pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard

They will never get rid of firearms anyware as long as they sell mills and
lathes they will be made.


"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
news
Americans seem to have no concept of what it is like to live in a
largely gun free society. They view safety as having a gun, and hoping
that if it comes to the worst they will be able to shoot the other guy
before they get shot. In Australia, you don't have a gun and go around
pretty confident that no-one will get shot at all.

I do, Andrew, but then again I lived in Canberra for 15 months... an no
Canberra jokes! Yes, it is a bush capital, and yes, they do close all the
restaurants at something around 8:00 PM, but we really liked it there!

I understand what you are saying, but it's pointless to explain it to most
U.S. citizens. The right to "keep and bear arms" was written into our
very
constitution when our nation was founded. Which would be fine, except
they
authors quite frankly put enough additional and vaugely-worded verbage
into
the second ammendment that their true intent will never be fully
understood.
As a result, there are fewer hot-button issues for Americans than this
one.
It's bigger and far more passionate than Pauline Hanson ever even tried to
be.

You are correct in many of your assertions, of course. Australia, and the
UK, and nearly all other western nations have very strict gun control, and
yet they have basically the same crime rates at the United States. In
fact,
total violent crime rates in all these nations is more or less at the
same.
People attack one another just as much in Australia as they do here. The
only noticible difference between these nations relates to the number of
deaths caused by such attacks. You are just as likely to be attacked here
in Pittsburgh as you are in Melbourne, but you are far more likely to die
as
a result of your wounds. Firearms are the reason behind this difference,
of
course, but a good 50% of my fellow citizens will dispute this
relationship
until thier dying breath. If you don't believe me, watch what happens in
the replies to this posting.

I must admit that there is a certain logic to the belief that having an
armed populace will reduce crime. The theory beind this belief is obvious
and from all outward appearances, quite sound. But theories have to be
supported by scientific data to be valid, and the data have never really
supported this one.

Americans seem to have no concept of what it is like to live in a
largely gun free society. They view safety as having a gun, and hoping
that if it comes to the worst they will be able to shoot the other guy
before they get shot. In Australia, you don't have a gun and go around
pretty confident that no-one will get shot at all.

Our second amendment is there not for the personal protection (thats a by
product), but specifically to keep our government from growing so corrupt
that the people can't defend themselves against it. Our founding fathers
were revolutionaries. And the last thing they wanted was another tyrannical
government out of control running their lives. But coming from a
quasi-socialistic society with a 96% tax bracket, I wouldn't expect the
Brit's to understand.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:17:41 -0600, Jeff Franks wrote:

Our second amendment is there not for the personal protection (thats a by
product), but specifically to keep our government from growing so corrupt
that the people can't defend themselves against it.

it seems the time is coming closer to use them (?)

Our founding fathers
were revolutionaries. And the last thing they wanted was another tyrannical
government out of control running their lives. But coming from a
quasi-socialistic society with a 96% tax bracket, I wouldn't expect the
Brit's to understand.

96% tax bracket? where? and sources, please.

#m
--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.

"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message
...
"Richard Hertz" wrote:

There is a lot of evidence that shows that violent crime diminishes when
people are allowed to defend themselves (read - arm themselves)
Places that ban handguns usually experience higher rates of violent
crime.

Yes, people will always try to do bad things, and wouldn't it be nice to
be
able to DEFEND yourself against them? I happen to think so.

This is a load of crap. Handguns are very rare in Australia. The
papers here are talking about a gangland war that has broken out here.
Large rewards are being offered by the police to catch the people
involved. This is a result of something like 24 people being killed in
the last 6 YEARS. When 24 people in 6 years is significant, I don't
think the rate of violent crime is high.

It is not a load of crap. See John Lott's papers and book(s) studying the
subject.
If you were a criminal and wished to perpetrate a crime - would you choose
an area where you were very certain law-abiding citizens had no way to
protect themselves, or an area where you were likely to end up on the
receiving end of justified defense?

As a law-abiding citizen I know where I would like to be.

Also, handgun laws are inneffective (especially here in the US). Criminals
are criminals. They have handguns regardless of the laws.



Americans seem to have no concept of what it is like to live in a
largely gun free society. They view safety as having a gun, and hoping
that if it comes to the worst they will be able to shoot the other guy
before they get shot. In Australia, you don't have a gun and go around
pretty confident that no-one will get shot at all.

No - I would like to defend myself though. Switzerland has low violent
crime rates - and as far as I know most households own firearms.

If you were a criminal and wished to perpetrate a crime - would you choose
an area where you were very certain law-abiding citizens had no way to
protect themselves, or an area where you were likely to end up on the
receiving end of justified defense?

What on earth makes you think that criminals somehow pick and choose where
they are going to commit a crime? Most of them don't have a whole array of
transportation options. They more or less have to commit their offenses
within walking distance of wherever they wake up in the morning. They don't
consult the internet, the census bureau, or even the World Almanac to
analyze handgun ownership patterns across various zip codes. Based on
interviews with offenders, it rather appears that most of them don't even
have any firm plan of committing an offense until maybe 10 seconds before
they actually do it, and they simply aren't bright enough to weigh all the
costs and benefits in those 10 seconds. Most of them wouldn't be able to
form a coherent thought if you gave them 10 hours.

I agree that, for you and -- both reasonable people -- it makes sense to
avoid areas that are well protected by an armed citizenry. But the guy who
is desperately looking for $20 to get his next blast isn't all that
reasonable, and will go for the next open window he sees. If he had the
ability to think about things, he would be concerned with the pressence or
absence of an armed homeowner. But he isn't thinking about that, and
nothing is going to make him think about it.

