How do I avoid looking and acting American while traveling in Europe?

Following up to Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena
goat's pelt to the deck'' )

Quote away if you really think arming those thugs would be a good
thing. Hmmm? Do you?

People who legally have concealed weapons permits are rarely involved in
the sort of behaviour you are referring to.

I agree its a red herring.

Unless you are involved in
illegal drugs or other crime, the threat from getting shot in America is
very low.

but much higher than Europe?
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Gunner

where are the guns? That was a crowd crush IIRC.

Crowd rush..guns...are the 39 deaders any less dead? Or is it worse
when you have your skull stepped on and smashed in by hordes of
drunken sots, than having a hole put in your chest by a bullet?

the question is "do you control guns"? Establishing there are
other ways people can be killed is not much of an argument.

Seems your Liverpuds are guilty of mass murder.

They are not "mine", they are not Liverpuds, they are
Liverpudlians.
I doubt causing a crowd crush qualifies as mass murder.

No capital punishment
in the UK I see..bummer..seems a one way trip into the Tower would be
appropriate for such crimes against humanity.

Judical violence is not a solution to football violence. You
should try to look at issues on thier merits rather than just
accuse others of some irrelevant imagined shortcoming.
For instance, the need for gun control in the US is not refuted
by finding some imagined fault in another area in another
country.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Gunner

one civil war, like you. Only longer ago, much longer.

Really?????

Yes, really

http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/


The Bishops' Wars, 1639 and 1640
The First Civil War, 1640-1646
The Second Civil war, 1647-1649
The Third Civil War, 1649-1651
The Commonwealth, 1649-1653
Cromwells Protectorate 1654-1658
Restoration 1659-1650

I note that the dates of these 4 civil wars all run together,
does that tell you something?

English Civil War
(1642–49) The armed struggle between the supporters of the
king (Cavaliers) and Parliamentarians (Roundheads), which erupted
in 1642 and continued, with an interruption, until 1648. It
arose from constitutional, religious, and economic
differences between Charles I and the Members of the Long
Parliament. Of these the most decisive factor was religion,
since the attempts of Laud to impose liturgical uniformity
had alienated substantial numbers of clergy, gentry, and
craftsmen. All sect..................

Revolutionary War 1770-1783

Its possible to see wars of independence as civil wars but most
don't unless just trying to point score in a quest to justify the
superiority of their own country. Rather sad really and frequent
on this ng.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:31:34 +0100, The Reids
wrote:

Following up to Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena
goat's pelt to the deck'' )

when people make *other* people sunbathe. Laws are about harming
others generally, or should be.

What does owning a gun have to do with harming others anymore than
owning a car does?

because guns are designed to harm, cars are designed to get from
A to B, (please don't bother to reiterate the hunting red
herring).

Guns are not designed to harm. They are designed to launch a
projectile at a target. My verious match rifles and handguns are about
as far from a "weapon" as one could get. Indeed, missuse of them may
lead to injury or death, but so will misuse of powertools, fuel, etc.

Your bias and ignorance is noted.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
[...]
Guns are not designed to harm. They are designed to launch a
projectile at a target. [...]

And I thought that "Republican SF warns on transporting explosives" was as
bizarre as you could get.

-------
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
"What will History say?"
"History, sir, will tell lies as usual."

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:31:36 +0100, The Reids
wrote:

Following up to Gunner

Shot by a flare in the skull intentionally or shot by a .357 magnum.
What is the difference again?

Indeed, why do gun enthusiasts need to be told over and over?
The use of the flare is a *misuse* (which might warrant
controlled access to flares, as with cars), use of a gun to kill
is its design purpose.

Absolutely incorrect. Why do anti-gun extremists need to be told over
and over that the primary design of a firearm is to launch a
projectile at a target. As are spear guns, nail sets, etc etc.

That is why they should not be in the
hands of the public.

Since the basic underlying foundation of your claim is not only flawed
but false..your argument crumbles like a house of cards.

Flares have a legitimate use, as do knives, hammers etc etc.
"magnums" do not, unless made of ice cream.

Magnums do indeed have many legitimate uses. I fire perhaps 50,000
rds a year in competative shooting, hunting or impromptu recreational
shooting, and with arms far more powerful than a "magnum". Ive fired
this number for the past 30 yrs, and have not harmed a single
individual by mischance or intent. Few firearms harm anyone by intent
or mischance. Perhaps .001 percent. Now would you care to discuss the
same figure in regards to motor vehicles, swimming pools or cigarette
lighters?

I also should add that I carry a fiream EVERY day as a self defense
aid, which is is a very legitimate use. At least in most places
besides the UK. In fact, Im licensed to do do by the the government.

