointed breeding day and came back to find his female gone. He found her two days later in the company of a mixed-breed hound. She got the "morning after" shot. So, we'll try her again in Spring.
Beetle, two points:
What are you referencing with "all these guns"? Mine aren't going around anywhere. They're under direct control and/or locked in a safe.
As for "Wild West"... well, IF that is so, then there's two ways to look at it.
It could be the Wild West because of guns. Maybe. But I doubt it. Because there's just too much proof (much of it posted on this BBS in other threads) that guns in and of themselves aren't the problem and further, that restricting/confiscating/banning guns doesn't change the crime statistics in any significant manner where it was tried. Well, that's not true. Homicide stats remain "very stable" after ban in the words of the Home Office, but other violent crime stats seem to skyrocket to the point that England and Australia are leading the world in the International Crime Victimization Study.
Or it could be the Wild West and guns aren't the cause; people with a lawless attitude are the cause. If so, you pay your money and take your choice. That statement seems to fit the nature of the problem in EVERY country, IMO. Personally, if I live/lived in the Wild West, I'd rather be armed. :D
YMMV.
-
But seriously - all these guns going around... sounds like we're backsliding into the Wild West days
Who's "we" Beet1e :) I thought you guys don't have guns?
-
BTW, Curval.. here's the old boy himself just two weeks ago.
As for golf, the only time I ever enjoyed it was playing "beer golf" on the Kadena AFB course. We did that every time we deployed. :D
-
What a beautiful lab! Obviously an old campaigner.
-
He's 10 and a half and a daily joy in my life. Never been around a happier Lab. The fact that he's great in the field is just an incredible bonus.
Thanks for the compliment, I'll pass it on. ;)
-
Break into my house when I'm home and IF you don't get your bellybutton shot it will be beaten to a pulp with a baseball bat, or carved up with a meat cleaver... whatever. Our Doby got to the last dumbshit that tried to break in hehe... he got away but he did leave a few chunks.
-
Tumor - ooooh! You're so tough and manly. :)
NUKE - well, you know. I was wondering the same thing when I read the title of this thread - we don't want your gun control... Does that mean everyone in the USA?
Mr. Toad - is that a "chocolate lab"? Nice dog, very faithful looking, but what has he done to that back leg? Nice pheasant catch. Would you believe, Mr. Toad, that the woods in which I go walking, 12 miles from my house, have pheasants like that. And hunters out shooting them! And I could be one of them, if I wanted. I must come to dinner at your house some time. ;)
-
I've had two people that I know who have hondas get them stolen and damaged one was totalled the other left with crowbar marks on both doors and the ignition destroyed. (these thefts happened a week apart btw within the last 2 months)
Honda's certainly seem to be getting stolen alot around here as well...
Washington state.
Originally posted by mauser
Hondas are the #1 stollen/broken into cars here. My wife's friend just had his car broken into last week (Honda Accord).
-
hehe Wlfgng
"If you ever need one of those and you don't own one... you look like a d*rk :D"
-
289 million people in America, 1 example in this small group, unless ya have an animal to alert u in the dead of night u most likely will end up being awaken with your gun or theirs pointed at u or in your mouth, you may still get to see your wife raped its all a chance episode but the media has ya so scared ya got a vault of weapons, 357 fired in public or your home is likely to injure the robber, the situation is gonna make your aim real suspect add the dark for a little fun and the round will stop in your neigbors home or in them who know its all chance but the reality of it is there but ya have multiple chances of hurting someone other than the intruder.
Now as to taking your weapons? Where was that said your parinoid to boot everyones out to get my guns oh gosh oh golly I wont get to kill someone that chance says has little possibility of ever happening.
You want to protect your home get a shotgun 12 ga small pellets #7's or so that way you wont kill the rest of us with your zest to protect yourself from the boogie man.
Give that Doby an extra bone to the dog!! Now that what I'm talkin about, smart dude there!
Your or your wife fire that 357 or 380 in public you'll be gawd damn lucky if you dont end up bein the one in prison for murder and end up bein Bubbas butt buddy, dont be such a reactionary to something thats has slim chance of happening, you wanna target shot at a range great, wanna hunt great, like trap shootin fine I love it, but dont jump out your behind because the media is playin ya for a sap! Get the shot gun, and a big dog ! Prisoners interviewed that have been involved in home assaults/ robbery say they fear the dog most of all, it alerts you, then you might get to your vault.
