To: TimF who wrote (11008 ) 4/11/2001 6:58:51 PM From: thames_sider Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486 People seem to be less violent there [in the UK] for some reason Actually, I think our reported violent crime rate is now slightly higher; but it may be using different criteria. For example, it jumped when all kinds of domestic abuse were reclassified as 'violent', and there are moves to report on (and hence be able to target and reduce) late-night drunken brawling, still a popular sport in many areas <sigh>. Also, there's currently a lot of mugging of children/teens - usually by other teens - for mobile phones...If a significant proportion of criminals are armed people might be less likely to be shot if they are armed and able to defend themselves. This is perhaps one of the better arguments, but I see major flaws. If guns per se are illegal, it's harder even for criminals to get them. Having (much) harsher sentences for just carrying a gun (never less using it) is a further deterrent. And I would propose that criminals are both more likely to be armed, and more likely and ready to use them, faster, than most civilians - even (especially?) in a culture where guns are common. Lastly, having guns commonly carried is still more likely to see them used for crime. BTW, I wasn't actually a good shot, at least by infantry standards... I only managed that feat once - I was generally about 1/2 that good, and typically instead of grouping my shots would be vertically spread over the target because I rarely got the breathing right... Luckily it was at the end of a solid day's training, and it got me through my weapons test - and even then, neither my sergeant nor I was really sure how I'd done it! The really hard part was doing the same test in full NBC gear... mask and all. (I think I hit the target twice). The SLR was a nice rifle, though - very heavy, the replacement for the old .303, but very accurate. I liked firing it - apart from the recoil.