Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Re: UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!

T

The Natural Philosopher

Eeyore said:
Errrr ..... wasn't the raid on Berlin in response to Luftwaffe bombs (later
apparently it turns out inadvertently) dropped on London ?

It was a convenient excuse yes. One bomber made an error, overshot, and
dumped its load..and happened to hot a part o London.

That was all the excuse winnie needed. Those were desperate times. We
were days away from having no airforce whatsoever.
The Germans didn't spend much time on the radar stations since they hadn't worked
out what they actually were btw. Their own radars looked very different.

Indeed, but they still managed to hit rather a lot of them.
 
T

The Natural Philosopher

Neil said:
Take your pick.

Firstly, there's the Home Office consulation document, although it only
has stats up to 2002-3:-

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-controls-on-firearms-
310804?view=Binary

Then there's any one of many news articles from the likes of the Daily
Telegraph quoting government stats showing the increase in handgun
crime:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
xml=/news/2002/02/24/nguns24.xml


The handgun ban of 1998 basically did ****-all to "take handguns off
the streets" and politicians know it.
Ah but it made people feel safer in their beds.

Handguns were essentially unlicenseable before, anyway. It was a crap
piece of law and we know it: The reality is that you couldn't easily
acquire a handgun before the ban, and you cant now. The ban made zero
difference really.

Criminals intent on using one were not gong to wander up to the police
and ask for a license were they? It changed nothing.
 
E

Eeyore

Andy said:
Haven't heard about that - which one? It sounds perilously close to a
"thought crime".

It has actually been worded quite sensibly.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/5823

" The new law however explicitly does not outlaw 'expressions of antipathy,
dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions'.

(so the cartoons of Mohammed would still be perfectly legal).

The new offence therefore has an even higher threshold than the race hatred
offence, recognising that religious beliefs are a legitimate subject of vigorous
public debate.

Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker said: "This Act closes this small but
important gap in the law against extremists who stir up hatred in our
communities. To be attacked or targeted because of your race or religion is
wholly unacceptable. "

I find it intruiging that we finally have a law whose practical effect will be to
protect the whites in the community !


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/20060001.htm

Anyone now carrying a placard saying "kill unbelievers" is going to jail.


Graham
 
S

Steve Firth

Eeyore said:
The idea that guns were originally invented for sport is
utterly bizarre.

No one has made such a claim, so your raising of the issue is, of
itself, bizarre.

Indeed the fact that you think that why an object was originally
designed has anything to do with its subsequent use in sport is bizarre.

Darts for example were originally designed as a throwing weapon. Do you
now want to see pub darts banned because the missiles were originally
designed to kill or maim human beings?

We could revisit Mr Plowman's bizarre view that javelins and swords were
not designed as weapons, if you want a laugh.
 
E

Eeyore

Steve said:
Well, it seems as if the handgun ban is having no effect on the number
or price of guns available illegally.

Is that the reason why the police have found so many workshops now converting
replicas ? And I gather that replicas suitable for conversion are now coming
under scrutiny.

You're a grade one blinkered idiot.

No, it hasn't stopped gun crime but it's made getting guns for illegal use *more
difficult*.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Steve said:
The Metropolitan police state that the reason for the increase in gun
crime is the fall in the price of illegally imported weapons. Apparently
it is now possible to buy a handgun for between £200 and £300. The
police claim that the reason for this is that the guns are being
imported from Bosnia.

Not just Bosnia either I expect. Thanks to EU expansion.

Nothing to do with UK gun laws. This is something *additional* that needs to be
dealt with.

Graahm
 
H

Huge

But a hammer is a better tool for the first. A kitchen knife for cooking.
Both can be used to kill. But weren't designed for this. A handgun was and
is.

To quote Wolfgang Pauli, "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."
 
E

Eeyore

Steve said:
There's no evidence to support that claim

Bollocks.

Just watch certain US TV programmes. Let me see, CSI, CSI Miami, Law and Order
(various flavours), the Shield, any of the US 'cop programmes' with the camera in
the car.

They're *fucking loonies*. They LOVE being violent and getting their way by force.
Oh like Iraq too.

From what you've said here, I suspect you have a violent streak too.

Graham
 
N

Neil Barker

You surprise me. I have never applied for a license, so I don't know the
details, but I had been informed that pump action weapons and automatic
weapons were unlicensable except to the armed forces and the police.

Care to educate us as to he levels of licensing? Or do you just want to
appear superior
?

Nope, I'll quite happily tell you and have no specific desire to be
condescending, just to ensure you understand the facts in question :)

There are two classes of firearms certificate FAC available to the
general public. Section 1 and Section 2.

Section 2 firearms are what you would class a shotgun. The legal
definition of a shotgun is a smooth bored gun (i.e. does not contain
rifling which is internal spiraling found inside the barrel of a rifle
which spins the bullet) and meets the following criteria - has a barrel
length of not less than 24 inches, and a bore of two inches or less in
diameter.

