NationStates Jolt Archive

Tuesday, 24 May, 2005, 11:11 GMT

British man goes "old school"!

Robert Boyer was detained in hospital indefinitely after killing Keith Frogson in Annesley Woodhouse, Notts.

Boyer, 43, diagnosed as suffering from a delusional mental illness, admitted attacking Mr Frogson last July.

Sentencing Boyer on Tuesday, Judge Mr Justice Bean called for tighter laws to govern the sale of similar weapons.

He said: "I must record my concern that it is possible for a crossbow and a ninja sword, both of which being weapons which you used in this crime, can be bought by mail order without any licence being required and without a proper record of who bought them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/4574965.stm

...so what does this prove?

It proves that it's not the weapon. It's the ENFORCEMENT.

Don't forget that recent murder in the UK where the guy used a hammer.

I think that it's probably a good idea to register and license all non-powered hand tools, and start confiscating a random type of tool after each new murder.

And heaven forbid anyone needs to own a power tool. No one needs an electrically powered saw or drill - think of the children!

Any compentent carpenter can do quite nicely with a hand saw and a hand operated bit and brace.

And ya tell that to the young people today and they won't believe ya!
I love the judge, "ninja sword". . .umm, what the hell is that? A katana perhaps?

Don't forget that recent murder in the UK where the guy used a hammer.

I think that it's probably a good idea to register and license all non-powered hand tools, and start confiscating a random type of tool after each new murder.

And heaven forbid anyone needs to own a power tool. No one needs an electrically powered saw or drill - think of the children!

Any compentent carpenter can do quite nicely with a hand saw and a hand operated bit and brace.

Obvoiusly you haven't heard of the "Bit & Brace Brandisher", whom terrorized lower Cleveland in the 1880s... ;)

You guys seem to be assuming that the same law is right for everywhere. Now, gun control does not work in America; there's mountains of evidence to prove that. But it appears to work in Britain, considering their low murder rate by comparison with America's.

No, I'm just being funny.

You guys seem to be assuming that the same law is right for everywhere. Now, gun control does not work in America; there's mountains of evidence to prove that. But it appears to work in Britain, considering their low murder rate by comparison with America's.

Of course they had lower murder rates before the gun grabs as well.

I have the impression that there's a general temperament difference between the typical violent UK criminal and the typical violent US criminal.

Can't put a finger on why that is, other than social reasons.

You could just as easily ask why the police in the UK generally are unarmed (or the gun remains in the boot of the car), while the US police are heavily armed and armored by comparison.

You guys seem to be assuming that the same law is right for everywhere. Now, gun control does not work in America; there's mountains of evidence to prove that. But it appears to work in Britain, considering their low murder rate by comparison with America's.

Er? 0.04 per 1000 vs. 0.01 per 1000... that's not a big jump. Especially when one considers that the US has more larger cities, illegal immigrants, and is less racially & religiously homogenous...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

Yes, as Europe sees its immigration increase and homogenity fade, violent crime will increase.

There wouldn't be any violent crime if we all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya".

And consider this regarding violent crime in England and gun control:

"Despite the attention that imitation weapons are getting, they account for a miniscule fraction of all violent crime (0.02%) and in recent years only about 6% of firearms offenses. But with crime so serious, Labor needs to be seen as doing something. The government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S. The high crime rates have so strained resources that 29% of the time in London it takes police longer than 12 minutes to arrive at the scene. No wonder police nearly always arrive on the crime scene after the crime has been committed."

and:

"Britain is not alone in its experience with banning guns. Australia has also seen its violent crime rates soar to rates similar to Britain's after its 1996 Port Arthur gun control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 74%.

During the 1990s, just as Britain and Australia were more severely regulating guns, the U.S. was greatly liberalizing individuals' abilities to carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have so-called right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check and pay a fee. Only half the states require some training, usually around three to five hours' worth. Yet crime has fallen even faster in these states than the national average. Overall, the states in the U.S. that have experienced the fastest growth rates in gun ownership during the 1990s have experienced the biggest drops in murder rates and other violent crimes."

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:AdpjX6ZwzpMJ:johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/BritainToyGunsWSJE.html+murder+rate+australia+increase+after+gun+ban&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

And ya tell that to the young people today and they won't believe ya!
I love the judge, "ninja sword". . .umm, what the hell is that? A katana perhaps?

The "classic" (more like "bullshit") ninja-to sold in the west isn't really a katana though. Bit shorter, straight blade instead of curved... usually you can get those for 19.90 at some online stores (just like many other so called "katana", which don't even deserve being called that, heck, I've seen some with plastic on the handle, sad). Something like this: http://www.weaponmasters.com/images//products/MC_2002/MCG-747SL.jpg Ok, this one's a bit more "expensive" and goes for... $65.00... still just crap.

Anyone who uses one of those should be called a loser and be punished for it.

Also I think some higher ups need to realize that criminals usually don't register their guns or go for permits and organizing a gun illegally isn't THAT hard if you know where to search.

Technically you'd have to ban airguns (not softair, but those that fire small metal bullets with rather strong air pressure) too. They're available at 18 here, and technically, given the right circumstances you could kill someone with one (maybe not a grown up, but a child, at point blank, would work I'd say).

Pfff... guns in general. They're fun, but eh... doesn't really take much skill to use one.

Of course they had lower murder rates before the gun grabs as well.

I wish Americans would stop saying this. THERE HAVE BEEN NO GUN 'GRABS'. Gun laws have been as they are now in the UK for many centuries. The last major change was after the dunblain massacre, but that just tightend the already stringent gun registration further. You havn't been able to go out with a gun into a public place in the UK ever. We have had gun amnysties (where if you hand in a gun to the police station you dont get charged) and we've had police campaigns focusing on stamping out gun crime recently but theres been no massive upheaval in the gun laws.

wish Americans would stop saying this. THERE HAVE BEEN NO GUN 'GRABS'. Gun laws have been as they are now in the UK for many centuries

Neo - Before 1997 UK citizens could own pistols if properly registered. After 1997 they could not own them at all. They were surrendered to the police.

Calling that a "gun grab" is not inaccurate.

And your statement that "Gun laws have been as they are now in the UK for many centuries" is clearly incorrect.

Neo - Before 1997 UK citizens could own pistols if properly registered. After 1997 they could not own them at all. They were surrendered to the police.

Calling that a "gun grab" is not inaccurate.

And your statement that "Gun laws have been as they are now in the UK for many centuries" is clearly incorrect.

