CS: Misc-Mick North Article
From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mick North Article in the ET 28 November 2000 Regards Jerry 'I only had Sophie, we were very close' Two and a half years after his wife died, Mick North lost his only child at Dunblane. He talks to Cassandra Jones about rebuilding his life BY the cooker in Mick North's kitchen sits a book of slimming meals for one. It serves as a poignant reminder of how his life - if not his waistline - has been whittled away. He lives alone now, in a beautiful but remote stone house looking south over a Scottish loch, an hour's drive from Dunblane - the town he left in disgust three years ago. "I was always considered the most bereft of the Dunblane parents," says North in his slow, measured way, settling down on the sofa and petting his daughter Sophie's cats - the last remnants of his family. "All the other parents had each other or other children. I had only Sophie. We were very close." Two and a half years before the massacre in the school gym, Mick's wife, Barbara, died of breast cancer, leaving Mick and Sophie to care for each other. They were not just father and daughter, they were best friends and travelling companions. Whenever Mick, a biochemist, attended an academic conference, Sophie came too. Side by side in the car, they would chat and play her favourite tapes as they toured North America. When they met new people, outgoing Sophie would break the ice for her shy father. "Sophie was great. I think she would have been a good listener and someone who made her own way in life. But I find it hard to imagine what she would have been like if she had grown up. The image of her as she was, aged five, is too strong," he says, shooting a glance, as he often does, at the school photograph that hangs on his sitting room wall. It shows a smiling girl with a long face like her father's, full of a life that ended suddenly on March 13, 1996. That day began like any other: Sophie ate her Coco Pops and Mick took her to Dunblane Primary School before driving to work at Stirling University. Usually, she kissed him goodbye, but that day she didn't, so his last memory is of his "grown up five-year-old" standing quietly on the other side of the room. A couple of hours later, he was told there had been a radio report of a shooting at the school. He leapt into his car and raced over there but it was not until 2.40 pm that Mick was finally told that a man carrying handguns had found class one doing PE, and killed Sophie, 15 of her classmates and their teacher, before taking his own life. In the four and a half years since then, he has struggled to cope with that knowledge - and his guilt that somehow he should have protected her. The first two anniversaries of her death he marked with poems; now he has written a book, Dunblane - Never Forget. This, he hopes, will stand as a lasting memorial to his daughter. There is little self-pity in the book - "It's not my way," he says, his heavy eyebrows beetling with the effort of restraint. "In some ways, it was easier for me than for other parents - for them, having other children around was a reminder that one was missing."
CS: Legal-United Airline employee convicted of gun thefts
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED] United Airlines Employee Sentenced for Theft of U.S. Mail And Sale Of Stolen Guns, Reports U.S. Attorney --snip-- Let me get this straight, some poor guy in Tallahassee gets five years for buying a gun he thought he could legally own, submitting himself to a background check, and they get every Fed in Massachusetts on this guy who steals eight guns and he gets two years and three months? Steve. Steve, N.L., Nobody said that there was any 'proportionality' in the law, they only said that there was a law. All this, you understand, in the name of 'getting tough' on 'gun crime'. As if there was any difference in stealing a firearm as opposed to something else from the mails. This is what happens when the law is perverted to serve a vile purpose. Not unlike 'hate crimes' legislation. I wonder what it feels like to hit the bottom of the politics barrel? -- =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= Liberty: Live it . . . or lose it. =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= ET Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now.if you take your firearm and shoot the intruder in circumstances where a warning was not given, although it would have been possible and reasonable to do so, then a court hearing will result. Proportionality comes into the calculation. And it's the same in the US of A, contrary to popular belief you do not have the right to simply blow away anyone found on your property. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Target-.308 Win Target Rifle Proof
