>Lance,
>Thanks for the comprehensive response. It is nice to see that you take the issue seriously enough to take the trouble to stay well trained. It looks like your actions were entirely justified (and more than likely correct). One of the main reasons for my response to your post was chronology regarding U.K. registration followed by the loss of the right to own weapons. You made it sound like one followed the other in a short timeframe - I do not know the actual figures, but I'm guessing it runs into decades. It would be reasonable to assume that there was no conspiracy that spanned several governments! The loss of the right to own firearms (in the U.K.) relates much more to the atrocities in Dunblane, than anything else (IMO).

Yeah, I think Dunblane created a sense of urgency that the politicians acted on. Short timeframe or not, it always seems to be the case that a ban follows registration. I don't know if it's a conspiracy, but it always works that way. As I remember the UK ban came about 2 years after the registration scheme, but I'm going from memory, so I could be completely wrong.

I read the UK newspapers via the Internet quite a bit, and I see lots of firearm related crime there. One where a doctor shot his girlfriend with a machine gun he took back from Desert Storm. Lots of gang-related shooting too. Despite the ban, firearm crimes in the UK seem to be on the rise. Pretty typical politics how Tony Blair held back the last crime statistics report until the weekend. I'm sure if crime had gone down he'd be the first one to take the credit for it. It's the same way here.

Crime in Australia is also on the rise since their ban.

They are both good examples--criminals don't care about firearm laws. And an un-armed populace is an easy target.