Doesn't the effect of that actually depend on the number of people who actually owned a pistol and surrendered it? I don't know the figures, but if a miniscule number of people actually legally owned a registered pistol, then the idea of a "gun grab" making things worse is not neccesarily true.

Er? 0.04 per 1000 vs. 0.01 per 1000... that's not a big jump. Especially when one considers that the US has more larger cities, illegal immigrants, and is less racially & religiously homogenous...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap
The US is "less racially and religiously homogenous"? I'm not convinced that's true.

Sabbatis, I don't trust the site you're quoting at all.

You could just as easily ask why the police in the UK generally are unarmed (or the gun remains in the boot of the car), while the US police are heavily armed and armored by comparison.
It's because criminals in America are more likely to have a gun (most criminals in the UK are more likely to carry knives), so the cops need to be more heavily armed.

Er? 0.04 per 1000 vs. 0.01 per 1000... that's not a big jump.
I think a fourfold difference is a big jump.

It's because criminals in America are more likely to have a gun (most criminals in the UK are more likely to carry knives), so the cops need to be more heavily armed.


I think a fourfold difference is a big jump.


Even without a gun, criminals in the US are far more likely to offer violence.

Consider that 76 percent of violent crime in the US involves no weapon of any kind.

Here in the US, you're not doing yourself a favor if you cooperate with someone who is raping, assaulting, or robbing you. The criminal here doesn't care if you cooperate - they're going to hurt you for the fun of it.

CJ - on short notice the only number I could find is that 1% of UK households owned a pistol in 1991. Too lazy to do the math, but it's not an inconsequential number of pistols. In my view it's confiscation, or "gun grab".

But it's interesting that violent crime has increased and that people are turning to weapons other than guns to commit crimes with. This does not surprise me.

Sabbatis, I don't trust the site you're quoting at all.

Werteswandel - I chose that link for no other reason than it was on the first page of a Google search and was reasonably well-written. Other search results yielded similar numbers. You are free to do your own research, of course.

The US is "less racially and religiously homogenous"? I'm not convinced that's true.

Sabbatis, I don't trust the site you're quoting at all.

US pop: 295 million
UK pop: 60 million

US:
white 77.1%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1.5%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.3%, other 4% (2000)
note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean a person of Latin American descent (including persons of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin) living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.)

UK:
English 81.5%, Scottish 9.6%, Irish 2.4%, Welsh 1.9%, Ulster 1.8%, West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, and other 2.8%

US:
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)

UK:
Anglican and Roman Catholic 40 million, Muslim 1.5 million, Presbyterian 800,000, Methodist 760,000, Sikh 500,000, Hindu 500,000, Jewish 350,000

...I did the math to figure out the UK %s months ago, but I didn't save the post. But even a quick glance will tell you that the UK is more homogenous than the US. :) (ie: ALL US Protestants make up 52% vs. just the Anglicans in UK.)

I think a fourfold difference is a big jump.

And how much of that fourfold difference is due to non-gun owning factors? ;)

Even without a gun, criminals in the US are far more likely to offer violence.

Consider that 76 percent of violent crime in the US involves no weapon of any kind.

Here in the US, you're not doing yourself a favor if you cooperate with someone who is raping, assaulting, or robbing you. The criminal here doesn't care if you cooperate - they're going to hurt you for the fun of it.

Yes because all our criminals are nice and friendly who would never hurt a fly

Thanks, Markreich. The figures on race don't look at all right for the UK. I think something like 8% of the country is non-white, at least in the last survey I saw.

On religion... er, I think your stats show the UK to be the more heterogeneous.
UK: Anglican + Catholic + Protestant (Pres & Meth) ~ 68% from those figures
US: Protestant + Catholic ~76%

You guys seem to be assuming that the same law is right for everywhere. Now, gun control does not work in America; there's mountains of evidence to prove that. But it appears to work in Britain, considering their low murder rate by comparison with America's.

Both Britian and Australia (nations that are culturally similar to the US) have had traditionally low rates of murder and violent crime. After tougher gun control laws were passed, however, rates of violent crime began to steadily raise in these countries. In Britain, for instance, the rate of break-ins have dropped while the rate of armed home invasions have risen. Gun control doesn't take guns out of the hands of criminals, only law abiding citizens. Someone who is already dealing drugs, smuggling, or killing isn't really afraid of breaking the law by having a gun.

Pfff... guns in general. They're fun, but eh... doesn't really take much skill to use one.

Thats kind of a myth. Sure, on the surface guns seem easy to use, but hitting a moving target in a highly aroused state at 10 yards isn't that simple, especially if you haven't trained extensively with the firearm in question so you know what kind of muzzle jump and recoil to expect. Even if your first shot is easy, without training a second shot is very difficult, particularly if your target is coming towards you. Firing a weapon in real life isn't like the movies, you don't just point it in a direction and watch the bad guys fall like leaves.

Thanks, Markreich. The figures on race don't look at all right for the UK. I think something like 8% of the country is non-white, at least in the last survey I saw.

On religion... er, I think your stats show the UK to be the more heterogeneous.
UK: Anglican + Catholic + Protestant (Pres & Meth) ~ 68% from those figures
US: Protestant + Catholic ~76%

I'm just going by http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html for this info. (World Factbook)

Religion: Yes, but that's only 2 Christianities for UK, and MANY for the US.
In my town alone (about 20,000 people) we have 3 Catholic Churches, a Synagogue, an Armenian Orthodox Catholic Church, two Episcopals, a Lutheren, a Congregationalist, a non-denominational Christian, a Methodist, and a Calvinist Church. :)

Both Britian and Australia (nations that are culturally similar to the US) have had traditionally low rates of murder and violent crime. After tougher gun control laws were passed, however, rates of violent crime began to steadily raise in these countries. In Britain, for instance, the rate of break-ins have dropped while the rate of armed home invasions have risen. Gun control doesn't take guns out of the hands of criminals, only law abiding citizens. Someone who is already dealing drugs, smuggling, or killing isn't really afraid of breaking the law by having a gun.

Gun control was introduced very early half of the 20th century so ofcourse cimre is going to have risen since then. The Law abiding citizens can still own a gun if they really want to

Doesn't the effect of that actually depend on the number of people who actually owned a pistol and surrendered it? I don't know the figures, but if a miniscule number of people actually legally owned a registered pistol, then the idea of a "gun grab" making things worse is not neccesarily true.