From: "Tim Jeffreys", [EMAIL PROTECTED] The following is the text from a proof house document published in the latest NRA Journal. It may have relevence to some list members. Also accompanying it in the Journal are the CIP drawings. (- it's not of much interest to me personally, as my use of this calibre would be rather rare) Tim. --- THE WORSHIPFUL COMPANY OF GUNMAKERS OF LONDON BRITISH PROOF AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM JUNE 1999. .308 Win Target Rifle Proof The effect on chamber pressure of reduced dimensions, not complying with the minimum specified by the CIP, was investigated and quantified by the 'Pressure Trials Consortium' whose report was published in March 1998. This report indicates that pressures can be elevated to potentially dangerous levels with certain barrel/chamber/ammunition combinations. The matter having been raised at a recent CIP Sub-Panel Meeting will be subject to study by a special committee of that organisation. In the meantime, so as to allow proof to continue on barrels not complying with CIP minimum dimensions it was agreed with the NRA that any deviation from the minimum dimensions set by the CIP must be limited so as to ensure that chamber pressures remain within the maximum average allowed (Pt-max) by the CIP of 4150 bar when using CIP approved ammunition that does not exceed an average pressure of 3650 bar. This maximum of 3650 bar is as measured in a CIP pressure barrel using the CIP Radial Transducer method. An attestation that ammunition does not exceed an average pressure of 3650 bar should be obtained from the ammunition supplier or manufacturer. The practical application of data from the Pressure Trials Consortium's report has been applied in setting these limits on deviation for barrel and chamber dimensions. The minimum acceptable dimensions are:- (see page 74 for CIP data) GI- Throat = 0.3085 ( 7.8359 mm) F- Bore = 0.298 ( 7.5692 mm) Z- Groove= 0.3065 (7.7851 mm) These smaller dimensions than permitted by the CIP will be acceptable to the British Proof Authority on the following basis: 1) Certification in writing to the proof house confirming the actual dimensions of G I, F Z on submission for proof 2) The barrel will be marked .308 Win Non Standard as will the dimensions not complying with the CIP minimum, e.g. G l = 0.3085, F= 0.298 Z = 0.3065. 3) A mandatory Proof Certificate will be issued that will show the calibre as .308 win Non Standard, the dimensions not complying with the CIP minimum, and the statement 'Only CIP approved.308 Win ammunition producing a maximum average pressure (Pt-max) of 3650 bar (CIP Radial Method) should be fired in this barrel.' Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Emperor's New Clothes
From: "Brian Toller", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I actually frequently go into inner city areas in the course of my work. I am not armed, not even with a baton or CS. I don't feel threatened or intimidated, nor do I feel that I am naked without a firearm to protect myself. Nor do most of the people who live there. IG I let a similar comment go last time but not twice. I have no idea of your physical build but being a copper you have presumably been trained to some level of unarmed combat and in restraint techniques. I believe you've also been in the job for some time so I presume you've also been in any number of confrontational situations. I'm over half way through my allotted span and the last fight I had was in the playground. I work in a large inner city area distributing books and gifts which is to say I'm driving round a van full of reasonably easily carried readily re-saleable swag. I either drive past calls, move areas or cut short my work at least twice a week due to some scumbag or other eyeing up the van or me. Within the last three months I've dragged one out of my van by the throat and got away before we both got over the shock (the call to 999 telling them where he was and what he looked like and that he didn't seem to be fleeing the scene merely bought the assurance that "they'd keep their eye open for him"). I've also came out of a doorway seconds before two more were about to have a go at either the drivers door or the passenger side with my nine year old daughter sitting inside. The passenger side lock no longer works as about three weeks ago I came out of a call to find the door open and my coat and a knackered old BW laptop I use for my records missing. So you don't feel threatened? Well sod your luck sunshine becaue I bloody well do. Brian T Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Field-.458
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's a gunsmith in Austria who makes revolvers in .458 Winchester Magnum, there was a review in Internationales Waffen Magazin. Presumably he makes them for novelty value. I personally wouldn't fancy shooting top loaded .458's out of a revolver! (Wouldnt mind watching someone else do it tho) I bet he doesnt sell many! Can anyone think of a use for a .458 win mag revolver? IG -- Well, it would seem a good candidate for a slightly longer barrel, going by the picturesG. Steve. Steve, IG, Oh man, I can't believe this! Heck, there's a company that makes a pistol that shoots .50 BMG. They -- until recently had a picture of a gal shooting it. And you chaps are complaining about a .458? Geez, really! -- =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= Liberty: Live it . . . or lose it. =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= ET -- But that's a single shot isn't it? This is a revolver. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you lawfully hold a firearm for, say, shooting deer, there is absolutely nothing wrong in using it for self defence in the home PROVIDED that: It is the minimum force required in the circumstances. It is proportional to the perception of the threat at the time. The full circumstances are such that it is reasonable. Let me state an example... You come face to face with an intruder, who is armed with a knife and threatens you with it. You are able to reach your firearm, and in turn, threaten the intruder with it, who surrenders and is arrested by the police. (yes, your initial actions are an arrest, I know.) No problem. Lets examine this scenario, under the presumption that if my firearms are kept to the conditions on my firearm certificate, which states on the certificate, in Para. 4(a) ; --snip-- Steve, Tim, Loved it Tim! Here's my choice scenario: Burglar breaks in