Sayonara

It is running quite slow. Time to do all the tedious little tasks that let you wring every spare drop of performance out of the database. OPTIMIZE TABLE `BIGGEST_ONES`

No no no... "Why were you thinking of sayo?" Actually yeah; that too.

Blike!

Daft = mad, silly, dopey. ps - Whut?

You

That's not the law's fault, is it? You even state as much. What do you need 5 guns for, out of curiosity?

You didn't look at the links I posted then. You don't get to keep your own guns because you happen to be a police officer. The Police as a government body are entitled to use firearms to enforce the law, and they do so under specific conditions. The only reason a gun club would not be able to keep guns is because those guns cannot be held there under legal circumstances, so I don't see a problem. If you look at the figures for police gun incidents, they have been falling since the 1997 amendment. You'd also see that the number of authorised firearms officers has dropped 7%. That suggests: 1) Authorised Police use of firearms is allowed, since there has not been a 100% drop, and 2) The number of AFOs has fallen more or less in line with the drop in gun incidents that the police are involved in - because the law is working. I assume you mean "who has to die for that?", which would be a poor approach since under the amended act the vast majority of gun deaths will be due to criminal involvement, rather than accidental or self-inflicted. It's a bit like saying "if we can't get rid of all the gun deaths, then let's bring back the guns and kill some more people", which you're obviously not intending to say If you mean money-wise, I'd much rather pay the taxable end of an investigation into the odd crime than pay for dozens of special task forces who can't actually do anything effective in the face of unregulated gun ownership.

Nerd

Under the specified conditions, they are: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/histarm.html Yes, I am aware. I fact must of those current regulations are directly due to the 1997 Amendment to the Firearms Act, which came about after the Dunblane Massacre - which I've already mentioned. So you're kind of arguing the "for" case there. That's like saying "inconveniencing people who have guns they don't need is not justified by saving X lives, where X is a number I don't know." No it isn't. It makes the problem areas more easily identifiable, and extends the powers of the law for meting out justice. Look at the figures: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crimpol/firearms/index.html I don't know where you get that from, but the gun laws in this country specifically make provisions for those in the service of the realm: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs2/useoffirearms.pdf http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/policeguide.pdf

I meant the bit when you said "you`ll find that most all the crim guns handed in were by a rellative or some criminals Mom that knew little Leroy had one stashed under his bed". I'm sure most of the guns handed in were from non-criminals (after all it was a unilateral ban), but we can't just assume no criminals handed in weapons. It was an amnesty - that's what it's for. Afaik disabled handguns of historic or antique interest are immune, but I would have thought they still need to be registered and locked up. If the only people who keep their guns despite the ban are the ones who intend to use them despite the law, for killing people, then we have not solved the problem of guns being used as a tool for murdering. But that's not the point of a gun ban. The point is to remove the rest of the guns from the population. You then prevent accidental deaths, children meddling with daddy's gun, and incidents involving psychotic breaks (a la Dunblane). The law can then be free to issue severe penalties to those who do use illegal guns to kill people, and it's easier to track those who use registered weapons for the purposes that they weren't intended for.

Who handed it in isn't really the issue.

Did everyone stop reading or something? I was on "Ulysses" but it's quite heavy going, and I don't have a lot of time right now. So I have put it back on the shelf for now to read John Grisham's "A Painted House" instead. V good book about murder and family secrets in the Arkansas cotton harvests... strange but true.

The Jesus discussion is now here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2977

It worked in the UK. Obviously there's still a core of organised criminals using guns, but the figures for hand weapons handed in during the amnesty after Dunblane were way above expected levels.

block

Isn't 1 cubic meter of water at 25c the basis for the tonne? Or something...

You mean 1x102 I take it?

The error was too many connections to the dB. Hmmmmm. Flood? Too many spiders?

Check this page out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_water

I seem to recall reading a thread about this on another forum somewhere. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Occam's Razor.

That's crazy talk. Clearly Mr and Mrs Hussein should be blamed for sparing the rod.

I used the search function! :-D

Your thread is here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2950 The link you posted is to the next 7 or so posts which were split off and moved by an administrator, because they were not suitable posts for the thread.

It's an IRC channel running in a Java applet.