world 37 history debate

[DeletedUser]

here we go, now we can leave the war guys to debate there thing.

As far as anything like revolts happening there is always "good" reason, though I dont like using the terms good and bad. There is justified and unjustified, since good and evil aren't scientifically definable terms.


North ireland was oppressed, so they revolted. Cause and effect no? I just want to know how politician can stay so retarded and keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

We (american's) used the afgahn people to fight the USSR, and promised them a better future, with a stable economy, education, and other things to make there lives better. After they paid the blood bill to beat out the USSR we booked without giving them anything we promised. Our 3.000 deaths is token to what they lost fighting for us, and is it not common sense that they would harbor a grudge against us for waisting away one of there generations. There hungry, and uneducated for the most part when you take into account how many of there citizins have a chance to attend schools. Hitler gave germany food and hope, in return they commited some of the worst attrocities in the past century. What makes someone cant do the same in afgahnistan? esspecially if you can tie in our religous differences since most of america doesn't follow Islam. Were not fighting them over there were fighting our mistakes in betraying them, and the only real way to clear it up is threw forfilling the broken promises so there isn't as much hate for us.


All in all about war targets, saying no civilians involved is silly. Governments always use there citizens as cover, and the opposing military will always bomb them anyway, which in turn will be called and attrocity for propoganda. The british transported a lot of there goods via train and let civians use the same trains. Sucks for them, but in all honesty I would have bombed it too, in order to stop the flow of goods. The economy is always the key target in a gurilla war, if you dont like it well sucks, thats war. As far as innocent, I dont believe anyone is if they allowed there government to commit those acts.

Also to note, most of the pure civilian attacks weren't the IRA but extremist subfactions of the IRA that were not involved with the IRA except they claim the same goal. I've talked to two ex-IRA members and they all dont like that civilians got hurt, and they dont like what the other IRA wanna be's did either. But anger comes in all forms.

 

[DeletedUser57956]

So how many villas have chess taken of nerd or vice versa???? :lol:

 

[DeletedUser]

I have never seen the tribe IRA. Are they new?

 

[DeletedUser57956]

I have never seen the tribe IRA. Are they new?

Premade on the NW rim of the new .co.uk server :icon_wink:

 

[Shlomzi]

..Word

Best. Tribe. Name. Ever.

I noticed it earlier when roadkyl and I were joking about Remy and I was looking through what happened to those who didn't get accepted into Chess.

:lol:

(Look the tribe up.)

 

[DeletedUser]

there's an off-topic forum for this kind of stuff

 

[DeletedUser]

Things like this go in general discussion, since they don't relate to w37. Thread moved.

-Denny

 

[DeletedUser]

But guys to continue the discussion we were having, and I really want to get the views of the Irish, do you think that the demand for a 32 county Republic is irrelevant and pointless now?

 

[Shlomzi]

But guys to continue the discussion we were having, and I really want to get the views of the Irish, do you think that the demand for a 32 county Republic is irrelevant and pointless now?

I'm Irish - and here's my view.

Yes, and no.

I believe that the Irish want our country back. We were a sovereign nation conquered by an invader. We should be entitled to our country. We are one island, and we are one nation.

I also believe no. I believe that giving Northern Ireland back to us will cause severe social problems. We simply would not, and cannot get along. It's a known fact. I also believe that Northern Ireland will quite simply be an economic burden, a burden we cannot afford at third present moment in time.

However - there is some good news. As you all know, the IRA decommissioned in 2005. Yesterday (or day before, can't remember exactly what day that was on the news) the UDA and UVF decided to decommission. So, that's another step in taking the gun out of Northern politics.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ireland is doing quite well right now from what I hear, they have lots of successful business's. I know all the beer I buy is imported from your country : )

Europe as a whole is doing quite well, but there are some area's that were kinda hurt by the euro. But they say that will eventually even out, and things will go well. To be honest I think in the next 100 years of so the world will be united under at least commerce and trade. I mean the united Europe thing is pretty solid proof of that, or that it's at least taken a big first step. Which really as long as the government is good things should go well.

Although I would never give up my right to bear arms. No way in hell, would I. Reason being is that without the right or ability to really fight back makes us subjects and not citizens. They also reduce crime with a good eduction system about firearms. I know from personal experience from a young age when my dad shot a cactus after making us memorize the fire arms guide manual for the adults and kids, which had a horrible quiz at the end which was tough to memorize. But needless to say after he shot the cactus he told us that the cactus has about the same consistency as a human, and that's what will happen if we shoot at someone. My dad kept his gun in the laundry cabinet in the hall of our house which is easly within our reach. Fully loaded .40mm glock, with his own special mix of bullets to take intruders, only thing on it was the safety to keep us from it. We never screwed with it, not ever, cause we knew exactly what it was for and what it does.

but ya thats my things on guns, and no I am not from texas, but california lol. (the americans will get the irony)


edited -

also the reason why people having the right to bear arms both on person and at home is that

1 - there aren't many crimils with the guts to rob a store when the people in the store and the clerk all might be armed.

