dingley

I'm another. My neighbours will vote in a tory boy, and I couldn't bring myself to vote for Tony's version of Labour. PR's never seemed so attractive, has it.

Scotch eggs have a tendency, depending on the consistency of the sausage mix, to break up in mid-air. Also, if overcooked, the egg may bounce, allerting the perp without injuring him. I, too, prefer crumble. If hurled from a tennis racket (with a smooth action, think lacrosse), it can have the effect of a sawn-off shotgun, splattering the murderous, raping junkie terrorist with sharp fruit and pastry pellets. My mum, who regularly burnt food, pioneered the dumb-dumb crumble, which had extra range. Of course, if you simply have to fill some asshole with bread, just top with breadcrumbs.

Far too sensible for SC, but very well said. Have a great Christmas.

'Knowing' you're not a murderer may appear flimsy in court to a juror who 'just knows' that you are. We had this with the Tony Martin case (old man, living alone, burgled regularly, shot young boy as he was running away). I had sympathy with Martin at first, but came down on the side of the law when I read the case. I'd pretty much expect anyone to be tried for murder if they went too far in self-defence in Britain. I imagine the U.S. to be different, simply because you are allowed to own guns. Unlike you, I think they're an accident waiting to happen. Put it another way - do you think that the 'no shooting in the back' rule/understanding/bottom line stops lots of murders that otherwise would have happened, or do you think that it's unrealistic? And lastly...how could anyone know that someone's gun isn't loaded?.....and I don't mean because you counted down the bullets as they were shot. You just answered that while I was writing.

No, you didn't say that. My mistake. I think that JonRich gave that impression. This is where it gets complicated, though. This guy who shot people in the back certainly looks like a psycho, but there's some guessing going on. For what it's worth, I find it hard to believe that there wasn't something more to the story. Anyway, who knows? I'm just trying to understand why some pro-gun people react so instantly to a shot in the back. As you said, gunshots cause physical reactions, spasms that result in involuntary actions. Your oncoming attacker may simply be falling towards you. I, as a juror, may say that you were using his attack as an excuse to kill him. Do you feel protected by law, or would you feel compelled to embelish the story to cover your back?

The point of my previous post is that one has to understand the *perception* of threat, not the possibility of a threat. *** So is this an absolute (shooting in the back=murder)? We could all invent scenario's, and we could all imagine spanking someone from behind if we felt they were still a threat. I hate guns, but could imagine using an attacker's gun on him if I got the chance. I wouldn't care which part of his anatomy I hit if I thought he was about to do the same to me. So, what's the story? Is U.S. law based on some kind of antiquated chivalry, or is there some leeway for a victim who genuinely fears for their life?

I think I made the point, quite clearly, that I don't see all Americans as 'gun-crazed killers'. Neither did I take your comments as a slap at me. You pointed to a link that suggested that people who are anti-gun are snivelling weaklings. That includes many of your own countrymen and women, as well as much of the world. YOUR back is obviously up. I repeat the point. We don't have a gun culture. America does, but I still believe that many, if not most gun owners don't have a desire to kill. I've no reason to believe that YOU do, but you'll have read the same comments on here as me. Some people see no light and shade. As I said, there's ground between kill or give up. I maintain that most of us occupy that ground.

Yeah, you see I think that there's a lot of ground between 'shoot' and 'snivel', but continue to be insulting if you like. I'm not a pacifist, and have had to protect myself on occasions. We don't need to go over the same old ground again, but it's pretty obvious that the presence of guns make shooting more likely. There's another thread on here about a murder of some hunters. I didn't bother commenting, because I think that it looks like something you couldn't legislate against very easily. There are nutters everywhere, and this was a hunting trip, so hunters have guns. However, I notice the old 'people kill, not guns' argument being used by some. Well, that's plain silly in that case. He simply wouldn't have been able to kill all of those people without a gun. Our nutters generally don't have guns and, if they choose to attack, we're on a pretty level playing field. Anyway, how would you draw if I webbed you with my wrist-device? I can tell you're worried.