making a considerable bit of noise. Home owner awakens and shouts: "Ho! I have firearms securely locked away, and I am about to look for the keys! You are forewarned to depart the premises!" The burglar, thusly warned, shouts back: Ha! Looser! While you are rummaging around for those keys, I shall make myself at home with some tea and crumpets!" Home owner fumbles interminably with the keys, cussing loudly all the while, and finally manages to get one in the first lock. He shouts "Yo! Scumbag, your time is short! I have but one key to insert and twelve combination locks to twist, and your butt will thence be mine!" The burglar, having feasted upon several tasty crumpets, a few pots of tea, a leg of lamb, and some whiskey, manages the following, with a half full mouth: " Yeah, sure, Ya Betcha!" The home owner is now in the home stretch, working on the last combination, and yells out: "Time is short, scumbag! I'm a-coming real soon!" The burglar, now fully sated upon food and drink, and works rummaging through the house, yells: "That's what you said an hour ago, turkey!" The home owner, finally manages to liberate a single shot (only one legal now) shotgun, and runs down stairs to accost the burglar only to find him in the arms of his wife, both of whom seem totally oblivious to his presence. The home owner calls 999 (911 if you are in the US) and is promptly arrested for employing intimidating tactics with a firearm (we'll get around to quoting the appropriate law later). -- =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= Liberty: Live it . . . or lose it. =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= ET -- Tea and crumpets? Don't take up script writing! Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-England - Our England, or IG's England
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK - I've sat quietly on the sidelines reading most of the to's and fro's on this. We all know IG has his Ups and Downs in moods, but generally go along with it for entertainment even though he frequently ( sad but true ) makes some sense. However, this last lot has prodded me just a bit too much to let go without comment - not on the issues - but on the surrounding danger-zone. IG , I accept you are also a shooter, and many of your comments / remarks have some sense to them, but - and I have checked for paranoia, negative this time - are you just winding the list up so your mates in the trade ( AFO or whatever ) can reel the guys in one at a time come renewal time ? I know - you're going to say - nasty supicious mind - but there again, they also say " once a copper always a copper" and I have to admit yes I was there in uniform many many years ago. Seen that , been there, got the tee-shirt. The " Mind-set " you write in may not seem out of the ordinary to you, or to your fellow officers, but do please be assured - it is not only noticeable but well-noted by those of the joe-public who once would gladly have stood alongside you in any affray - but sadly no longer. I speak generically of course - I still have many trusted friends in the force / service - who knows, you may even be one of them :-) Happy Christmas guys - don't forget the Countryside March next Spring. David M - Sussex Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Recommended reading
From: "ALEX SPEDDING", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nobody has mentioned Forester,s Brown on Resolution, about one rifleman taking on one of the Kaiser,s warships. Alex -- Actually the latest issue of SOF has a brilliant article about the rescue of the RIR soldiers in Sierra Leone. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-self defence
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Salmon Rushdie said on US TV that he had asked for a gun and the police had refused. Who can coherently argue that people like that shouldn't have a gun for self-defence? OK, I'll take up that challenge, as you might expect G Why should someone who had 24 hr police protection need a gun for self defence? In any case, a gun would be of no use to old Salmon. The history of assassinations fails to record a single time, that I am aware of, where an assassination attempt was foiled by either the principal or his guards resorting to firearms. OK, someone will tell me differently, but allow me this. JFK. Fat lot of good the secret service and police were there. Ronald Reagan. Not a single one of the security detail were able to return fire. Only the reactions of one member saved Reagan, and that had nothing to do with firearms. A good example of the pyramid effect, where all the security jump on the assailant and only one takes any notice of the safety of the principal. Rabin, the Israeli PM. Protected by arguably the most efficient, ruthless and highly motivated bodyguards in the world, they were unable to stop him being killed. No firearms were used by any of them. The Pope. I think it was a member of the Swiss Guard who got hold of the assassin. Firearms were of no use. Prince Charles in Australia. The guy who ran at the stage, discharging a blank firer, ran past any number of armed police and security staff. No one even drew a weapon, they all just watched. It was left to the princes PPO, who was unarmed, to deal with the threat by grabbing the prince and ushering him to safety, after delivering a kick to the would be assailant. Another excellent example of the pyramid effect, btw. The whole world jumped on the assailant, only one guy looked after HRH. Good job there wasnt another assailant. Princess Anne on the Mall. OK, the PPO's walther jammed through poor maintenance, but it didnt deter the kidnap