* does not have a magazine, or has a non-detachable magazine which
cannot hold more than two cartridges.

* is not a revolver gun (i.e. a gun containing a series of chambers
which revolve when the gun is fired).

You'll be familiar with side-by-side and over and under shotguns, which
have a 2-shot capacity, i.e. 1 in each chamber. It's also permissable
to have a pump or semi-auto shotgun on a shotgun/section 2 certificate
provided that gun has a total capacity of no more than 3 shots - i.e.
one in the chamber and 2 in the magazine. There is no specific limit on
the number of guns that can be held on a shotgun certificate, provided
you have secure storage for them. You may be interested to know that it
is not compulsory under law to store shotgun cartridges securely,
though people do out of respect and common sense.


Section 1 shotguns are effectively the same as the above, still with
the same dimensions and smooth bore, yet can have a capacity of more
than 3 rounds - this is usually accomplished by having a tubular
magazine under the barrel, though some such as the Saiga can have
detachable magazines.

In English law, it is actually your right to have a shotgun
certificate, unless the police are able to prove otherwise. A Firearms
certificate is different - you must show good reason to have one and
also demonstrate good reason to acquire every gun on it. This can be
for target shooting or vermin control, for instance and you will also
need to be able to prove you have land to shoot over, unless you have
one solely for target shooting. When you apply for a FAC, you need to
specifically list each calibre of rifle you wish to apply for, together
with its intended use.

Firearms law in the UK can be somewhat arcane and often over-
complicated....
 
E

Eeyore

The said:
If that is what it makes to get respect, thats what they will use.

I am reminded of chinese saying

"The worst sort of leader, the people fear"
"A better leader, the people love"
"The best leader, the people say 'we did it ourselves'"

We KNOW the USA citizen's self esteem is very low. Its designed that way
by marketing. That's why they grab onto God, or a gun, to make
themselves feel proud of themselves.

When a mans self-esteem is shot to bits, you can sell him penis pills,
cars that help him score chicks, A God that loves him, a president with
porridge for brains......anything. You play on it to keep the flow of
trash products flowing to him.

Oh yes.

Graham
 
N

Neil Barker

You've not really thought this through, have you? It could well be handgun
crime might have quadrupled or more without the ban. You are merely
fiddling figures to suit your argument.

How many of the crimes committed with handguns before the handgun ban
were committed with legally held handguns ?
 
N

Neil Barker

Introduce some SERIOUS mandatory penalties (long automatic jail sentences) for
simple possession of an illegal gun and damn well enforce it is what I'd like to
see.

The problem is, Graham, is that there ARE stiff penalties for illegal
possession of the likes of handguns - 'mandatory' 5yr jail sentences,
but just how many people do you see receiving them ?
 
N

Neil Barker

Good. That means there aren't likely to be any significant number of deaths resulting
from legally held guns doesn't it ?

How many deaths resulted from legally held handguns in say 1995, before
the handgun ban ?

Now we just need a crackdown on the illegal ones.

Now that, I agree with.
 
N

Neil Barker

Neil Barker wrote:
Ah but it made people feel safer in their beds.

They those people are clearly deluded.

Handguns were essentially unlicenseable before, anyway. It was a crap
piece of law and we know it:

Eh ?

Tell that to the thousands of people in this country who held FACs with
handguns on them - there was a very good licensing system in operation,
let down by poor human intervention in the case of Thomas Hamilton.

The reality is that you couldn't easily acquire a handgun before the
ban, and you cant now.

Provided you could satisfy the criteria for a section 1 FAC, acquiring
a handgun pre the handgun ban was not specifically onerous. Acquiring a
handgun now is arguably easier if you know the right/wrong pub to
visit.

The ban made zero difference really.

To handgun crime, yes.

Criminals intent on using one were not gong to wander up to the police
and ask for a license were they? It changed nothing.

Of course not. It was nothing more than PR spin.
 
E

Eeyore

The said:
I thought Moby Dick was written by an American anyway.

You are correct. It went right over my head because of the Dickens thing.

I get the impression that a lot of Americans have this very false (and quaint) impression
of Britain from 19th century novels. Jane Eyre for example would give you an equally
distorted view.

If classic authors are what he wants he ought perhaps to read 'Jude the Obscure' or 'The
Road to Wigan Pier'/'Down and Out in London and Paris'. That'll shake his ideas up.

I'm struggling to think of a novel that represents modern Britain though.

Graham
 
N

Neil Barker

The original purpose of hand guns was most certainly not target shooting. Nor
hunting.

So what do you think it is ?

OMG.

Look at the phrase, "Its sole purpose is to kill or maim man".

Try telling that to those that use them for target shooting in other
countries throughout the world.

Spotted the factual inaccuracy yet ?
 
N

Neil Barker

Neil Barker wrote:

That's what my friend who once had 9 acres used to have for the task.

Define 'vermin' in his case.

I can't imagine many people wanting to kill deer as vermin in this country.

How wrong you are.
 
Top