That doesn't change the fact that it is assinine. If someone had a legally registered pistol, they weren't using it for crime. Why? Because a criminal isn't going to comply with laws to begin with, much less laws designed to make it easier to track them after they have done something illegal. The only people who lost weapons when England banned handguns were citizens interested in following the law. Considering the expense and difficulty of getting a legal long-arm in England, there is essentially two levels of protection for people. The level that those who can afford an armed personal bodyguard or a $20,000 custom shotgun (and the liscensing to go with it), and the level for peasants.

It proves that it's not the weapon. It's the ENFORCEMENT.
Yes, and it also proves that if a criminal wants a weapon badly enough, no law ( or attempt to enforce it! ) is going to stop him.

Pfff... guns in general. They're fun, but eh... doesn't really take much skill to use one.

That's not my experience.

If you've personally never used a gun before, I'll give you a simple challenge.

I will stand up, and you may assume any firing position you like, and we will face each other at 150 yards.

I will give you a rifle with five rounds in the magazine.

You get to take five shots at me.

I get a rifle with one round, and after you take your five shots, I'll take my one shot. You can even get up and run at that point if you like.

[QUOTE=Markreich...I did the math to figure out the UK %s months ago, but I didn't save the post. But even a quick glance will tell you that the UK is more homogenous than the US. :) (ie: ALL US Protestants make up 52% vs. just the Anglicans in UK.)[/QUOTE]

And what does this have to do with rates of violence again? Outside of small pockets of hate crimes racial and religious diversity doesn't really lead to that much crime. In the States, if you are a victim of a crime it is likely that the offender will be of the same race as you. In fact, crime in America, like most things, is more centered around class than race or religion.

Also, it disturbs me greatly that one would assume that crime increases with diversity. At best it shows an attitude that views one's own people as too weak and fearful not to become violent when faced with "the other." At worst it shows the kind of nationalism and xenophobia that you generally only see in jackbooted subcultures.

Pfff... guns in general. They're fun, but eh... doesn't really take much skill to use one

So we can expect to see you on a shooting team at the Olympics soon?

Religion: Yes, but that's only 2 Christianities for UK, and MANY for the US.
In my town alone (about 20,000 people) we have 3 Catholic Churches, a Synagogue, an Armenian Orthodox Catholic Church, two Episcopals, a Lutheren, a Congregationalist, a non-denominational Christian, a Methodist, and a Calvinist Church. :)

Yes, but in America Christian is Christian. There are a near infinate number of sects, but basically you're a Catholic or a Protestant, and most people couldn't tell the difference between the two.

Also, the only way you were eligible for the gun amnesty was if the gun had not been used in a crime. If it had you went to jail.

Neo - Before 1997 UK citizens could own pistols if properly registered. After 1997 they could not own them at all. They were surrendered to the police.

Calling that a "gun grab" is not inaccurate.

And your statement that "Gun laws have been as they are now in the UK for many centuries" is clearly incorrect.

Please, how many people owned a pistol. There were less than 100 or so in circulation. Thats not a gun grab. And my point stands, in the UK you have never been allowed to carry a gun in a public place as a member of the public. The only people who can do that are armed police officers and they are'nt on the beat, they have to be called in.

Now, generally I agree with the point that most of you folks are making: That when a government makes it illegal to own guns and other such arms, only people who abide by the law will be disarmed.

Let me play Devil's Advocate here, though, and ask a question: Aside from a correlation in time-frames between upped violent crimes and so-called "gun grabs", is there any other correlation? I keep seeing statistics that show the U.K's violent crime rates going up right after more stringent gun control laws were put into effect, but I don't see statistics on or examples of why this occured, and proof (again, other than "fortuitous" timing) that the two are related. What I'm saying is, I would like to see a correlation other than the timing being right. Because so far, that's the only example I've seen in the specified case being discussed.

This isn't to say I don't agree with Markreich and you others, I just want the argument to be shored up a bit, supported by more evidence. A single correlation can be chalked up to coincidence, or there may even be other factors that we aren't seeing. We are only being given two facts out of a larger picture: 1, that gun control became more stringent, and 2, that a year after that, violent crime went on the rise. Seems to me that there has to be more going on here than just those two factors.

Please, how many people owned a pistol. There were less than 100 or so in circulation. Thats not a gun grab. And my point stands, in the UK you have never been allowed to carry a gun in a public place as a member of the public. The only people who can do that are armed police officers and they are'nt on the beat, they have to be called in.

Far more pistols "in circulation" than that, I'm afraid.

I know several collectors in the UK who lost pistol collections of several hundred pistols to the government. Now how many do you think were there?

Yes, they never carried them in public. But they did enjoy the legal use of pistols, and the fun of collecting.

Interestingly, although some of the pistols were one of a kind, and rare, and attempts were made to put some from the collections in a military museum, the police had them melted down.

Very nice.

The major differences between the US and UK, at least as far as guns are concerned are quite noticeable. Since it's inception, the US has had a well armed and well trained populace. Guns were necessary on the frontier, to hunt and to defend oneself, espescially in areas where it could take law enforcement days, if not weeks to reach a crime scene. Gun culture grew heavily in the United States, and having less gun controls over here is a very good idea. Guns play a signifigant role in our culture.

But in the UK, guns have not played such a signifigant role. The populace has not been historically well armed. Long ago, the scots maintained a decent militia force, but it was overpowered by other forces, and this was before guns anyways. There wasn't all that much of a need to hunt for food in England, self defense wasn't quite as much of a priority, because law enforcement could be counted on to be somwhere nearby. Different cultures call for different laws.

CJ - on short notice the only number I could find is that 1% of UK households owned a pistol in 1991. Too lazy to do the math, but it's not an inconsequential number of pistols.

It means that 99% of households weren't using a pistol to deter crime. I can't see how the difference between 99% of households not using a firearm, and 100% not using them, is going to have that much of an effect on crime rates.

I keep seeing statistics that show the U.K's violent crime rates going up right after more stringent gun control laws were put into effect.

The interesting thing is, people forget that the laws regarding BB guns and replicas were relaxed at a similar time (albeit slightly). Point is, that there havent been any major changes to UK gun law for a very long time. There have been gun amnesties and focus on gun crime by the police but no real groundbreaking change.

Although in my opinion, UK gun laws are also slightly harsh, even when dealing with people who would be of no threat to others, such as collectors. I know someone who had a rare variant of the Luger Pistol in the UK, and it got the squish.