attempt. The Queen. The guy who discharged the blank firer could easily have been using a real gun. All the firearms in the world wouldn't have stopped him. Ghandi. The Norwegian Prime Minister. Robert Kennedy. Martin Luther King. The list just goes on and on. I cannot recall any incident where a VIP's life was saved by either him or a BG drawing or using a firearm. OK, you say, but we arent really concerned about that, a determined assassin isn't bothered about his own safety and therefore wouldnt be deterred by the presence of firearms. Yes, very true. So are we thinking more in terms of, say, a house burglar? Look at the typical situation which seems to be the most feared. Try to ignore the American mentality here, just look at things as they are here. You are awakened by a noise downstairs. You get your pistol or whatever you prefer from the bedside cabinet, and go to investigate. Thereby breaching one of the first rules of fireams use in real lifenever advance on the known location of a gunman or suspected gunman. OK, so we have ignored this basic principle, and go on to investigate the noise. Tiptoe down the stairs and we see a shadowy figure that has breached our security and is rifling through the draws in the kitchen. Now what do we do. The house is in darkness, the only light is the torch that the intruder has and a faint glow from the street lights outside. Do we shoot him dead there and then? No, of course not. That would not be reasonable...would it? Perhaps just shoot him in th eleg or th earm? Do me a favour! We issue a challenge'stand still, I have a gundo not move, etc.' Unfortunately, the burglar is either deaf, drunk or full of drugs. He doesnt put his hands up, but tries to climb out of the window. Or walks towards you, his hands in the air, or doesn't do what he is told to do, whatever. Or there is another one that you havent seen due to the perceptual distortion of being in a stressed out condition. What do you then do? Where do you get the training to react properly? The professionals cant even do it! In my opinion, tempered by many years of experience, both as an armed and unarmed officer, the use of a firearm as defence against sudden or unexpected attack is of very little value. It is impossible to assess, react, draw and fire an accurately placed shot if the assailant is attacking you with even a knife from less than 27 feet away. Considerably more for most people, and triple that at least in the dark. If that person is using a firearm, then there is even less chance of success. If they come from behind, as muggers often do, then you have no chance. A knife pressed against your ribs is going to deter any sudden movement from you, and we then have a stolen firearm to add to the crime report and insurance claim. The quickest draw is to have the gun in the hand prior to the need for drawing arising. To follow that to its logical conclusion, you would have to walk around with the gun in your hand. Can you imagine
CS: Field-.458
From: "Alex Holmes", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can anyone think of a use for a .458 win mag revolver? IG Pure fun is a good enough reason *g* or is that showing masochistic tendencies? *s* I will admit that about 30seconds before shooting my first buff with a handgun I was kind of wishing my Contender had more than one shot. Alex Holmes JHB South Africa -- I thought that article about the guy whose tendons wore out after 30,000 rounds of .44 Magnum was interesting. I wonder how many rounds of .458 Win. Mag. would do it? Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-us and them
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I hope, IG, that you consider criminal evidence with more care than you do some of the postings to this list! 1. Our US friend didn't try to "impose his values" on this country, he merely drew a useful comparison between the rights of Americans and those of Englishmen. In any case, our two nations' values in terms of free citizens' right to possess arms, as enshrined in the US Constitution and our own Bill of Rights, are peas from the same pod. 2. He doesn't tell us that firearms are only good for self-defence: he makes the valid point that that is their most important purpose, ultimately, and that guns' capacity to protect one's life liberty is a stronger debating point than their recreational role. 3. We do not slavishly applaud or emulate everything that comes from America - this is pure fantasy on your part. But since America is a more violent society, in both absolute and relative terms, than our own (with the usual caveats about it depending very much where in America you live), and guns and gun-control play a significant part in this, we naturally look to America for instructive examples of citizens using guns for self-defence, and of the folly of most attempts at gun-control. 4. In referring to people's desire for personal security in some of our rougher areas I wasn't suggesting only firearms, but thinking of the pepper sprays and other forms of defence which had been mentioned. Our US friend did well to remind us, for example, of our supremely daft laws concerning knives: in an article I wrote on knives for countryside use, I felt obliged to include a brief summary of the restrictions which apply, such as the typically arbitrary blade-length thing and the nasty little catch concerning lock-blades. I very much dislike the idea of getting into a knife-fight with anyone, and would much prefer a baton or some such, but my point is that our rulers have this mad compulsion to regulate, control, oppress and punish innocent people - possibly an urge which you share - when all they want to do is carry a bloody pocket knife, for God's sake. Anthony Harrison Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED] :::Fair enough but would you apply this logic to other objects that, if misused, could severly endanger the public. For instance motor vehicles or matches? Yes, certainly. There are some people that shouldnt be allowed anywhere near either of the above. My wife being one of them, in the case of cars anyway. Probably matches, too, if she reads this. IG Steve, IG, Quick, IG, what's her e-mail address? smirk -- =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= Liberty: Live it . . . or lose it. =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= ET Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Admin-virus warning
