E
Eeyore
Arnold said:Not totally ,some areas they have bombs for that purpose and even strap them
on or leave them in British subways.
That doesn't change what I said about guns.
Graham
Arnold said:Not totally ,some areas they have bombs for that purpose and even strap them
on or leave them in British subways.
Yes and no,since the nuts and bolts of solar energy and wind is the nukeAnthony Matonak said:I suppose there are places, like Russia, that have large areas already
contaminated with lots of radioactive material. One method to deal with
nuclear waste would be to ship it there and just dump it on the ground.
Maybe put up a warning sign.
This is still off topic for all of these newsgroups.
Anthony
Arnold said:If you are talking tritium or stromium 90 totally decayed is more like it.
One other thing .....one wonders about is talking about sealing everything
in sight.
Not recycling or the eco impact of the unmined nuke material ....many speak
of a grain
creating mass disaster at every corner.What about the tons in the ground
unmined on mass disaster?
Are we to believe that we have naturally occuring toxic waste sites?
Dating back before the pyamids,etc.,etc......
Maybe moses should have been arranging a super fund to clean up Nevada and
Austrialia.
And Noah checking his ark insurance policy for radiation poisoning from
uranium fields in Libya.
(Sort of unclear on whether he knew where he was ...much less if he cruised
over Libya)
Steve said:He's doing no such thing, he's doing the usual Drivel tactic of talking
crap and being too stupid to admit that he made a mistake. He certainly
has not argued that these are "specially trained units" as you allege.
Are you arguing that US police officers have no weapons training?
Minimal.
Are you claiming that the UK training is somehow infinitely superior to the
US training?
You're wrong on both counts if you are.
And both of you are wrong if you think that police officers don't go
onto British streets, armed, on a regular basis.
Steve said:That is as much utter baloney as anything you have said so far. Murder,
rape, arson, child abduction and burglary are serious problems in the
UK, committed by strangers on innocents. To attempt to claim otherwise
if absolute hokum.
Jim said:Touche'!
Steve said:Wrong on both counts, again. Military rifles in Switzerland are separate
from guns owned by the private individual.
Steve said:A Swiss citizen would be shocked to hear anyone think that
would even consider using a military rifle for anything other than civil
defence.
Eeyore said:Personal ownership (which is what's dangerous) is not required for target
shooting.
Doctor Drivel said:Hand guns were invented so officers could shoot their own men. A supposes a
man is a target of some description.
Eeyore said:PURPOSE
KILLING.
Eeyore said:There's absolutely no way of knowing that.
Eeyore said:Wrong.
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF07.htm
1997 when the new Act came in : 201 deaths
2003 :163 deaths,
Eeyore said:You're mistaken.
I was against the excessive restrictions on target shooting.
Wrong on both counts, again. Military rifles in Switzerland are separate
from guns owned by the private individual. Possession of guns for
hunting is extremely common and pistols are owned for personal
protection. A Swiss citizen would be shocked to hear anyone think that
would even consider using a military rifle for anything other than civil
defence.
And yes, I did live there for a number of years.
Eeyore said:No, he was talking about a single person having all those things happen to
them.
And if you think the answer to dealing with them on an individual basis is
gun ownership, then you're a damn fool.
Eeyore said:Uh ? What do you mean 'separate from' ? Separate from what ?
So what anyway ?
Eeyore said:Minimal.
No, it's significantly superior.
No, I'm right.
Mostly in their ARVs.
You're being disingenuous there.
Morris Dovey said:It's a good brag. May you always feel so safe.