Or the UK's olympic pistol target shooting team. They have to practice elsewhere because they are not allowed to practice their pistol use in thh UK.

I'm just highlighting what I view to be a few failures of the UK pistol ban...

It means that 99% of households weren't using a pistol to deter crime. I can't see how the difference between 99% of households not using a firearm, and 100% not using them, is going to have that much of an effect on crime rates.
I don't see how going from 99% of households not having a gun to 100% of households not having a gun is going to have much of an effect on crime rates.

But that's why they passed the law, isn't it? To see a huge reduction in violent crime?

Eh?

Gun control was introduced very early half of the 20th century so ofcourse cimre is going to have risen since then. The Law abiding citizens can still own a gun if they really want to

That is true in the United States, Britain, and Australia. Starting in the mid 1980s, individual states in the US began loosening their gun control laws. These changes ranged from allowing someone to carry a concealed weapon if they could show a need, to using your drivers liscense as a concealed carry permit, to allowing individuals to own class III weapons (military, full auto, light artillary, anti-aircraft, and supressors). In every state, in every county there was a statistically significant (using ANOVA tests at an alpha level of .01) decrease in violent crime. This decrease became more dramtic the more populous and the poorer the sample. During this same period of time some states tightened their gun control statutes using waiting periods, purchase limits, registration, and restriction on what kinds of weapons could be legally owned. These laws had no statistically significant effect on crime (even when ANOVA tests with an alpha level as high as .1 were used). All of these numbers come from the FBI's county-level tracking of crime prevalance and incedence.

In Britain and Australia, in the mid to late 1990s, gun control laws were increased. There has been a steady, statistically significant increase in violent crime in these countries that coincides with the passage of their respective gun laws. The fact of the matter is, culture means little. Criminals are the same everywhere, as a group they are oppritunistic and cowardly. They seek easy targets that pose little threat to their saftey or freedom. As a result, in a community with high gun ownership, they are more likely to break into your home when you are not there. In a community with low gun ownership, they are likely to break in when you are home. Look at the steep rise in home invasions in Britain since 1997. Guns allow citiznes to defend themselves against criminals. Without them, citizens are merely victims who have to pray that the police are close enough to get there before a criminal decides to kill them. If someone gets raped in the meantime, well, I guess thats the price we pay for a safer city? Yeah, right.

Now, generally I agree with the point that most of you folks are making: That when a government makes it illegal to own guns and other such arms, only people who abide by the law will be disarmed.

Let me play Devil's Advocate here, though, and ask a question: Aside from a correlation in time-frames between upped violent crimes and so-called "gun grabs", is there any other correlation? I keep seeing statistics that show the U.K's violent crime rates going up right after more stringent gun control laws were put into effect, but I don't see statistics on or examples of why this occured, and proof (again, other than "fortuitous" timing) that the two are related. What I'm saying is, I would like to see a correlation other than the timing being right. Because so far, that's the only example I've seen in the specified case being discussed.

This isn't to say I don't agree with Markreich and you others, I just want the argument to be shored up a bit, supported by more evidence. A single correlation can be chalked up to coincidence, or there may even be other factors that we aren't seeing. We are only being given two facts out of a larger picture: 1, that gun control became more stringent, and 2, that a year after that, violent crime went on the rise. Seems to me that there has to be more going on here than just those two factors.


Well, I can't give you that for Britain, I'm a resident of the US and I don't have access to the latest/best statistical data from the other side of the pond. I CAN, however, point you to a book that prove the reverse. In other words, that an increase in the availablility of guns (particularly the ability to carry concealed weapons) leads to an immediate decrease in crimes that involve the criminal actually facing the victim (rape, murder, home invasion, battery, etc). This decrease exists in a statistically significant way regardless of population density, income, or existing gun control laws. The data is from the FBI and was processed through SPSS, the major statistical analysis program available in the United States. The books is called "More Guns, Less Crime" and was written by John Lott.

It means that 99% of households weren't using a pistol to deter crime. I can't see how the difference between 99% of households not using a firearm, and 100% not using them, is going to have that much of an effect on crime rates.

Imagine you're a criminal. You're a big guy with a knife and you're pretty sure you can take the owners of a house you're planning to break into. The house has $10,000 worth of easily carried loot. Now imagine that you have a 1% chance of getting shot if you do not carefully case the house to determine when the owners will or will not be home. Will you take your chances, or will you make sure you break in when theres no chance the owners will be home?

To use an analogy about the U.S. and it's current situation with gun control:

A first-time thief bought a gun from a gun shop. In that state, conceiled-and-carry was legal. The thief got the bright idea to rob the very shop he got his gun from. So he goes and says this is a stick up.

5 seconds and 20 bullet holes later, there's no more thief.

The point is, in America, there is something of a situation of "Mutually Assured Destrution" when it comes to violent crimes. If someone wants to do something illegal, they realize that there's a good chance that the civilians in the area that they'll be doing their evil deeds will be armed and ready.

In Europe, this isn't the case. Without a dominant lethal weapon, there isn't much of a threat to doing something craaazy.

Yes, but in America Christian is Christian. There are a near infinate number of sects, but basically you're a Catholic or a Protestant, and most people couldn't tell the difference between the two.

Uh huh... so those churches being burned down in the south 5-8 years ago was what then? Most of the anti-abortion voilence? Hey, how about Waco? Rodney King? The LA riots? The Central Park Jogger?

Most violence is racially and/or religiously motivated. Most CRIME (where theft/robbery is involved) is economically motivated.

So yes, diversity plays a role.

And what does this have to do with rates of violence again? Outside of small pockets of hate crimes racial and religious diversity doesn't really lead to that much crime. In the States, if you are a victim of a crime it is likely that the offender will be of the same race as you. In fact, crime in America, like most things, is more centered around class than race or religion.

Also, it disturbs me greatly that one would assume that crime increases with diversity. At best it shows an attitude that views one's own people as too weak and fearful not to become violent when faced with "the other." At worst it shows the kind of nationalism and xenophobia that you generally only see in jackbooted subcultures.

I'm not assuming it does, it *does* increase due to diversity, especially in poorer areas. And, thanks for the lecture, but your not telling me anything that the jail population vs. the US demographic doesn't dispel. And, if you want fall back on the argument that more whites are poor than other groups: true. But they are also in rural areas where they can get by on less. Neither blacks nor whites, for example, have drive by shootings in Toad Suck, Arkansas.