2 - how many people will want to rob homes if everyone had a gun and knew how to use it.

If ya dont' believe me look at Switzerland, if I had to move anywhere but in America it would be there *_*

or Ireland for the beer and red heads

also to note, sorry about this post if I just went nuts. I am drunk as hell, too me more time to edit this post then type it out

 

[DeletedUser]

Strike Raider, Shlomzi is talking about something else, he's talking about organizations giving up violence and using violent means to acheive political ends. Not about the individual's right to bear arms. Which is a different issue altogether. But Shlomzi, I never saw the Protestant paramilitaries as legitimate political organizations. Something much more akin to the right wing death squads/paramilitaries that were popular once upon a time in some Latin American countries. A world of difference between them and Republican organizations (PIRA, INLA). Plus, the Protestant paramilitaries have no more reason to keep their arms as long as the "union"/occupation is gauranteed. In effect, they got what they wanted and it is safeguarded by the British army and the RIC/RUC. So, in my opinion what you mentioned about the UVF/UDA is not so much about some people giving peace a chance so much as being satisfied that things won't be changing.

But have to say that the North American/US debate about arms and their possession is interesting and also confusing to us in other parts of the World. Off hand, I would say it makes for a much more violent society and also would make for a tense and stressful vibe. I mean, say I get into an arguement with someone else over something that is completely unimportant and guns are resorted to?

 

[DeletedUser]

People dont have to resort to guns, and by the same note a sucker punch to the throat would be just as effective in killing someone as a gun would. Only people that are uneducated with firearms would resort to using it for something that petty. I mean you have to see what a gun can do to someone before you fully understand it, like in the DUI driving class's they show you picture of car wrecks. To much in movies about people taking 5 bullets in the chest, to keep running down the bad guy gives people a false impression.

Making guns illegal is pointless, cause the people that do illegal things with them can get them anyway. That leaves the people that follow the law SOL and at a serious disadvantage. I know people use alarms, amoung other things but they really dont do anything but call the cops. That means you gotta live long enough for them to get there, to save you. Time can vary depending on your distance from the station or a nearby patrol, but if the persons goal it to rape or murder, well your gunna wish ya had a gun.

Another major historical note is that any government in history that has subjugated there people has done so by installing weapon control laws first.

I have been to Texas and Arizona a few times and been around lots of people that had concealed weapons, and I have to say life goes on like normal. There really was no lack of ease in how people dealt with each other. Only people that would really be sweating would be people thinking about causing trouble via robbery or something like that.

The human mind set works like that. Why do we not go and take what we want? the threat of consequence causes us to rationalize past it.

Biggest thing is that most criminals use weapons because? it gives them the advantage! If they dont have that edge anymore most of them lose there balls to do anything. Look at Switzerland, they have the lowest gun crime rate of every country out there, and they issue every household a handgun. I sure as hell wouldn't want to start a life of crime there, would be a very short life.

In all my time around guns and those that carry them.. work, and life I have never seen anyone jump to shooting someone over an argument. I've seen guys with guns almost fist fight, but neither one of them ever made a move towards there firearms. I mean why would they?

 

[DeletedUser]

But have to say that the North American/US debate about arms and their possession is interesting and also confusing to us in other parts of the World. Off hand, I would say it makes for a much more violent society and also would make for a tense and stressful vibe. I mean, say I get into an arguement with someone else over something that is completely unimportant and guns are resorted to?

Robert Heinlein said "An armed society is a polite society." In a heavily armed society, chances are you wouldn't get into so many arguments like that, because the other guy is thinking the same thing you are.. "I better chill a bit or this guy might shoot me."

Instead of dwelling on hypothetical negatives, it would do some people good to consider the hypothetical positives, at least to add balance to the argument. Positives like "Imagine what would have happened if some students at Virginia Tech had been carrying (legally) and the lone nutjob wasn't the only guy with a gun on campus." Same goes for every situation where something like that has happened, and the criminals responsible have simply disregarded the laws.

I mean seriously, if some jerk is going to commit murder, he's not worried about the additional years that will be tacked onto his sentence for illegally owning or carrying a weapon.

 

[DeletedUser]

There is one other point that was not mentioned anywhere.

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - "Japan would never invade the United States. We would find a rifle behind every blade of grass."

