colinjallen at YAHOO.CO.UK
Fri Nov 17 09:57:25 EST 2006
Sod that! Why not just carry a Queen Elizabeth class dreadnought around;). That would scare the buggers.
trev <judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote: i agree about handguns, but i feel strongly that an exception should be made
not just for heavy artillery, but for anything above and including the good
old 88mm. just imagine, our budding wyat earp pulls his six-gun (probably
pissed) while 1000 yards away...JA WOHL. ...the steely blue eyes of
uberstrumbahnfuhrer schmidt cross the hairs on the superb krupps-made piece
and FEUER!...the high velocity 88mm solid shot round takes the buntline
special out of the pratts hand.
woooo lordy, who stole ma piece?
see what i mean, no injury and good promo for the 3rd reich...cough
by the way whos coming to our gig slough tomorrow
AND THERE CAME THE BEASTS AND KINGS WITH THEIR ARMIES AND THEIR CAPTAINS TO
MAKE WAR WITH HIM UPON THE HORSE AND TO MAKE WAR WITH HIS ARMIES AND HIS
EYES WERE AS A FLAME OF FIRE HE WAS CROWNED WITH MANY CROWNS AND IN
RIGHTEOUSNESS HE JUDGES AND IN RIGHTEOUSNESS HE WAGES WAR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Hutchby"
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: OFF: Success!!!
> An absolutely outrageous idea that ordinary people should be allowed to
> carry guns of any description. Look at the comparison between gun related
> deaths i
> n the UK and the US, popuation difference aside the per capita %age speaks
> for itself. Also look at the statistics of how many of them are shot with
> own weapon (that includes cops).
> Just think of the amount of idiots that get a driving licence - you want
> trust them to make split second decisions to use a firearm correctly and
> accordance with prevailing legislation ?????
> And out of interest, what sort of "training qualification" would be
> appropriate......I don't think there are many judgemental simulators in
> the public
> domain which would allow for scenario training; let alone people
> qualified to
> impart the rationale behind the whole judgemental process of whether to
> or not.
> I know this isn't the forum for this debate but I cannot believe this is
> even a serious consideration.
More information about the boc-l