But straight out of the bag there ya come he wants my guns he wants my guns, you are the one that needs a get real class I dont want a gawd damn thing you have I earn my own way. Bank jobs anyone of us could fall into, apparently the gaurd got caught off gaurd also. but those you mention werent concerned about his gun only yours! Yeah right !
-
Yes, it's a Chocolate Lab. It's a double recessive in the color genes. They're not common here but they're very uncommon (you might say rare) in England. Breeders used to destroy them when born; that American penchant for letting everyone do what they want to do led to some of them surviving and now some breed only for Chocolate. Still pretty frowned upon in the UK though.
5 years ago he went through a weedy junk pile after a downed, running pheasant. He cut a 4 inch slice of hide off that back leg on a piece of old metal. No extra hide to sew up on a lower leg, so it was a long, tedious healing process. He never did get hair back over the scar. The skin is pretty thin as well and it abrades after running through the weeds. So, I use VetWrap (self-sticking elastic bandage) and give him some extra protection over when we hunt. It doesn't bother him now.
You'd probably enjoy dinner at my house. The sacrifice the game makes to be the "guest of honor" is not wasted. Generally, they are treated with respect, served with fine wine, accompanied by carefully chosen and prepared side dishes, and followed by a round of very good Scotch with which to toast their contribution to our lives. In the field and in the kitchen, the pheasant is a worthy bird.
Toodle-pip, old chap!
-
Tyro48..... 'fess up now....... are you really Toed/Lord Dolph Vader?
-
I'd like to go hunting one day. Definitely not for sport - that's very wasteful IMO. I'd definitely have to eat whatever I shot, even if it was the game-keeper. ;)
-
Toed/Lord Dolf Vader???? Que??? Earth to Toad put the pipe down son think you done had one toke to many!
-
Better hurry up, Dowding. :D
Seems some of you folks over there are making quite an industry of restricting things and minding other peoples' business. :)
This just in from the Countryside Alliance (yes, I have friends in the Lab/Shooting biz over there):
Response to Hunting Bill Announcement
Alun Michael yesterday announced the Government's intention to ban stag hunting and competitive coursing and to subject all other forms of hunting (other than rabbits and rats) to a stringent licencing system....We have all seen from the Press that certain MPs will attempt to amend the Bill so as to provide for a complete ban.
As for killing what you eat, that was a rule my father's father set down in this family. My boys have taken it to heart and I'm sure it will pass on from them. The only exception is for other predators such as the coyote and then we use or sell the hides. For predators it's "live by the sword, die by the sword".
Nonetheless, hunting is still a GREAT sport if you hunt in a sporting manner. I don't think you can separate the sport from the use of the game, though; I agree. There has to be both.
I guess that's why I've never hunted anything larger than an elk.
-
The Countryside Alliance is a joke. There are many issues do to with the countryside (and have my sympathy), but the upper class fox 'hunters' have hijacked the entire organisation. And there are plenty of people within the Alliance that think that. There are also plenty of people of people in the Alliance that tolerate the 'hunters' simply because of the higher PR value it gives the organisation (and their particular beef) as a whole.
Personally, I couldn't give a toss what they want to do in their spare time. Honestly, I don't. Dress up in stupid clothes and chase around the place on their horses after a small furry animal with their packs of hounds. Hardly sporting, at all. They used to go for wolves, but they killed them all off. I think when all the foxes are gone, they'll start hunting the shrew or maybe some kind of specially bred hamster. But anyway, I know a farmer or two (or rather the sons of), and they ain't too kean on the hunts when they cross their land. Broken fences, scaring livestock etc seem to annoy them. Can't think why.
Hunting purely for sport is something I wouldn't do. Like I said before, it's wasteful. The killing for food idea sounds like just what I had in mind.
BTW, the UK isn't like the US. It is densely populated, and what countryside there is (and there is a fair bit protected in certain areas) has to be managed. There aren't many wide open spaces or huge forests. It's of concern to us all, no matter where we live.
The upper classes are still living in some 19th century wonderland, where the lower classes must still avert their gaze in a respectful, subservient manner and have no opinion on what they chose to do with their 'property'. ;)
-
I don't really know that much about CA, but given the actions in Parliament I can understand the concern. Sounds like the country folk do have a "beef".