I'm not a racist, and I take umbrage at your aspersions. :p

Even without a gun, criminals in the US are far more likely to offer violence.

Consider that 76 percent of violent crime in the US involves no weapon of any kind.

Here in the US, you're not doing yourself a favor if you cooperate with someone who is raping, assaulting, or robbing you. The criminal here doesn't care if you cooperate - they're going to hurt you for the fun of it.
Sounds like Americans are just plain evil. ;)

Well, I can't give you that for Britain, I'm a resident of the US and I don't have access to the latest/best statistical data from the other side of the pond. I CAN, however, point you to a book that prove the reverse. In other words, that an increase in the availablility of guns (particularly the ability to carry concealed weapons) leads to an immediate decrease in crimes that involve the criminal actually facing the victim (rape, murder, home invasion, battery, etc). This decrease exists in a statistically significant way regardless of population density, income, or existing gun control laws. The data is from the FBI and was processed through SPSS, the major statistical analysis program available in the United States. The books is called "More Guns, Less Crime" and was written by John Lott.

Glorious - the link I posted previously is to an article written by John Lott, published in Wall Street Journal Europe:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:AdpjX6ZwzpMJ:johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/BritainToyGunsWSJE.html+murder+rate+australia+increase+after+gun+ban&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Sounds like Americans are just plain evil. ;)
What do you expect? You Europeans sent us all your culls! :D

BTW ... I'll probably be visiting Eire in a few years. Just be warned! Mwahahahaha! :D

BTW ... I'll probably be visiting Eire in a few years. Just be warned! Mwahahahaha! :D

:eek:

I'm just going by http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html for this info. (World Factbook)

Religion: Yes, but that's only 2 Christianities for UK, and MANY for the US.
In my town alone (about 20,000 people) we have 3 Catholic Churches, a Synagogue, an Armenian Orthodox Catholic Church, two Episcopals, a Lutheren, a Congregationalist, a non-denominational Christian, a Methodist, and a Calvinist Church. :)
That's a lot of churches! That said, I included four Christian groups (Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian - which should be United Reform since they merged with the Congregationalists - and Methodist). We also have significant numbers of Calvinists (scary), Evangelicals, Baptists and others, but not on the same scale as the US, I suspect.

Meh, we're a less religious country. 4% church attendance, I think.

That's a lot of churches! That said, I included four Christian groups (Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian - which should be United Reform since they merged with the Congregationalists - and Methodist). We also have significant numbers of Calvinists (scary), Evangelicals, Baptists and others, but not on the same scale as the US, I suspect.

Meh, we're a less religious country. 4% church attendance, I think.
Calvinists scare the crap out of me.

Calvinists scare the crap out of me.
Popular in Scotland's rugged highlands and Hebrides. Terrifying.

Uh huh... so those churches being burned down in the south 5-8 years ago was what then? Most of the anti-abortion voilence? Hey, how about Waco? Rodney King? The LA riots? The Central Park Jogger?

Most violence is racially and/or religiously motivated. Most CRIME (where theft/robbery is involved) is economically motivated.

So yes, diversity plays a role.

You're addressing an interesting point, but one that is unrelated to my statement. There is very little violence between groups of Christians over their church. When churches burn in the south it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with race. Anti-abortion violence again, isn't groups of christians, but pro-lifers being terrorists (you don't see pro-choice churches being bombed, only clinics). Everything else you mentioned was either racial or political...

And then theres Waco. Lets not delude ourselves. Waco wasn't about religion. It wasn't about a cult. It wasn't about trumped up charges of child abuse. It was about the Clinton administration being uncomfortable with a large group of Class III firearms owners congregating in one place and hoarding weapons. BATF didn't surround the place with tanks because the Davidians thought Jesus was gonna bring em' up to heaven. They came because the Davidians had lots of guns that BATF didn't think citizens should have.

I'm not assuming it does, it *does* increase due to diversity, especially in poorer areas. And, thanks for the lecture, but your not telling me anything that the jail population vs. the US demographic doesn't dispel. And, if you want fall back on the argument that more whites are poor than other groups: true. But they are also in rural areas where they can get by on less. Neither blacks nor whites, for example, have drive by shootings in Toad Suck, Arkansas.

I'm not a racist, and I take umbrage at your aspersions. :p

Ok, first, yes, there are more poor whites than poor black. No suprise there, theres more whites than blacks. The key is that a higher percentage of blacks are poor than whites. In some urban communities unemployment rates for black males 18-30 approach 60%. There are pleanty of reasons for this, but the end result is simple. Poor people are more likely to commit crimes, and criminals are more likely to be in prison. Now add the fact that poor neighborhoods generally have more aggressive police patrols. Take a look at our prison pouplation. How many are poor people who got caught with drugs? More than half? More than two thirds? I'm a upper-middle class white guy with a college education and a clean record, if I get caught with a dimebag, at worst I get a fine, six months probation, and my record expunged in three years. If I run into the right cop (either sympathetic or crooked) I might get off with a warning, minus a few dollars. If I was a poor black kid with a legal aid lawyer an a few curfew violations, I would be looking at a few months in the county lock-up.

Diversity only causes "crime" when ethnic groups clash (hasn't really happened here in Chicago since the 70s) or when laws are applied differently for different people. Couple that with socioeconomic factors and an ignorance of what most people go to jail for and anyone can use the prison population to say something they already "know."

Calvinists scare the crap out of me.

Calvanists have nothing on our charismatic evangelical Christians. Gotta love anyone who can look you in the eye and tell you their kid can't go to a museum because dinosaur bones another of Lucifer's deceptions...And people wonder why I keep guns ;)

It proves that it's not the weapon. It's the PERSON.

there fixed it for the original poster
:D

And ya tell that to the young people today and they won't believe ya!
I love the judge, "ninja sword". . .umm, what the hell is that? A katana perhaps?

The ones that guy used were 440 Stainless steel Sword Like Objects. In other words an over sized kitchen knife.

They're not even swords for crying out loud, let alone 'Ninja swords'. A true sword would not be made of stainless steel, too brittle and no flex.

Its people like this prick who did the attack, who make people who enjoy my hobby (German Longsword) have a hard time from the authorities for no reason :mad:

there fixed it for the original poster
:D

That's another way to put it, sure. :)

Ok, first, yes, there are more poor whites than poor black. No suprise there, theres more whites than blacks. The key is that a higher percentage of blacks are poor than whites. In some urban communities unemployment rates for black males 18-30 approach 60%. There are pleanty of reasons for this, but the end result is simple. Poor people are more likely to commit crimes, and criminals are more likely to be in prison.

