Text 11522, 233 rader
Skriven 2008-02-23 12:28:08 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
     Kommentar till en text av Martin Atkins
Ärende: Shootings in USA
========================
22 Feb 08 22:42, Martin Atkins wrote to ROY WITT:

 MA> -=> ROY WITT wrote to MARTIN ATKINS <=-

 MW>> 21 Feb 08 03:12, Martin Atkins wrote to ROY WITT:

 MA>>> In the wake of a series of high-profile shootings, an observer
 MA>>> might assume that guns are suddenly pouring into the UK for the
 MA>>> first time.

 RW>>> Just as the Australian gun ban caused crime to increase, not
 RW>>> decrease as they hoped, it was a disaster. As is the Brit gun ban.

 MA>> The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts all injury deaths,
 MA>> whether or not they are crime-related. The most recently available
 MA>> ABS figures show a total of 437 firearm-related deaths (homicide,
 MA>> suicide and unintentional) for 1997. This is the lowest number for
 MA>> 18 years.

 MW>> I don't believe you.

 MA> The figures are from The Australian Bureau of Statistics. It is
 MA> apolitical.

But not necessarily the facts.

 MA>> The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains
 MA>> one-fifth that of the United States.

 MW>> Australia has 1/5th the population.

 MA> What is it you don't understand about "per 100,000 population"?

What does it matter, your figures aren't trustworthy, since they're yours
without anything to back them up.

 MA>> Those who claim that Australia suffered a "crime wave" as a result
 MA>> of
 MA>>  new gun laws often cite as evidence unrelated figures for common
 MA>> assault or sexual assault (no weapon) and armed robbery (any
 MA>> weapon). In fact less than one in five Australian armed robberies
 MA>> involve a firearm.

 MW>> Unvarifiable jibberish.

 MA> ABS statistics. Let me explain it in terms a juvinile freak like you
 MA> may understand.

You mean your normal way of speeking.

 MA> Crimes involving violence went up after the new gun laws but armed
 MA> robberies involving a firearms went down.

So you can understand it, Bullshit. [aka, A British bull with a load of
shit in his mouth.]

 MA>> "Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of
 MA>>  armed robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low."

 MW>> LOL! That's what the government wants you to think.

 MA> The ABS is apolitical. It issues it's statistical findings even if
 MA> they embarrass the incumbent government.

 MA>> -- Recorded Crime, Australia, 1998. Australian Bureau of Statistics,
 MA>> Jun 1999

 MA>>> But gun control is a relatively recent phenomenon in Britain, where
 MA>>> ownership of  firearms was relatively common a century ago.

 RW>>> Sixty years ago, the British citizen's firearms were voluntarily
 RW>>> given to help the Brits get off the beaches at Dunkirk. What would
 RW>>> they have to offer today?

 MA>> In the face of iminent invasion they would do the same and give them
 MA>> as much training as they could on how to use them.

 MW>> Where would they get them? The people no longer have firearms.

 MA> The government armories.

LOL!

 MA>>> The contrast between UK legislation on gun ownership - among the
 MA>>> strictest in the world, and that in the United States - among the
 MA>>> most relaxed, might appear stark.

 RW>>> Considering the following, it is.

 MA>>> But in fact both countries' firearms laws can be traced back to the
 MA>>> same source.

 RW>>> Do Brits believe in God Given Rights too?

 MA>> I don't know about god given rights but most i know believe in some
 MA>> rights being fundimental to all.

 MW>> That figures. Fundimental rights can be taken away. As we've seen in
 MW>> Britain and Australia. At least some Canadians had the guts to tell
 MW>> the governmen to go to hell.

 MA> Since a large part of the UK citizenry do not reside in rural areas
 MA> it wasn't considered a big issue. Shooting deer and pheasant doesn't
 MA> involve the use of assault rifles or hand guns.

LOL! Not all firearms have to have a civilian use. Most 'assault rifles'
(misnomer) and hand guns are used for target practice and competitions.
The best use of a hand gun is self protection, which no Brit has the right
to do anymore.

 MA>>> The right to bear arms was guaranteed in the 1689 Bill of Rights,
 MA>>> in which the new King William of Orange enshrined a series of
 MA>>> rights for his subjects-Catholics were famously excluded.