During WW2 America had the largest civilian militia, anywhere from our citizens armed watching the beaches from turrets, to patrolling with tommy guns and rifles waiting for an invasion force. Our military fights our wars outside the USA, but the people here are more then capable of fighting back an invasion force. Reason is, we are an armed society.

People really need to drop the guns kill people thing, cause so do cares in the hands of people not educated about them.

We have driving tests and class's to keep people safe on the roads.. we need gun class's to teach kids proper gun use, and not just the crap they see on TV.

give a kid a gun, or a car after watching some need for speed movie, or terminator... and the results will be the same. Thus I can confidently say it is because education is gun safety is lacking, and thats why people hurt people with them

 

[DeletedUser]

<Huge wall of text, but I was thinking as I typed. Apologies.>

There is an interesting reality that the US is simply a more violent society, in pretty much every way, than Europe.

This is not American-bashing on my part, BTW. It's quantifiable - violent crime, gun crime, knife crime, state-sanctioned killing, attendance at boxing, at wrestling , participation in martial arts sports, number of aggressive wars, the list is pretty much endless.

Now, you can argue a lot about *why* this is so - the adventurous nature of the immigrants who became Americans, their religious unorthodoxy, simple expanse of space, the fact that the US state has basically not been threatened since it's inception, or maybe simply that the constitution gives the right to bear arms. Perhaps because US wars (With the very large and noticeable exception of the Civil War) have tended to happen far from home.

Regardless of *why* it is the case, we in Europe need to accept that it is the case - and discuss from that perspective.



The argument about an armed population never becoming the slave of it's governement doesn't wash, for me. For one, it shows a distinct lack of faith in the Democratic institutions of the US, which are extremely robust (Vide the fact that the US survived the whole hanging-chad thing without people taking to the streets). For a second, it ignores the fact that many democracies do survive, and remain as strong democracies, without an armed populace. And thirdly, it presupposes that there is a point at which it makes sense to take up arms against your own governement - what point is that? At 60% income tax? When abortion is legalised to 32 weeks? To 28? When a black man is in the White House? Again, the argument presupposes that US democracy does not work, where it patently does.

It is nonsense to say that any governement in history that has oppressed it's people has started with arms control. Look at Iran today, or Saddam's Iraq. Look at the English who encouraged their peasant to learn the longbow but hung them for reading the bible in english.

<As an aside, one can bear an interesting corellation with the UDA/UVF/UFF, who to some extent believed (Though their political depth was generally much shallower than Republican paramilitary groups) that precisely what some Americans argue - that their governement might betray them - was/had actually happened, and that they took up arms to prevent further betrayal. I digress massively, though>

The second argument often put forward - that criminals will get their hands on guns anyway - has *some* merit. However, it does assume that all criminals are the same. Consider these three criminals;

1) A bank robber.
2) A guy who goes looney-tunes on campus
3) A junky looking for enough cash/sellables for his next fix, and breaking into a house.

For sure, in a non-gun society, the bank robber will get a gun anyway. He will be connected, will know the right people, and will plan for it.

But the sad guy who has been laughed at by the jocks/turned down by the pretty girls/whatever? In a non-gun society, he won't get a gun. He won't know where to start, won't have the nous to get it. The amount of shooting in non-gun societies by wackos is massively low. Not non-existent, but much much lower than in Gun societies. The argument that legal guns manage to kill the wackos, BTW, is pretty tendentious too - it does occassionally happen, but more often the wacko kills themself.

As for the junky, he may have access to the right sort of people, but what he won't have is time - or, generally, brain - to plan it. If he can just pick up the gun lying in his kitchen drawer, then he will take it to his more-or-less unplanned burglary. If he has to call a mate to provide a gun, then hand over cash for it, he generally won't - he'll spend that on the drugs instead. Again, in non-gun societies, most burglars simply don't carry guns. They just don't, anecdotally and statisitically.

And the reality is that a relatively small number of criminals fall into the 'Conscious' category - the vast bulk are not.

All of which arguments, if you accept them suggest that, societally, the best thing for the US to do would be to give up arms.

*But*, and it is a big but, what is good for society is not necessarily good for the individual. The US is a highly individualistic society. At a personal level, if an intruder comes into my house, I would be happier if I had a gun. But, at a societal level, I (Like most Europeans) believe that society would be harmed by my having a gun. In Europe we tend towards we>I, in the US they tend toward I>we.

If your tribe is attacked, the best thing for you to do as an individual would seem to be to huddle in, save your troops, wait for the attack to pass. But for your tribe, the best thing to do would be to send your troops out to defend your tribemates. The question we each have to ask ourselves when our tribes go to war, is "Do I believe that enough of my tribemates will behave right to justify my supporting them"?