Gunner


Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:31:37 +0100, The Reids
wrote:

Following up to Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena
goat's pelt to the deck'' )

where are the guns? That was a crowd crush IIRC.

Where are the guns killing folks at football matches in the US?

You tell me.
So we agree football violence in northern europe has nothing to
do with gun control and is irrelevant to the discussion.

Since violence is the end result of firearms ownership, by your
claim..it has total relevance to the subject. If there is violence
without firearms..then perhaps the firearms themselves are not the
root cause, as you so claim.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:31:38 +0100, The Reids
wrote:

Following up to Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena
goat's pelt to the deck'' )

Quote away if you really think arming those thugs would be a good
thing. Hmmm? Do you?

People who legally have concealed weapons permits are rarely involved in
the sort of behaviour you are referring to.

I agree its a red herring.

Unless you are involved in
illegal drugs or other crime, the threat from getting shot in America is
very low.

but much higher than Europe?

Which parts of Europe? Many parts of Europe have very high rates of
gun ownership, and very low homicide rates. Switzerland, is a prime
example as are many of the Scandinavian countries. Many of the
disarmed countries have homicide rates far far higher than thos well
armed countries.

So it would appear that the firearm is not the root cause, dispite
your claims.

To paraphase an ex US president...."Its the Culture, stupid!"

One should note that Mexico for example has draconian laws against all
types of firearms and yet has one of the highest homicide rates in the
Western world. Homicides committed by other means than firearms.

Gunner


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:31:38 +0100, The Reids
wrote:

Following up to Gunner

where are the guns? That was a crowd crush IIRC.

Crowd rush..guns...are the 39 deaders any less dead? Or is it worse
when you have your skull stepped on and smashed in by hordes of
drunken sots, than having a hole put in your chest by a bullet?

the question is "do you control guns"? Establishing there are
other ways people can be killed is not much of an argument.

Only if the "gun control" can be demonstrated to lower the homicide
rates significantly. In the case of the UK, the homicide rate
Increased after gun control was put into practice in the 1920s, and
has been steadily rising every since.

Seems your Liverpuds are guilty of mass murder.

They are not "mine", they are not Liverpuds, they are
Liverpudlians.
I doubt causing a crowd crush qualifies as mass murder.

At the very least..manslaughter or negligent homicide.

No capital punishment
in the UK I see..bummer..seems a one way trip into the Tower would be
appropriate for such crimes against humanity.

Judical violence is not a solution to football violence. You
should try to look at issues on thier merits rather than just
accuse others of some irrelevant imagined shortcoming.
For instance, the need for gun control in the US is not refuted
by finding some imagined fault in another area in another
country.

There is no need for gun control in the US, and in fact can be
demonstrated that gun control Increase crime, rather than lessens it.
As it has been shown both in the US, and in the UK.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:31:39 +0100, The Reids
wrote:

Following up to Gunner

one civil war, like you. Only longer ago, much longer.

Really?????

Yes, really

http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/


The Bishops' Wars, 1639 and 1640
The First Civil War, 1640-1646
The Second Civil war, 1647-1649
The Third Civil War, 1649-1651
The Commonwealth, 1649-1653
Cromwells Protectorate 1654-1658
Restoration 1659-1650

I note that the dates of these 4 civil wars all run together,
does that tell you something?

It tells me that you are in denial. If you dont like the break down, I
suggest you take it up with the British authors and historians.
Perhaps you will be able to show them the errors of their ways.


English Civil War
(1642–49) The armed struggle between the supporters of the
king (Cavaliers) and Parliamentarians (Roundheads), which erupted
in 1642 and continued, with an interruption, until 1648. It
arose from constitutional, religious, and economic
differences between Charles I and the Members of the Long
Parliament. Of these the most decisive factor was religion,
since the attempts of Laud to impose liturgical uniformity
had alienated substantial numbers of clergy, gentry, and
craftsmen. All sect..................

Revolutionary War 1770-1783

Its possible to see wars of independence as civil wars but most
don't unless just trying to point score in a quest to justify the
superiority of their own country. Rather sad really and frequent
on this ng.

Interesting attempt to weasel. The English citizens of the land mass
later known as the United States, broke into groups, and killed each
other off in job lots. One group attempting to form its own government
against the establishment. I suggest you review the various other
civil wars listed above for similarities.

And do a bit more research on your own history. Its rather pithy that
a mere 'merkin" can teach you things about your own nations history
that you are exceptionaly ignorant of. Common things. Well known
things. In fact..you appear to be butt ignorant of your own nations
history. Pity.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell