what the hell is ROHS

It is necessary to the security of a free state.

Sez who ?

I damn well hope all are afraid of being voted out of office. That may require a well-educated population rather than an armed one though.

Graham

It was once I believe.

Graham

need

That's something of a chicken and egg situation in the USA now. Gradual changes in UK law about gun ownership have taken substantial numbers of guns out of circulation though.

I am however forever preplexed why Americans seem not to understand why the rarity of gun ownership elsewhere does indeed lead to a lower rate of gun crime.

Graham

need

changes in UK

circulation

rarity of

You don't seem to be able to grasp that a lot of guns are made by organized crime, along with amunition.

wouldn't need

changes in UK

circulation

rarity of

I'm wholly aware of that actually. That it exists at all in the UK speaks volumes about how successful our gun laws have been since the supply of 'normal' weapons has pretty much dried up.

Graham

volumes about how

pretty much

Good for you. While you are smugly thinking that you're so safe, the criminals are getting more guns. You are in for a rude awakening.

If you implement measures that reduce criminals' access to

It would take time for

and there

Seperate your backside from your head (if you have a head, that is).

I took the statement by joseph2k that "only a very small minority of decent citizens have guns", and followed that logically. If that is false (as you say - and I am more inclined to believe you here than joseph2k), then obviously my logical conclusion was false.

The point is to reach a state when very few of the criminals have guns. These are going to be the hard-core types, and lawful citizens are easy pickings whether they are armed or not. The aim is that your common drug-addict burglar, dark alley mugger, or convenience store robber should not have a gun.

The reason I don't have such a sign on my front lawn is that in my country, Norway, "gun crime" means hunting elk without a license. We have enormous numbers of hunting rifles and shotguns, but handguns are very rare, and gun crime rarer. So I'm viewing this from the outside, which gives a different perspective. I don't know what it is like to have to live with the threat of armed robbery or such crimes - I don't even lock my bicycle outside my house. But I do wonder why a lot of Americans are so keen on the idea that they should have the right to have weapons designed solely to make killing people as easy as possible. When people say they have to have them, for defence against armed criminals, I can understand it - you don't want to be an unarmed victim facing an armed criminal. But so many seem to think it is better for both the victim and the criminal to be armed than neither, and I can't comprehend that at all. If you want to argue that it is impractical or impossible to get the USA to a state like the UK where almost no one has guns, then that's fair enough - I would not expect it to be easy. But do you think it would be preferable, if it could be achieved?

Any changes or controls cost money - but so do the guns and the associated crimes.

I am fully aware that such controls would have a lot more effect on new guns entering the market than existing guns, and that it is not easy to find solutions that affect criminals at least as much (and preferably more) than law-abiding citizens. But simply dismissing any ideas as "useless" sounds like a pretty defeatist attitude to me.

When you have calmed down from your fanatic knee-jerk reaction, you might realise that I did not say the USA should ban guns - "controlling" is something very different. There may be some optimists out there who think "gun control" is best implemented as an immediate blanket ban of legal gun sales, but I'm not among them. A full ban worked fine in the UK, where there were far fewer guns in the first place, and when it came after a lot of preparation such as enforced registrations and amnesty periods. It would not work in the USA - there are too many guns at the moment.

The aim of gun control is to reduce the number of guns available (on both sides), and to keep better track of the guns in circulation.

Don't you want your grandchildren to inherit a safer country than you live in now? Just because a change is long term, does not mean it is worthless.

"Eeyore" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com...

I'm even more wholly aware of that typically inept and crap piece of legislation. There was a hyped "sky is falling" campaign to change the status of Brocock compressed air cartridge handguns in the UK as they "could be modified to take real cartridges". Note these would be single shot weapons, and were covered by existing firearm laws - getting caught with one of these would mean instant jail.

The result of the legislation (apart from effectively confiscating my rifle, which would in no circumstance have been suitable for criminal activity), was that according to the police, tens of thousands of these handguns have "gone underground", making them more accessible rather than less. The alternatives presented were 5 years in jail, or spending £250 on a gun safe etc plus annual inspections and licensing fees.

Yes, I had a genuine use for the rifle. I have eaten what I shot. I have spent upwards of £1000 on preventative fencing on my property.

Ian

by existing legislation on firearms

It is.

No, the point is to reach a state where there are no living criminals.

Not true. The hardcore types are spineless weasels sucking the blood of the weak. "Gun control" means the most endangered of the weak (inner city minorities, particularly) cannot defend themselves. The hardcore types will not go after anyone if there is a *chance* they'll be even harassed in the process. The HC perp will simply find someone weaker.

No, the "aim" is that they're dead. ...the first time (one $.35 bullet to the head).

You lice in a very homogeneous society. You have no clue what goes on in the US. You cannot extrapolate Norway to the whole of the US. Maybe rural Minnesota, but not the whole of the US.

No, you don't get it. I have no way of controlling what the criminal carries. I *DO* have control over what I do. BTW, I don't carry (but own a few handguns) because I live in a safe area where it's perfectly legal to own and carry a handgun, without so much as a permit. Crime here is pretty much limited to drug trafficking and out-of-state gangs (pretty much the same thing).

A bullet costs $.35.

s/defeatist/realistic/

infringed"

purpose.

I don't, but I know many who do. Actually, most of my friends hunt. Some even fish. ;-)

That's just silly. Criminals will use any advantage possible. An armed victim simply evens the odds.

infringed"

purpose.

need

Well you see, in the UK it's quite rare for criminals to carry guns* and as has regularly been pointed out, a startled householder is unlikely to be a great shot ( assuming they can even find their gun and load it in a sensible time frame ) it simply ups the risks.

• Certain groups like bank robbers and drug dealers are more likely to carry guns btw even over here but you don't want to be messing with those guys anyway ! It's essentially unknown for the 'average' mugger or thief to be armed ( except maybe with a knife ).

Graham

An armed victim simply increases their chances of getting shot you clot !

Graham

infringed"

purpose.

need

shot (

it simply

You're in for a surprise.

guns btw

maybe with a

Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

Sorry, but that's simply not true, yutz. Somewhere between 750K and 2M violent crimes PER YEAR are stopped by an armed citizen. Discharging of the firearm is rare since the perp generally soils himself and runs when he finds he chosen the wrong victim.

The *highest* crime rates are where it's hardest to get guns. The lowest where it's easiest. Where laws are loosened to make guns easier to get, crime rates fall. Where guns are made harder to get, violent crime rises. That and the million or two stopped crimes is enough evidence for me, but you're welcome to contunue to be fleeced.

has

shot (

it simply

What's that supposed to mean ?

Graham

Do you have a cite for such figures ?

So how do you explain that your crime rate exceeds ours ?

The reverse here.

I'm not being fleeced by anyone thanks.

In any case, ppl here simply wouldn't *want* to have to own guns to protect themselves !

Graham