I think you're wasting your time, Paulipod. You've succeeded in flushing out the usual suspects, and I don't believe that they're representative of all gun owners. See, that's desparate. I understand why some people arm themselves in the U.S. If I lived in an exceedingly violent country, and was able to own a gun, I may be convinced. Luckily, I don't. If I'm attacked, I'll fight back, but I don't want to kill anyone. Some people obviously wear their country's violent image as a badge of pride. Mind you, I still believe that most gun owners see it as a form of self-defence. There are people on here who give the distinct impression that they're desparate for the chance to kill someone, which is what I think this thread was trying to illustrate. Tell you what, though, I'd love one of those web things on my wrist, like Spiderman. If I'm attacked, I want my attacker to feel like an insect. I'd let him go as soon as he got upset, of course, but then I'm just a weedy Brit.

Dingley, I apologise for the suggestion that you were a townie but seriously, if you don't think pub food would be much of a loss then you were obviously going to the wrong pubs *** No problem, Jakee. I'm sure you're right. I was trying to distract myself from some work that I don't want to do, and posted before thinking. I think it's all been said here. The demise of large-scale smoking will be gradual, and has to start with places where non-smokers suffer. I heard someone from a pro-smoking lobby the other day, suggesting that people were suffering in smoke-free pubs because, suddenly, they could smell their fellow drinkers' body odour. How desperate is that? Yeah, it brings in massive tax revenue, but it's a major health issue. Yes, smokers (and I'm one of them) pay more towards the health service than they take out (probably), but that doesn't really justify the kind of freedoms the smoking lobby think they deserve. I remember having smoke breathed in my face in hospitals, schools and libraries as a kid (really). Thankfully, we've moved on. And night clubs...yeah, they're horrible. It's almost like it's compulsory to smoke in some of them and, because you have to shout, you end up choking. Ah, English night-life. BAN EVERYTHING

Not quite sure what a townie is in modern parlance. My kids point to Burberry, which I thought was what clothed 'Chavs'. Who knows? Well, I don't live in a town and, to be honest, I haven't been to a pub in years. Do they really serve food in 90% of pubs? Are you including these Beefeater-type places, which are like semi-restaurants? Anyway, I have no problem with a smoking ban. If it works in Ireland (and I'm told it does), it'll work anywhere.

Why would we need steering wheels on the wrong side? If pub food disappears (not a great loss), it'll help to ensure that we don't get as fat as you lot. Maybe you should follow our lead...

You don't include Holland, France, or Spain in that, do you? mh *** Not sure what your point is. Mine is that U.S. foreign policy makes it a target, not a particular 'way of life'.

Fuckin 'ell...at least he'll be at home with my other blue-faced, statuesque, rugby tranny friends. Ahem...just wanted to compliment your post, Nac. Sorry that I made your admirer get all territorial. Please leave the claymore and the genitalia in their pouch.

This just isn't true. You've suggested, on many occasions, that our society would benefit from the allowance of personal gun ownership. I've/we've disagreed. Personally, I see it as a no-brainer...gun-owning society=lots of gun deaths...non gun-owning society=very few gun deaths. For that reason, I say that your suggestion (that WE change) is ridiculous. You don't answer that point, because it doesn't suit you. To my mind, it's by far the most important fact in all of this, and makes everything else mere detail. As for your laws...how could they possibly be changed effectively? Who'd collect the, what, 80 million, or was it 800 million guns? I can't believe I keep getting drawn into this. I simply don't understand how you've twisted the argument around to make out that WE'RE threatening your 'freedoms'. I simply look at the situation in your country and think 'bugger that'. You, presumably, look towards our rainy island and grip your tool more firmly (ooh, missus) in case we try to take it away. We won't, we can't and we're not particularly interested in doing so. Now, on a personal level, I'd like to see someone take your gun away just for a laugh, but that's just me.