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

Gunner wrote:

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.

Correct.

They are designed to launch a
projectile at a target.

Not so.

Guns are designed to propel a projectile in a straight line.

The "launching a projectile at a target" is the responsibility of the
operator of the gun.

It is called "aiming the gun".

Didn't they teach you anything in basic training?

My verious
match rifles and handguns are about
as far from a "weapon" as one could get.

Not so.

They are not "as far from a "weapon" as one could get."

They are closely based on the principles and production processes for
weapons.

Indeed, missuse of them may
lead to injury or death, but so
will misuse of powertools, fuel, etc.


To use your match rifle or hangun as a weapon may loosely be classed as
misuse.

To use a rifle or handgun as a weapon is correct use.

Your assertion therfore is only correct to a degree and solely in
relation to your match rifles and handguns, not to other guns which are
intended to be used as weapons.

Your bias and ignorance is noted.

As is yours.

HTH

M.

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?

Does not the war of the two kings count as a civil war? I will grant
that much of it was fought by proxy, and outside Britain. But in
essence it was a war between two claimants to the British throne.

And how about '45? Scottish war of independence or British civil war?

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Following up to Gunner

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.

Because it isn't. Only pro gun extremists cannot see what the
primary purpose of a gun is.
Outside of US and places like Iraq proposing widespread gun
ownership is regarded as "extremism" and having controls on guns
normal common sense and not an area any reasonable person would
want to argue about.
--
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

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.

Guns are designed to harm, sorry if you don't like the fact and
want to hide behind the idea that the existence of specialised
"sport" weapons make that untrue. Target shooting is a spin off
from the existence of guns, as javelin throwing came from the war
spear.

They are designed to launch a
projectile at a target.

You really believe the gun was invented to launch a projectile at
an archery style target? Come on.

My verious match rifles and handguns are about
as far from a "weapon" as one could get.

As far from a weapon compared with what? Are you saying that if I
pointed your match rifle at you and fired you would not be shot?

You were quoting a "Magnum" before. What is that designed for?

Indeed, missuse of them may
lead to injury or death, but so will misuse of powertools, fuel, etc.

Use of them for their primary purpose leads to injury or death
unless care is taken to substitute an artificial target for the
design target, a living thing.

Your bias and ignorance is noted.

As is yours.
--
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

But it will many years before the authorites get scared enough of
the amount of cash in the hands of drugs barons, acknowledge that
they cannot successfully impose a no drugs other than alcohol
regime and maybe even see that it is not their responsibility to
impose personal "morality" rather to stop people harming others.
When they do we can start to get on top of the drug abuse
problem.

Very good. So why in gods name are you so against guns? They harm far
less people by an order of magnitude than do the very drugs you want
to legalize.

Cars also kill more than guns, that does not make guns a good
idea.
I don't want to legalise drugs because they are a good thing, I
want to legalise them to thwart the criminal drugs traders, to
take them out of the equation and deal with drug misuse in the
open. I do not think taking illegally obtained drugs of dubious
quality is a good thing, I don't think the man in the other car
in a road rage incident having a gun is a good thing.

The difference in moral principal for those legislating between
drugs and guns is that guns are designed to harm others (yes they
are[1]) and drugs are designed to harm oneself.

1] do you extend your "designed to project an object at a target"
thinking to atomic bombs and ballistic missiles? Do you think
plastic explosives are a good thing in the hands of the public?
They can after all, be useful if not misused.
--
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

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.

Where did I claim firearms are the root cause of violence?

Violence is a primitive human attribute, firearms are a result,
not a cause of that violence.
However, firearms turn often non lethal violence into lethal
violence. That is why they should not be in general circulation.

Answer this.
You are in a car crash which results in anger on the part of the
other driver. Will you be safer if the other driver has a gun or
does not have a gun?
--
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

"Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the
deck'' )" wrote in message
...
....
It doesn't matter whether the crime rates are going up or going down in
either jurisdiction, until the lines on the graph actually pass each
other,
and the Canadian crime rates exceed those of the USA.

When average folks don't have guns to defend themselves, property crimes
tend to go up. Breaking into an occupied home in most of the US is like
asking to die.

When average folks have guns to defend themselves with, violent crimes tend
to go up. Though this doesn't apply in Switzerland, where in spite of every
house having an automatic weapon, there is a very low level of crime.
Perhaps it's because the weapons are restricted to - what's the phrase I'm
looking for - a well regulated militia.

J/

SOTW: "Human" - Goldfrapp

Féachadóir Féach@d.óir wrote:

Scríobh Padraig Breathnach :
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?

Does not the war of the two kings count as a civil war? I will grant
that much of it was fought by proxy, and outside Britain. But in
essence it was a war between two claimants to the British throne.

And how about '45? Scottish war of independence or British civil war?

How about 1919-21 and 1969-1994/7?

You forgot 1645, 1798, 1803, 1845, 1867, and 1916.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:43:19 +0100, The Reids wrote:

They are designed to launch a projectile at a target.

....with the intention to kill it.

--
Tim C.

Following up to Gunner

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.

murder and crime rates have been generally increasing everywhere,
I doubt many had guns before 1920 to control but indeed, drugs
and relative wealth are probably bigger factors in violent crime
than guns but when you look at the number of people who get shot
in the US you don't find anyone wanting to go down your route. We
now have (by our standards) frequent drug war gun killings in UK,
removing the drugs issue would be the greatest help, this does
not however mean that removing the guns would not also help.
--
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