It's a very similar question about arms; ultimately it comes down to: "Do I hope that the bulk of my fellow citizens will behave well? Or do I fear they will behave badly?" If the fear is stronger than the hope, people will tend in the direction of no arms control.

To go back to my original point, the US is more violent than Europe; hence, the fear tends to outweigh the hope.

 

[Veodin]

I remember explaining to an Israeli friend of mine how the police in the UK do not carry firearms. He simply couldn't understand it, to him that was suicide. However of course from his point of view while living within his circumstances its completely understandable that he would think that way. It's the same thing I see in every pro-gun American I ever had the 'right to bear arms' debate with. To them guns are everywhere and therefore they feel guns are needed to combat them. However this is not the case. An environment with no guns is always going to be safer.

In the UK guns are illegal and as a result there is very little gun crime. It has been stated that criminals will always be able to get there hands on guns however in the UK its extremely rare for any criminal act to committed using a gun. Firearms are so tightly controlled it is extremely difficult for the average criminal to get there hands on one and the penalty for even possessing one would probably amount to more than the crime they intent to commit. Virtually all of the gun crime within the UK revolves around gangs who are either using deactivated weapons that have been tampered with or than have somehow been smuggled onto the black market. I personally have never seen an illegal firearm, heard of anyone that has seen one and I certainly have never come across and gun related crime where I live. The police don't carry guns as its extremely unlikely they would need them. Armed response units do exist within the cities for the rare circumstances in which weapons are needed, yet they must go through a ridiculous amount of simulation training in order to make sure there weapons are only used as a complete and utter last resort. My Israeli friend to this day can't believe that our police force will complete full building raids without having any need to carry firearms. There is just no need.

However on that note takings guns away from American citizens would be a difficult task and taking guns away from the hands of gangs will be near impossible so I completely understand why some of you feel like you do. I am just fed up with the argument that weapons are needed in order for a society to be safe. It's quite the opposite.

 

[DeletedUser]

I disagree completely.

Look at your football and the fans that go there. There isn't a single sport in America that gets that level of fanaticism.

Also the European countries invented imperialism, and America has never taken over a country and tried to keep it, minus the American/Mexican war. That was long ago, and only withing the past 80 years have the European nations given up imperialism.

One more note, remember most of america's wars in the past century was us helping Europe pull there @$$ out of the frying pan, which we had very little if anything at all the gain for the wars. If anything america tried to stick to a isolation policy however, the world kept asking us to fight for them. Half our wars we where just morally obligated to help, and not based on profits. Every other European country at the time has invaded and opressed for there own means, and profit.

To note your stance is not based on psychology at all, forgetting human nature is the biggest flaw to your argument. Someone will always want more, and someone will always be willing to take it with force. Governments will always deteriorate and someone will gain to much power, and being oppression. The past 3.000 years of history prove that over and over. Things maybe going well now, however it is inevitable that someone will gain power, and do things to oppress the society be it foreign or domestic. If you dont have anyway to defend yourself it will be much more bloody to regain freedom to self govern.

Also based on my own work I know for a fact if you took me from where I am now and put me in any country in the world I could acquire an automatic weapon in less then 48 hours. Granted not everyone can do that, but anyone that knows someone who sells weed can get a p.38 in there sleep. On the street they tend to run for about 50$ (american dollars), which is cheap enough for even the most drug crazied loony.

More organized criminals becomes far more dangerous with no threat to them minus doing time in jail. What kidnapper or murderer is going to worry about getting caught with a gun, and with the majority of the police force being useless against those people they can escape easily, or at least kill who they want too. Not to mention the casualties the police will suffer if they attack someone with an automatic or even single shot gun with. You can get blue-prints from the net to make guns, even use a freaking broom stick to make a single shot projectile firearm. Ammo is easier to make then the gun itself, and also can be found on the net.

The whole bit about individualism I just don't get, if everyone had guns, everyone would be safer then just a few guys having guns. No one would have power to abuse that only they have, once again I mention Switzerland. They have the LOWEST gun crime rating anywhere, and yet all there citizens use and own guns.

Guns aren't the enemy, ignorance and a lack of education is. If those kids at schools shootings couldn't get guns, they would make chemical or explosive weapons. If other students/teachers and campus officers had guns then the fire fight wouldn't have been so one sided, and casualties would have been reduced.