Exactly. :cool:

Now add the fact that poor neighborhoods generally have more aggressive police patrols. Take a look at our prison pouplation. How many are poor people who got caught with drugs? More than half? More than two thirds?

I'm not sure about all that, but the police do tend to congregate more in high-crime areas... And Dunkin' Donut shops.

I'm a upper-middle class white guy with a college education and a clean record, if I get caught with a dimebag, at worst I get a fine, six months probation, and my record expunged in three years. If I run into the right cop (either sympathetic or crooked) I might get off with a warning, minus a few dollars. If I was a poor black kid with a legal aid lawyer an a few curfew violations, I would be looking at a few months in the county lock-up.

That depends on an awful lot, actually. Where you are, how much you're caught with, what your prior record is. In general, I would expect that to be more the case in areas with fewer minorities. :(

Diversity only causes "crime" when ethnic groups clash (hasn't really happened here in Chicago since the 70s) or when laws are applied differently for different people. Couple that with socioeconomic factors and an ignorance of what most people go to jail for and anyone can use the prison population to say something they already "know."

Ethnic groups clash all the time. The L.A. Riots, the Hough riot in Cleveland (2001), heck, even the Minutemen on the US/Mexican border last month.

The ones that guy used were 440 Stainless steel Sword Like Objects. In other words an over sized kitchen knife.

They're not even swords for crying out loud, let alone 'Ninja swords'. A true sword would not be made of stainless steel, too brittle and no flex.

Its people like this prick who did the attack, who make people who enjoy my hobby (German Longsword) have a hard time from the authorities for no reason :mad:

You do Schlager? Excellent!!

(I'm a sabre fencer that hates the electric version of the sport.)

You're addressing an interesting point, but one that is unrelated to my statement. There is very little violence between groups of Christians over their church. When churches burn in the south it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with race. Anti-abortion violence again, isn't groups of christians, but pro-lifers being terrorists (you don't see pro-choice churches being bombed, only clinics). Everything else you mentioned was either racial or political...

I said violence is racially or religiously based. I could just as easily cited the dragging death in Texas or the swastikas painted on synagogues than the southern chuch burnings.

Crime is different by definition: it is economically based. No one who's hungry kills somebody, then leaves the wallet.

Basically, I'm just differentiating between violence for monetary gain and violence for a "principle" or cause.

And then theres Waco. Lets not delude ourselves. Waco wasn't about religion. It wasn't about a cult. It wasn't about trumped up charges of child abuse. It was about the Clinton administration being uncomfortable with a large group of Class III firearms owners congregating in one place and hoarding weapons. BATF didn't surround the place with tanks because the Davidians thought Jesus was gonna bring em' up to heaven. They came because the Davidians had lots of guns that BATF didn't think citizens should have.

Yes and no. The compound itself was religious in nature. Had it been a 4H Club or something, I don't think the shootout would have happened. By the same token, 4H members would probably be a lot more...er... "stable" in negotiations.

You do Schlager? Excellent!!

(I'm a sabre fencer that hates the electric version of the sport.)

You must like getting welts then.

You do Schlager? Excellent!!

(I'm a sabre fencer that hates the electric version of the sport.)

No no, not Schläger. Thats still rapier style, although not really, but that still isn't my thing.

Medieval German Longsword (As in Bastard or Hand and a half). Mostly of the Lichtenauer school, although I primairly study Talhoffer. That said I am also looking into the Italien tradition too, mostly Fiore.

But I used to to sabre, but wanted a martial art, not a martial sport :)

No no, not Schläger. Thats still rapier style, although not really, but that still isn't my thing.

Medieval German Longsword (As in Bastard or Hand and a half). Mostly of the Lichtenauer school, although I primairly study Talhoffer. That said I am also looking into the Italien tradition too, mostly Fiore.

But I used to to sabre, but wanted a martial art, not a martial sport :)

Ass-kicking with a big pointy metal bar.

An earlier poster noted that violent crime rose to 'almost 1993 levels' after the gun restrictions.

Think about your argument for a moment please.

That's right. It was worse with guns than without.

An earlier poster noted that violent crime rose to 'almost 1993 levels' after the gun restrictions.

Think about your argument for a moment please.

That's right. It was worse with guns than without.

There are far more guns in use in the US now than in 1995. An increase from 60 million owners to 80 million owners. An increase of 200 million guns to 300 million guns.

And crime went down by double digits. Violent crime, murder, and murder by firearm all went down in the US.

It's better with more guns.

Ass-kicking with a big pointy metal bar.

:rolleyes: :p

Read and learn (http://swordforum.com/)

But as an overview:-

Longswords were not the big ass crow bars as portrayed by the modern media. The weighed anywhere between 1lb 16 oz (as found in the Wallace collection in London) to 4lbs. Razor sharp and well balanced they could be used in unamoured duels as well as from horse back and in armour. They were flexible blades able to take punishment but were also stiff enough for aiming for thrusting through gaps in plate armour or for prising through maille coats, but not cutting armour, that was virtually impossible unless you had a war hammer or something similar (pole arm, spear maybe an axe etc).

Their use was sophisticated and not the edge on edge bash and hack that is portrayed in the films. Several schools arose across Europe, including the ones I have mentioned, Lichtenauer, Ringeck, Talhoffer, Fiore and Vadi. Techniques included grappling, wrestling and all manner of uses for the blade. In all the techniques and manner of fighting was as lethal as any martial system in the world.

Heh, can you tell its my hobby? :D

:rolleyes: :p

Read and learn (http://swordforum.com/)

But as an overview:-

Longswords were not the big ass crow bars as portrayed by the modern media. The weighed anywhere between 1lb 16 oz (as found in the Wallace collection in London) to 4lbs. Razor sharp and well balanced they could be used in unamoured duels as well as from horse back and in armour. They were flexible blades able to take punishment but were also stiff enough for aiming for the gaps in plate armour or for prising through maille coats.

Their use was sophisticated and not the edge on edge bash and hack that is portrayed in the films. Several schools arose across Europe, including the ones I have mentioned, Lichtenauer, Ringeck, Talhoffer, Fiore and Vadi. Techniques included grappling, wrestling and all manner of uses for the blade. In all the techniques and manner of fighting was as lethal as any martial system in the world.

Heh, can you tell its my hobby? :D

He IS the expert... Listen to him! ;)

Not into the cut and thrust sword, are you?