Okay, this is a pretty clever virus, it changes the name of the file attachment as well. Delete anything you get from [EMAIL PROTECTED] with an attachment that ends with ".SCR" It will have an old message title or a blank message title. In fact I bet other people may have gotten this one too as it is pretty clever so keep an eye on any blank emails you get with an attachment that ends in .SCR It reads the address book in Outlook Express and sends itself to everyone in there. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Field-.458
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am concerned that our friend in blue, IG, is becoming slightly jumpy. I didn't imply, old chum, that 458 Win Mag (picky!) is a viable self-defence round - unless it was for shooting a burglar's getaway vehicle, 'cos I dare say it would penetrate an engine block - I just threw a "gunny" reference into my posting to lighten things up a bit! And before you suggest I'm a "gun nut" who talks of nothing else, our pub conversation also covered the Le Mans 24 Hours, building house extensions, and the merits of emigration... Merely made the point that if our American correspondent had his way, the ol' .458 would be just a dangerous toy, cos it would be useless for self defence! I'm a little dissapointed to see that you talked of other things, tho. Not worth going out! BTW, I must point out that we don't have WPC's any more. We are all PC's. There are no women officers, merely constables. Cant recall the last time I saw a constable wearing a skirt. Those were the days. IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IG you are as socially inept as you are legally. First of all, most people in this country would feel a great deal happier with the ability to make their own choices about self-defence. Some people would choose to use a firearm for this purpose, others would choose not to and you or anybody else has no right to dictate from their ivory tower who could or should use what. It is ironic in fact that you are issued handcuffs, a baton and gas for your own protection ANYWHERE while we have nothing, and dare we use any or carry any of those items we would get arrested by YOU for doing so. The core constraints allowing the lawful use of deadly force on another person(s)is if that other person(s): Has the ABILITY to kill or cause grave bodily injury to the victim Has the OPPORTUNITY to kill or cause grave bodily injury to the victim That the victim is in immediate JEOPARDY of being killed or suffering grave bodily injury at the hands of that other person(s) Other variances of this core is if the same A.O.J. criteria affect someone else one can use deadly force in their defence. In defining Ability a disparity of force argument is applicable. EG Armed woman v's unarmed man is OK as there is a recognised physical disparity between the genders. The same applys to armed disabled person v's able bodied predator or an armed victim v's multiple unarmed assailants. If one of the A.O.J. critera isn't fully met in the reality of the circumstances it falls to the recognition of the situation as it unfolded and the 'reasonable man' test of beleifs. Finally there falls another test between that of Justifiable Homicide and Excusable Homicide. The latter being that lethal force was not required in the circumstances but it was an excusable response at the time. Terror, poor light, chainfire, poor weapon choice and use. Whilst this is not a comprehensive overview of the 'self-defence' defence it is the core of it and it remains common law, not statute and is for a Jury to decide upon the facts. My belief is that a firearm is an eminently suitable tool for self defence but it should be used as part of a layered defensive strategy that might well involve retreat and non lethal and less than lethal weapons escalating to the firearm. The firearm when used in these circumstances is rarely fired but in the minority of deadly force encounters using a firearm, perpetrators get shot and some die. Making the choice to use deadly force is never easy and sometimes it may not be the right choice to have made. However, criminal predators have a choice about their actions whether petty or violent. My belief and that of 90%of the population is that when somone chooses to invade your house, mug you in the street, sexually assault you or a loved one, they have abdicated most of their rights to protection under the law and deserve what is meeted out to them. Poor burglars, car thieves, street robbers and vandals, sure some might end up getting killed for their actions but you can bet that EVERY criminal would begin to think twice about doing the crime if the 'time' meant potential death from their victim. Self defence is common law and is no different here than in the US with the exception that Statute in the US helps to define rights of virtually everyone