 RW>>> Gun control is not a new idea, but an old one. English kings,
 RW>>> starting at least in the realm of Henry VIII, attempted to limit
 RW>>> who was allowed to own guns. Henry VIII, for example, prohibited
 RW>>> poor people from shooting crossbows or guns. If you were a king,
 RW>>> wouldn't you want the rabble to be disarmed?

 MA>> It wasn't a resounding success. When England was ever at war it as
 MA>> the peasantry that supplied the archers.

 MW>> Yes and it was the King's arsonal that supplied the weapons.

 MA> Nooo. The peasantry had their own bows and arrows and the lords and
 MA> knights supplied there own armor and horses.

Bullshit...see above for an explanation.

 MA>> The Tudor kings experimented with limits upon specialized
 MA>> weapons--mainly crossbows and the then-new firearms. These measures
 MA>> were not intended to disarm the citizenry, but on the contrary, to
 MA>> prevent their being diverted from longbow practice by sport with
 MA>> other weapons which were considered less effective.

 MW>> Of course. That was so the peasants wouldn't have a chance, faced
 MW>> with troops with superior weapons.

 MA> The longbow was the superior weapon of the time on the field of
 MA> battle. As the French found out on many occasions. It had a longer
 MA> range than the crossbow and greater penetration power due to it's
 MA> heavier and longer shaft.

More bullshit. The cross bow's projectile was of larger and stouter
material as well as heavier and was used to penetrate the armour of the
enemy.

 MA> Pistol/guns of the day had marginally more penetration power at short
 MA> range but where slow to load and seriously inaccurate. The rate of
 MA> fire by the longbowmen made muskets good for about one shot.

That would have been true, had they not trained to use those firearms in
vollys fired by multiple rows of fusileers. The front row fires and the
next row rotates forward and they fire, ad nauseum. BTW, an arrow's range
deminshes at a much faster rate than the musket ball.

 MA>> Even these narrow measures were shortlived. In 1503, Henry VII
 MA>> limited shooting (but not possession) of crossbows to those with
 MA>> land worth 200 marks annual rental, but provided an exception for
 MA>> those who "shote owt of a howse for the lawefull defens of the
 MA>> same". In 1511, Henry VIII increased the property requirement to 300
 MA>> marks. He also expanded the requirement of longbow ownership,
 MA>> requiring all citizens to "use and exercyse shootyng in longbowes,
 MA>> and also have a bowe and arrowes contynually" in the house. Fathers
 MA>> were required by law to purchase bows and arrows for their sons
 MA>> between the age of 7 and 14 and to train them in longbow use.

 MW>> All a waste of time, since we already know that peasants weren't
 MW>> allowed equally as powerful weapons by the King...Your own words.

 MA> You are a selective reader and you have poor comprehension skills. On
 MA> the field of battle the longbow out fired both the crossbow and
 MA> musket.

Bullshit...

 MA> The crossbow took longer to load, didn't have the range or the
 MA> penetration power of the longbow but was more accurate at short
 MA> range. The musket took longer to load was inaccurate and had less
 MA> penetration capabilities at long range.

Bullshit...

 MA>> COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH
 MA>> CONGRESS, FEBRUARY 1982

 MA>> So far from disarming the peasantry he wanted them ready for war.

 MW>> Like sending lambs to the slaughter...

 MA> For England it has always been thus.

Not very smart, these Engländers.

 RW>>> In the seventeenth century, Charles II and James II passed various
 RW>>> measures to disarm untrustworthy sorts, required gunsmiths to
 RW>>> register guns that they worked on, and limited imports of guns.

 RW>>> Unsurprisingly, when the Glorious Revolution of 1688 took place,
 RW>>> and Parliament invited William & Mary to become the new monarchs,
 RW>>> they wrote a Bill of Rights that guaranteed a right to keep arms:

 RW>>> "That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their
 RW>>> defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."

 MA>> As i said. The pesantry was not in general suppressed by arms
 MA>> control.

 MW>> I guess English isn't your native tongue...

 MA> I am English. Is the best shot you got a typo? You are pathetic in
 MA> the extreme.

And your English sucks worse than the lowest asshole in England.

 RW>>> What about the Catholics?! They didn't get the right to own arms.

 MA>> No because they where considered enemies of the realm and the
 MA>> protestant church.

 MW>> So not all English subjects were equal under the law...nuf said.

 MA> Of course they weren't.

LOL! Thanks for admitting that.

                R\%/itt



--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)