Hunters must have a different connotation for you. Here, the word would never bring to mind the formal horse and hounds fox hunters. There's a little of that but it's almost non-existent.
Hunter here connotes somebody on foot with a gun in pursuit of legal game.
I've been to the UK and flown over it quite a bit. You have more open land than you apparently think. Perhaps one major difference is in the view towards ownership of game. Your history is that game belonged to the person that owned the land (the King, to start with). Our tradition is that the game belongs to the public.
Property rights ideas, fences for example, are much closer I think.
-
tyro.. if you get 10,000 or so gun homicides a year... most of em being dead criminals and at the same time you prevent upwards to 3,000,000 crimes a year with firearms... well yuo do the math.. I say it is you who is focused on a microcosm.
tyro is gunman 26 (or 42) after listening to barry manilow for 6 months straight.
toad.. missspellings make me furious.. someone should regulate em,..
dowding... population is the key... the more crowded the less freedom you have... our large population centers in America vote for less freedom every time. Most of America is more rural and as such... your gun laws don't work here.
beetle... who is "we" in reference to the wild west? Are you saying that if england allowed people to shoot burglars then it would be the wild west? Much better that they simply hide in cages until the burglars finish cleaning out the house eh? somehow... that doesn't strike me as "freedom".
In their landmark study, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard found, "allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have Right to Carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly....[T]he estimated annual gain from allowing concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion....[W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent." ("Crime, Deterrence, and Right To Carry Concealed Handguns," 1996.)
-------------
"Concerns that permit holders would lose their tempers in traffic accidents have been unfounded. Worries about risks to police officers have also proved unfounded....National surveys of police show they support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 margin....There is also not a single academic study that claims Right to Carry laws have increased state crime rates. The debate among academics has been over how large the benefits have been." ("Should Michigan keep new concealed weapon law? Don't believe gun foe scare tactics," Detroit News, 1/14/01.) "Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed-carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences....But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media's radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn't so bad after all." (David Kopel, "The Untold Triumph of Concealed-Carry Permits," Policy Review, July-Aug. 1996, p. 9.)
-------------
Violent crime has decreased every year since 1991, while 17 states adopted and 13 states improved RTC laws. RTC states have lower violent crime rates, on average: 22% lower total violent crime, 28% lower murder, 38% lower robbery, and 17% lower aggravated assault. The five states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (FBI)
-
Ask any Brit what the The Hunt means, and they'll say the same thing - horses and hounds, red coats, upper class, shredded fox. ;)
I should think most people are indifferent to any other form of hunting. To be honest, I should have thought there isn't much else. We don't have any wild game oustide of land-owner's property. And you pay a fortune to go shoot deer there, for instance. In America, you just need a hunting licence and can go bag yourself something for dinner in a publically owned forest? :)
Like I said before - there are many countryside issues. But the only act of parliament of any note that would affect them has been the fox hunting (or cruel sports) act. It's not like Parliament has targetted the countryside in sweeping legislature. The issues they have brought up address things like rising house prices caused by London and city dwellers buying up village property either for second homes or to commute from - this forces the children of local folk to leave the village because they can't afford to buy a house.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
I should think most people are indifferent to any other form of hunting. To be honest, I should have thought there isn't much else. We don't have any wild game oustide of land-owner's property. And you pay a fortune to go shoot deer there, for instance. In America, you just need a hunting licence and can go bag yourself something for dinner in a publically owned forest? :)
There's quite a bit of bird hunting in England, although most of it is "pay to shoot". It would probably qualify as an "industry", given the effort expended on the land, raising the birds, setting up the hunts, etc..
The US does indeed have much more in the way of public hunting. We don't have an Queen's forest stuff... the public land belongs to all of us.. and the game on it as well.
Still, it looks as if there's smoke in the anti-hunting part of Parliament. Probably a fire there somewhere too.
-
Mr. Toad! Dinner at your residence would seem to be a grand affair! I should dress accordingly. You've been to the UK? Next time you should look me up! (Only 30 mins from LHR) I've got a friend whos's a captain with UA (747-100/200, but now 777) and we met at the hotel in Queensway at which the airline puts him up, and I helped him with the jetlag. :D Well, started to...