to be armed for their defence. In addtion sensible measures like 'Castle Law' such as that in Florida and New Hampshire means that even if a scabby burglar out to steal your TV is caught in your home you are legally permitted to use deadly force to protect your property. The burglary rate in New Hampshire is virtually zero. If self defence is a non starter for you IG, give up your baton, gas, cuffs and radio you wear out on patrol. When trouble comes for you, you'll be empty handed and alone with no prospect of salvation. Then and only then you might realise what being a victim is like and what everyone else out there suffers for needlessly, because of cowards like you. The truth is you trust nobody else with the same powers you have and use at will, whay are you any better than anyone else - and don't say training. The infantile training Police get compared to real instruction is appalling. This country would be a far better place if the citizenry were able to choose and deploy their own defensive measures, if we had 'Castle Law' and if we halved the numbers of Police officers. New Hampshire doesn't need it so why do we? Guy Savage -- One correction, the law in Florida does not ever entitle you to use deadly force to protect property. If someone enters your home and threatens you, you are permitted to use deadly force to stop them, but you cannot use deadly force outside the home unless you cannot retreat or if so doing would be inadvisable. There is a FAQ about it on the Florida Dept. of State website. (Yes they do other things than just certifying elections!) One of the examples they provide is a court case in which a man was threatened on his
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: Don Baldwin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] No it isnt the best argument. If people really want their handguns back, (me included), then the self defence argument is a non starter. If the arguments for sporting shooting arent effective, the right to carry for self defence is never going to materialise. Anyone who thinks it is valid as an argument, I strongly suggest looking on the Sportsmans Association BB. Various people advocate the right to summarily execute any intruder, publ;ic executions carried out by FAC holders, etc etc. Because your self defence argument will be hijacked by extremist latent sociopaths such as this, it is bound to fall before it ever gets off the ground. When government is stern but fair, good people will comply with the law. When government demeans people and treats them like children, naturally they become rebellious and loud. This is not a comment on your government, it applies here in the US too. I would like to suggest an experiment. Identify a gun friendly police office and get them to run an experiment using exemplary citizens. Issue those people handguns and allow them to carry them concealed...letting them know that the police will come down on them like a ton of bricks if they misuse those guns, that they'll never see the outside of a cell again. I guarantee you that they will react the way concealed handgun carriers in the US have: with great restraint and responsibility. I think it was Jonathan who rightly pointed this out elsewhere. Each branch of shooting has its supporter, and damn the rest of the shooting world. I am sure there are people here who couldnt give a damn about deer stalkers. I equally couldnt give a damn about the self defence argument. I would support target shooters, but would never support those who want to own fully auto's. I'm willing to support the other fellow's game but am disappointed with what I've found over here. When I wanted to shoot handguns and rifles at targets, every shooter I talked to invited me out to the range. In contrast, I've been asking about hunting (re: safety I am a certified firearms instructor) and all I get is "good luck, chum". This difference may be ominous to the future of hunting in the US. re machine guns: I can see regulating them a bit more strictly than other firearms but they're too regulated in the US. And I would probably never own one even if they weren't. I never bring home what I can't afford to feed... :) Don -- The law relating to machineguns in the US is beyond words. It is so complex that they can't even get the regulations worded correctly. Go to the GPO website and look at 27 CFR 179.11 and then the following section. They are identical except for one word. And then are about a jazillion rulings on what does and does not constitute a machinegun component, about a million court rulings on said ATF rulings, etc. Even the ATF FAQ on their website contains a number of very big errors, e.g. that the AW ban applies to NFA weapons, which is half-true but really it doesn't in any meaningful way. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-drugs