I remember watching two guys on foot with hand and a half swords - and it looked like they were using them part of the time the way I would use the rifle/bayonet - one hand was holding the blade about a foot from the tip while the other held the grip - and they were occasionally using it to buttstroke.

Not sure if this was authentic or typical, but it gave me pause. The whole weapon could be used to kill, not just the edge or the point.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the gladius. I'm short and stocky, and I've always liked something that is used up close.

He IS the expert... Listen to him! ;)

*Blushes*

Thanks, but I'm merely a enthusiast, you want an expert, you want this guy:

Ewart Oakeshott (http://www.oakeshott.org/home.html)

You must like getting welts then.

When one fences "dry" sabre, one *parries*. :)

When one fences "dry" sabre, one *parries*. :)

I tried that, and the instructor still managed to whip either side of my rib cage with little effort.

Not into the cut and thrust sword, are you?

I remember watching two guys on foot with hand and a half swords - and it looked like they were using them part of the time the way I would use the rifle/bayonet - one hand was holding the blade about a foot from the tip while the other held the grip - and they were occasionally using it to buttstroke.

Not sure if this was authentic or typical, but it gave me pause. The whole weapon could be used to kill, not just the edge or the point.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the gladius. I'm short and stocky, and I've always liked something that is used up close.

Yup yup, very authentic. But yeah, long sword is cut and thrust in essence.

The technique is called half swording. It specifically for use against armoured opponenets.

You hold the sword half way up the blade (preferably with thick leather gloves on...if you like your fingers to remain attached to your hand).

But your right, the whole weapon could be used. The pommel was often used as a club, or you could use it to punch with. The cross guard was often sharpened and if you gripped your sword by the blade you could turn your sword into an effective polearm (in the Talhoffer school, this is called the 'morderschlagg' or death strike...very appropriate).

No no, not Schläger. Thats still rapier style, although not really, but that still isn't my thing.

Medieval German Longsword (As in Bastard or Hand and a half). Mostly of the Lichtenauer school, although I primairly study Talhoffer. That said I am also looking into the Italien tradition too, mostly Fiore.

But I used to to sabre, but wanted a martial art, not a martial sport :)

Pretty cool!! Unfortunately, where I live there is nothing except:
* A little Kendo/Kumdo
* Some Olympic fencing
* Wannabees, and a varying quality of SCA folks, of whom 95% are not worth talking to. :(

Needless to say, but here in the US, there simply are no real schools. Even the differences between Italian & French foil and the sabre schools (Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Russian...) are pretty much absent. :(

When one fences "dry" sabre, one *parries*. :)

Unless ones instructor feints and then your screwed :p

I tried that, and the instructor still managed to whip either side of my rib cage with little effort.

You must have had a poor instructor: he didn't teach you how to parry properly. :(

(I've parried as many as five successive attacks (in as many seconds) before a riposte... really pisses off the opposition. :D )

Pretty cool!! Unfortunately, where I live there is nothing except:
* A little Kendo/Kumdo
* Some Olympic fencing
* Wannabees, and a varying quality of SCA folks, of whom 95% are not worth talking to. :(

Needless to say, but here in the US, there simply are no real schools. Even the differences between Italian & French foil and the sabre schools (Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Russian...) are pretty much absent. :(

SCA aren't great, but some of them are into authentic technique.

You tried the ARMA by any chance?

You can go to http://swordforum.com/ and there will be people there who can help you find something if you want to look into it. :) This lot got me started pretty much.

Unless ones instructor feints and then your screwed :p

True. But one with practice should be able to parry up to the second or third intention. ;)

SCA aren't great, but some of them are into authentic technique.

You tried the ARMA by any chance?

You can go to http://swordforum.com/ and there will be people there who can help you find something if you want to look into it. :) This lot got me started pretty much.

Yep... about 5%.

Not familiar with that one.

Thanks.

Unless ones instructor feints and then your screwed :p
I just remember trying out for intramural fencing when I was at University of Virginia back in the early 1980s.

The sabre was not being done electronically, and it looked more like fighting to me, so I was attracted to it.

After a few weeks of having various instructors and more experienced people draw pictures of the Nile Delta on my ribcage, I decided that I was too short and too slow to effectively fight.

True. But one with practice should be able to parry up to the second or third intention. ;)

True, but thats a lot more difficult than it sounds :p

I just remember trying out for intramural fencing when I was at University of Virginia back in the early 1980s.

The sabre was not being done electronically, and it looked more like fighting to me, so I was attracted to it.

After a few weeks of having various instructors and more experienced people draw pictures of the Nile Delta on my ribcage, I decided that I was too short and too slow to effectively fight.

Fencing is far far quicker than 'real' sword fighting, mainly because the weapons flex much more and they are obviously one hell of a lot lighter. If you are interested, visit the forum link i gave, caus believe me, fencing with a 'real' sabre and a sport sabre are a lot different.

True, but thats a lot more difficult than it sounds :p

That's where the practice comes in... ;)

That's where the practice comes in... ;)

Precisely, i mean, where I am now I can't practice as much as I want, as there is nowhere to practice, but i still go through my footwork plus warm ups and warming down. All part of the training :)

Yes and no. The compound itself was religious in nature. Had it been a 4H Club or something, I don't think the shootout would have happened. By the same token, 4H members would probably be a lot more...er... "stable" in negotiations.

Getting off on a tangent here, but still, lol. Lets be honest, there was no legitimate reason for negotiations. The Branch Davidians were crazy, but they were a bunch of nuts who basically built a bunker and hid in it waiting for the end of the world. They weren't a threat to anyone, they weren't doing anything illegal, they just wanted to be left alone. If the government really wanted to enforce their warrant on Koresh, all they had to do was wait for him to leave the compound, which he did on a regular basis. Instead, BATF decided to make an example of the Davidians and start a standoff. Sure, the Davidians were unstable, but so was the government, at least in that situtation.

Getting off on a tangent here, but still, lol. Lets be honest, there was no legitimate reason for negotiations. The Branch Davidians were crazy, but they were a bunch of nuts who basically built a bunker and hid in it waiting for the end of the world. They weren't a threat to anyone, they weren't doing anything illegal, they just wanted to be left alone. If the government really wanted to enforce their warrant on Koresh, all they had to do was wait for him to leave the compound, which he did on a regular basis. Instead, BATF decided to make an example of the Davidians and start a standoff. Sure, the Davidians were unstable, but so was the government, at least in that situtation.