Dowding. I don't like the idea of foxes being hunted with hounds. They say that it's necessary to regulate the fox population. But that is total bollocks - there exist fox coverts at which foxes are bred in captivity to be released into the wild to be hunted.
Lazs! In their landmark study, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard found, "allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths.
Oh, well that clears up a mystery. I didn't know that David Mustard had participated in that study. Clearly John Lott was unable to locate a sharp object, and therefore could not cut the Mustard - LOL!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Mr. Toad! Dinner at your residence would seem to be a grand affair! I should dress accordingly. You've been to the UK? Next time you should look me up! (Only 30 mins from LHR)
Yeah, we "dress" for dinner; it's pretty formal. My wife hates naked people at the table. So, we at least try for shoes, socks, clean blue jeans and flannel shirt. Flannel sleeves wipe the spilled whiskey up so well......
I've been to the UK many, many times. Starting in '75 and continuing off and on up until last year. My company is restricted to Gatwick, however and we stay in Brighton. Nice, but after a few years of that, London seems pretty attractive.
I'm coming over again in January to visit friends in the Devon area.
I bet they look at me funny if I say "toodle-pip" when I leave. What do you think?
-
btw, fergot to mention those 1' and 5's added up to 22,000 us dollars. also i have 2 dogs a basset and a chow mix, they do there job just fine. as far as shooting my pistols into the neighbors house, well very unlikely the nearest neighbors house is about 1000 yards away, yes i also have several shotguns, rifles as well . your statement about shooting in public is pretty much correct it had better be a life threatening situation or you are in deep chit.
-
LOL Mr. Toad! No shoes, no shirt, no service? :D
Gatwick/LGW :( Sounds like you fly for either Cont. or USAirways - or Delta at a pinch.
Not sure how Toodle-Pip would go down in Devon. I did once hear Alec Guinness say it - in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy...
BTW Lazs - you would like the 1949 movie, Kind Hearts and Coronets - in which Alec Guinness plays now fewer than EIGHT different parts! THAT ought to make you feel safe, especially as the movie is in B&W. However, I must warn you that someone is killed with a gun towards the end of the movie. :D
-
Toad i grew up in south devon, and being a rural area 'toodle-pip' isn't really fitting.
what you should try for is:
replace the word them with they.
"can i have some of them" should be
"can I ave sum oh they, me darlin/ bay (boy)" (me darlin/bay should be added to the end of all greatings"
ex "all right bay" "all right me darlin"
other great stand outs, put a piece of grass in your mouth and walk round saying:
"ear, get orff may land youse buggers"
have fun in devon and visit my home town of Totnes (we have an old round castle and loads of hippies) and also my home surfing beach 'Bantham' also at Bantham/bigbury is 'Burgh Island' where Agather Christie wrote many of her books. :)
Oh yes and many sheep :D
-
Originally posted by Blank
Oh yes and many sheep :D
Well, not being of the Rook or Knight persuasion, I have no real intellectual or emotional interest in sheep. :D
However, I have heard they raise some amazingly fine Labrador gun dogs around there. Now that interests me. ;)
-
Toad wrote:
Our tradition is that the game belongs to the public.
In Sweden, they have a thing called "allemansrätt" (directly translated it meas "the right of all men") which applies to ground owned by the government.
This means that you may travel on, put up a tent, collect berries etc. Hunting obviously isn't included, but fishing is in the five biggest lakes as well as the coastlines.
This is extremely good, I think. I do a good deal of cliff climbing in Sweden during the summer. Last year I went over with some Danish friends - they insisted on staying at an official camping ground and paid through their noses. I went up to the cliffs and found myself a place to put up a tent. Saved me toejameloads. To top it off, there was a lake five minutes away where I could bathe, clean myself and my clothes etc.
Do you have something similar in the US or is most ground privately owned?
I find the Swedish approach most agreeable - nature is not to be 'owned' exclusively by rich people, IMHO. Or controlled by the state.
-
Santa,
Our National Park system is open to all but usually not for hunting in the Parks.
We have millions and millions of acres of other public land, like Bureau of Land Mangement (BLM) land that is open to basically all recreation.
There's plenty of "elbow" room here to do whatever you like.