"Richard Hertz" wrote:

It is not a load of crap. See John Lott's papers and book(s) studying the
subject.

I don't know of the papers, I am just speaking from the experience of
living in a country where guns are uncommon.

Also, handgun laws are inneffective (especially here in the US). Criminals
are criminals. They have handguns regardless of the laws.

In the US, yes. I think that is largely a result of the fact that so
many people have guns, and therefore they are easy to come by. In
Australia, very few people have guns so they are much more difficult
to come by. Since no-one is likely to have a gun, your common or
garden criminal is unlikely to carry one either. If you interrupt
someone robbing your house, the likely result is that you scare the
**** out of each other and the criminal runs away.

I read that because of the rarity, a black market gun here sells for
about 4 times the price of the same gun through a gun dealer.
Guessing, a gun is probably about $1000 which would make the "street
price" $4000. How many criminals are going to pay that for something
they don't really need? Most criminals are desperate for cash for
drugs etc, if (guessing again) a hit of heroin is $20 the gun would
buy 200 hits of heroin. I think your average criminal here would be
more likely to sell the gun for the cash.

A while back the "weapon" of choice for armed robberies seemed to be
the syringe. "Give me your money or I'll prick you" :-)

Of course there are criminals with guns here. Mostly however they seem
to be higher up in the chain, and are unlikely to be robbing people on
the street or in their houses.

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
t...

"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message
...
"Richard Hertz" wrote:

There is a lot of evidence that shows that violent crime diminishes
when
people are allowed to defend themselves (read - arm themselves)
Places that ban handguns usually experience higher rates of violent
crime.

Yes, people will always try to do bad things, and wouldn't it be nice
to
be
able to DEFEND yourself against them? I happen to think so.

This is a load of crap. Handguns are very rare in Australia. The
papers here are talking about a gangland war that has broken out here.
Large rewards are being offered by the police to catch the people
involved. This is a result of something like 24 people being killed in
the last 6 YEARS. When 24 people in 6 years is significant, I don't
think the rate of violent crime is high.

It is not a load of crap. See John Lott's papers and book(s) studying the
subject.
If you were a criminal and wished to perpetrate a crime - would you choose
an area where you were very certain law-abiding citizens had no way to
protect themselves, or an area where you were likely to end up on the
receiving end of justified defense?

As a law-abiding citizen I know where I would like to be.

Also, handgun laws are inneffective (especially here in the US).
Criminals
are criminals. They have handguns regardless of the laws.



Americans seem to have no concept of what it is like to live in a
largely gun free society. They view safety as having a gun, and hoping
that if it comes to the worst they will be able to shoot the other guy
before they get shot. In Australia, you don't have a gun and go around
pretty confident that no-one will get shot at all.

No - I would like to defend myself though. Switzerland has low violent
crime rates - and as far as I know most households own firearms.

Ignorance abounds. In Switzerland they have a very small standing army and
every man is basically a reservist. By law he is required to have easy
access to his gun in case of mobilisation. Hence it is kept at home but it
is strictly for national defense.

Is that not the original reason for the second amendment. The right to bear
arms was a national defensive measure not an excuse for every jerk to own a
gun and play cowboys and indians.

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 at 02:05:34 in message
, Richard Hertz
wrote:
If you were a criminal and wished to perpetrate a crime - would you choose
an area where you were very certain law-abiding citizens had no way to
protect themselves, or an area where you were likely to end up on the
receiving end of justified defense?

As a law-abiding citizen I know where I would like to be.

Also, handgun laws are inneffective (especially here in the US). Criminals
are criminals. They have handguns regardless of the laws.

Indeed. Since all hand guns were banned in the UK only the police and
criminals have them. The latter seem to have no trouble obtaining them.
There are now more gun crimes than ever before. The British police are
not routinely armed but you will see armed police at Heathrow airport on
a regular basis. And armed police are rapidly available. Most UK forces
have ARV (Armed Response Vehicles) out on the streets.
--
David CL Francis

"Thomas Heide" wrote in message
...
I can´t believe what I just read.
Didn´t you Americans learn anything from recent history (some
school-events
just popped into my mind)?
It just does not work to make even more people carry guns in order to
protect them from potential terrorists.
What kind of logic is that?

Logic that works. The school tragedies wre at DISARMED schools. Many if
not most of the episodes were brought to a halt by ARMED CIVILIANS who got
their own guns from cars, homes, etc... This is also true of a Texas fast
food episode where a woman lost her father because, true to pussy Brit/Euro
numbnuts pansieism, she reluctanctly left her legal gun in her car. Had she
had it about her person, perhaps only 1 or 2 victims might have been scored
until she could have defeated the miscreant. Remember, Britain is now
jailing anyone who defends themselves. See overlawyered.com, find the
professional burglar suing the homeowner for injuries which "keep him from
plying his trade". Now, if even one of four teachers/janitors/staff had gun
training, and the will to use one, then the multiple murders would stop.
Note that the Columbine shooters surrendered to late arriving guns, not to
pleas or wishful thinking.
EGB

It just does not work to make even more people carry guns in order to
protect them from potential terrorists.
What kind of logic is that?

There's only one kind of logic, and arming the police when the
criminals are armed certainly fits the framework.

Note that no one is "making" more people carry guns. The European
airlines can always detour around the continental U.S. It is up to
them whether they want to follow American regulations or not.

Do you also believe that if sky marshals had been a regular thing on
American airliners in 2001 that the 9/11 terrorists would have still
have tried to hijack those planes?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com