No biggie... the fencing tangent has probably eclipsed the thread already. :)

There are far more guns in use in the US now than in 1995. An increase from 60 million owners to 80 million owners. An increase of 200 million guns to 300 million guns.

To be honest, the numbers are probably even higher than that. A firearm kept in good condition will last for a very long time. I myself own a weapon that is close to 70 years old and it is more accurate and reliable than some modern weapons I've fired. It is hard to estimate how many guns were in circulation before people started keping track, and those guns can remain functional for a very long time. There just isn't enough information to estimate how many of those guns have survived. As far as the number of gun owners, this is another difficult estimate. Most areas (particularly rural areas where almost everyone owns at least one gun) have no laws regarding registration and keep no lasting records of who bought a gun. Even the federal government doesn't really have a good idea because it is required to destroy all instant background checks (that are required whenever someone buys a firearm from a dealer) within a day or so.

60 million gun owners and 200 million guns, thats a bit over three guns per owner. I don't know many owners who stop at 3. Gun owners tend to develop collections over the years.

To be honest, the numbers are probably even higher than that. A firearm kept in good condition will last for a very long time. I myself own a weapon that is close to 70 years old and it is more accurate and reliable than some modern weapons I've fired. It is hard to estimate how many guns were in circulation before people started keping track, and those guns can remain functional for a very long time. There just isn't enough information to estimate how many of those guns have survived. As far as the number of gun owners, this is another difficult estimate. Most areas (particularly rural areas where almost everyone owns at least one gun) have no laws regarding registration and keep no lasting records of who bought a gun. Even the federal government doesn't really have a good idea because it is required to destroy all instant background checks (that are required whenever someone buys a firearm from a dealer) within a day or so.

60 million gun owners and 200 million guns, thats a bit over three guns per owner. I don't know many owners who stop at 3. Gun owners tend to develop collections over the years.

And yet our gun murder rate has gone down. Substantially.

Four times as many people die of breast cancer in the US every year as are killed in homicides by firearms.

And yet our gun murder rate has gone down. Substantially.

Four times as many people die of breast cancer in the US every year as are killed in homicides by firearms.

No argument there. Guns reduce crime, especially when citizens are allowed to carry them concealed. Yer preachin' to th' choir, bud. ;)

No biggie... the fencing tangent has probably eclipsed the thread already. :)

As one wise man once said

"More civilised weapons for a more civilised age"

:p :D

Yes I was being semi sarcastic :D

As one wise man once said

"More civilised weapons for a more civilised age"

:p :D

Yes I was being semi sarcastic :D

Well, I beg to differ. Ancient weapons and hokey religions are no match for a good 45 at your side.

Well, I beg to differ. Ancient weapons and hokey religions are no match for a good 45 at your side.

I saw you say that on anopther thread so it was a great line up for you :p

A better and slightly more realistic saying would be

"Those who live by the sword are killed by those who don't"

oh well...

As one wise man once said

"More civilised weapons for a more civilised age"

:p :D

Yes I was being semi sarcastic :D

Gotta appreciate the Star Wars quote, but just remember that for the entire time that swords were the weapon de jure, no one had indoor plumbing. :D

Gotta appreciate the Star Wars quote, but just remember that for the entire time that swords were the weapon de jure, no one had indoor plumbing. :D

Hence the sarcasm, and as i posted later, there is a very good reason why swords are now left to people like me ;) :D

Well that and I can't own a gun in the UK as I have no valid reason *shrugs*

I'll amend what i just said. Its that i have no valid reason to own one in the eyes of law.

I'd love to learn to shoot, but its very hard to learn just for a hobby here. Which is a pity. Even my current hobby is under attack from all sides despite the fact all the people will accomplish is a return to victorian thinking of medieval combat that pervades the media these days. The story that was posted is a prime example of this. :(

You can always build a trebuchet.

You can always build a trebuchet.

We did that in a combined science/history project. Not full size of course, it was about 10 ft tall at the top of the A frame. Slung a rubgy ball bloody miles :D We ask if we could do it with rocks but they wouldn't let us...damn insurence :D

We did that in a combined science/history project. Not full size of course, it was about 10 ft tall at the top of the A frame. Slung a rubgy ball bloody miles :D We ask if we could do it with rocks but they wouldn't let us...damn insurence :D
I saw a video from the UK where someone threw a piano and a Cooper Mini with one.

Looked more dangerous than a simple mortar. I had this mental picture of throwing a half ton of bowling balls into a crowded street...

I saw a video from the UK where someone threw a piano and a Cooper Mini with one.

Looked more dangerous than a simple mortar. I had this mental picture of throwing a half ton of bowling balls into a crowded street...

You seen "Kingdom of Heaven" yet? Apart from most of its incredible historical mess ups, the trebuchets scene and their effects were pretty decent.

Worth a read:
Catapult: Harry and I Build a Siege Weapon
by Jim Paul

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0156005565/qid=1117134825/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/103-6699231-6091022?v=glance&s=books

Not technical, nor particularly well written, but worth looking at.

Worth a read:
Catapult: Harry and I Build a Siege Weapon
by Jim Paul

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0156005565/qid=1117134825/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/103-6699231-6091022?v=glance&s=books

Not technical, nor particularly well written, but worth looking at.

I get the feeling as that as I live only 100m from the end of a runway used by planes the authorities won't take kindly to one of them in my back garden :D

I get the feeling as that as I live only 100m from the end of a runway used by planes the authorities won't take kindly to one of them in my back garden :D

Bah. The odds of hitting a moving plane with a siege weapon have to be at least 1000:1! :D

I saw a video from the UK where someone threw a piano and a Cooper Mini with one.

Looked more dangerous than a simple mortar. I had this mental picture of throwing a half ton of bowling balls into a crowded street...

There were two programmes a few years ago where they built a ballista too.

One was a small repeating ballista, the kind used by the romans. it was called "What the Romans did for us"

The other was one where they tried to build machines from myths and legends. This ballista was about 75ft across. That was an absolute beast. Can't remember from which ancient siege it was from, but it was used to batter a hole in the walls of one city from antiquity.

Bah. The odds of hitting a moving plane with a siege weapon have to be at least 1000:1! :D

I was thinking more of hitting the control tower :D

I was thinking more of hitting the control tower :D

Those things are *supposed* to be solid!

Those things are *supposed* to be solid!

:D

You gotta test these things to make sure though! Never be sure unitl its tested :D