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't want to take a position which supports absolute freedom to take any substance I do. Free Life Commentary, Issue Number 17 10th May 1998 Nothing New, but Still Worth Sending Out: Another 1400 Words Against Drug Prohibition by Sean Gabb I notice I have not written about drugs for several years. There is nothing in the news that prompts me to write about them now. I simply feel inclined to see how well I can express what has become a huge argument in a small number of words. And so here are my thoughts on why the sale and use of recreational drugs ought not to be illegal. Let us begin with the libertarian argument. People should be regarded as having the right to do with themselves as they please. This necessarily includes the right to do things that others think stupid or distasteful or immoral. If I want to, I have the right to join an odd religious group, and give it all my wealth; to have tattoos put all over my body, and to have parts of my body pierced in artistic ways; to devote myself to the poor in Africa; to be hung up on hooks and be flogged within an inch of my life by someone wearing a leather mask; and of course, to consume whatever mood-altering substances take my fancy. No one else automatically has the right to interfere with my choices. If you think I am doing wrong, you can persuade me. You can get down on your knees and beseech me to better behaviour. You can threaten me with exclusion from your company and that of your friends. Beyond that, you have no right to go any further, unless you can prove that what I am doing involves the use of force or fraud against another person, or that it is the sort of act - like selling defence plans to an enemy in arms - that threatens the dissolution of the entire community. Taking one's own drugs in consenting company is not an act of the first kind - it causes no one else the sort of harm against which they can legitimately demand protection. Nor is it an act of the second kind. We are told endlessly that drugs are a danger to social stability - that they lead to crime and degradation and so forth. There is no evidence for this claim. The British past provides a compelling example. Until 1920, drug use was uncontrolled. Between 1827 and 1859, British opium consumption rose from 17,000lb to 61,000lb. Workmen mixed it in their beer. Gladstone took it in his coffee before speaking. Scott wrote The Bride of Lammermoor under its influence. Dickens and Wilkie Collins were both heavy users. Cannabis and heroin were openly on sale. There was no social collapse. There were few deaths from taking drugs. Most deaths involving opium were individual accidents, and even these were negligible - excluding suicides, 104 in 1868 and thereafter to 1901 an annual average of 95. Hardly anyone even recognised that a problem might exist. The claim that drugs are bad for a society is a lie. The truth is the opposite. It is the criminalisation of drugs that is bad. All the ills that are now blamed on the availability of drugs are more accurately to be blamed on the illegality of drugs. When drugs are illegal, only criminals will supply them. And when criminals are allowed to dominate an entire market, they will be able - indeed required - to form extended, permanent structures of criminality that could never otherwise exist. They will then make drugs both expensive and dirty. Drugs will be expensive because bribes, transport inefficiencies, rewards of special risk, and so forth, all raise the costs of bringing drugs to market. Therefore much of the begging, prostitution and street crime that inconvenience Western cities. As many as two-thirds of American muggings may be to finance drug-use. Drugs will be dirty because illegal markets lack the usual safeguards of quality. When a can of beer is stamped "8 per cent alcohol by volume", this does not mean anything between 0.5 and 30 per cent. Nor will caustic soda be used to make it fizzy. Brewers have too much to lose by poisoning or defrauding customers. Drug dealers can afford to be less particular. Therefore frequent overdosing. Therefore poisonous additives. Therefore, the frequent transmission of aids even today by the sharing of dirty needles. Moving from the costs of the crime resulting from illegality, we come to the costs of enforcement. These also are massive. In the first place, the Police need to become a virtual Gestapo if they are to try enforcing laws that create no victim willing to complain and help in any investigation. They need powers to stop and search people and to search private homes that would never be necessary to stop things like burglary and murder. They need to get involved in entrapment schemes. They are exposed to offers of bribes frequently too large to be turned away. In one way or another, the War on Drugs leads to the corruption of every enforcement agency sent into battle. And that War cannot be won. The British
CS: Misc-right side of the road
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "While we are on the topic of autos learn to drive on the proper side of the road." My dear chap, let me explain. WE are driving on the proper side of the road, you on the wrong. The convention of driving on the left side of the road arose in the days when people routinely went armed with swords. As most people will use a sword in their right hand, you are better placed to defend against an attacking swordsman if you can keep him to your right. There was no law about which side of the road to use, but due to the potential for surprise attack by an oncoming highway robber, it became established practice to keep to the left. THAT IS CORRECT. One thing puzzles me, why in all the Westerns we see, Films or TV Shows are the STAGE COACH DRIVERS SAT ON THE PROPER SIDE. Put an engine in it, well, the yanks have to be contrary to justify their existence. Walter Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Drugs
From: "David Rovardi", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Last year it was estimated that 20% of all hospital admins and upto 45,000 deaths where caused due to legal drugs.(This is drug interactions, people misusing legally prescribed drugs and over the counter drugs). Think about this in context to illegal drugs. I appreciate more prescription drugs are used, but compared to car accidents this is a lot of people. regards David Rovardi Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