Also to note that any country that could land on a counties shores that had strict gun control laws could invade it with ease especially without a population that doesn't know how to use firearms. No point in issuing firearms to people that dont know how to use them, would be like sending lambs to the slaughter. Also another note, japan tried to take Alaska, so yes we have been invaded, but our population of escimo's and other citizens killed them back to the shore. Why? cause most of them had there own rifles to fight with and could respond quickly and in force. They figured Alaska would be the easiest part of america to invade, and the only possible part to invade. But our right to bear arms saved us from them being able to establish a base of operations. (on a personal note I am a quarter japanese and was raised by my japanese side, in which I have family from both sides that fought against each other, so I appoligize if anyone finds anything racial about this. That was not the intention)

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

After 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.


Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'

 

[DeletedUser]

I disagree completely.

Look at your football and the fans that go there. There isn't a single sport in America that gets that level of fanaticism.

Agreed

Also the European countries invented imperialism,

Agreed, and have learned our lessons, to some extent.

and America has never taken over a country and tried to keep it, minus the American/Mexican war.

Never said you had.

That was long ago, and only withing the past 80 years have the European nations given up imperialism.

We still haven't, entirely; Falkalnds, Gibraltar, etc.

One more note, remember most of america's wars in the past century was us helping Europe pull there @$$ out of the frying pan, which we had very little if anything at all the gain for the wars.

I know I'm going to have an uphill struggle here, because of the American mythology about this, but nonsense. America joined in World War 1 because of the Lusitania and the German affect on US shipping. America joined in World War 2 because of Pearl Harbour - the British and Empire were helpful in regaining control of the Pacific, and the quid pro quo was help in Europe. If the US had been about saving Europe it would have intervened before it was attacked.

Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq, various dirty wars in Central and South America. Even defending Kuwait in Gulf War 1 was more about protecting oil supplies than liberating the Kuwaiti people (Who still live under a dictatorship - reasonably benign but nonetheless).

The only US war I can think of fought for significantly moral purposes was the intervention in Kosovo/Bosnia.

I should, by the way, have said that I was mainly addressing 20th/21st Century wars.

To note your stance is not based on psychology at all, forgetting human nature is the biggest flaw to your argument. Someone will always want more, and someone will always be willing to take it with force. Governments will always deteriorate and someone will gain to much power, and being oppression. The past 3.000 years of history prove that over and over.

Untrue, though exactly the attitude that I described previously. Not to say that governments never deteriorate (as, for example, the Weimar Republic did), but to assume they always will is the product of fear over hope. Look at the unarmed European democracies.

Also based on my own work I know for a fact if you took me from where I am now and put me in any country in the world I could acquire an automatic weapon in less then 48 hours. Granted not everyone can do that, but anyone that knows someone who sells weed can get a p.38 in there sleep.

Simply inaccurate. Most people who sell weed are very low down the food chain and will never go anywhere near anyone with guns (In the UK) - as a recovered drug addict I know a fair bit about this. It may be true in the US, probably is; you have a far greater availability of guns.

There may be more truth in this with users of, say, crack, but even they, in Europe, simply don't be around guns very much.

That's not to say it isn't possible to get guns in the UK, probably within 48 hours. But my point still stands, even for you; the majority of crimes are not planned 48 hours in advance, and, in the UK, the *vast* majority of crime does not involve guns.

More organized criminals becomes far more dangerous with no threat to them minus doing time in jail. What kidnapper or murderer is going to worry about getting caught with a gun, and with the majority of the police force being useless against those people they can escape easily, or at least kill who they want too. Not to mention the casualties the police will suffer if they attack someone with an automatic or even single shot gun with.

Somewhat accept the point about organized criminals. Though it can be argued that there is actually much more for a UK criminal in a siege to give up peacefully - no capital punishment. Plus we really really really don't like criminals who *do* use guns, and prison sentences increase to reflect this. Again, though, it is the case that in the UK it is incredibly rare for a policeman to be shot and will invariably make the national news.

You can get blue-prints from the net to make guns, even use a freaking broom stick to make a single shot projectile firearm. Ammo is easier to make then the gun itself, and also can be found on the net.

In a gun-centric culture, that makes sense. In non-gun-centric cultures, it simply doesn't occur to people to do that.

The whole bit about individualism I just don't get,

I know. We're reaching across a *vast* cultural divide here.

if everyone had guns, everyone would be safer then just a few guys having guns.

And that's just an example of the size of the divide. To you, that makes complete irrefutable sense; to Europeans it makes almost no sense - it's literally incomprehensible as a concept.

once again I mention Switzerland. They have the LOWEST gun crime rating anywhere, and yet all there citizens use and own guns.

Switzerland is a very orderly society in every sense. They have very low crime of every sort - including white collar crime (Eg Fraud). While the Swiss experience by no means disproves your case, it doesn't prove it either.

Guns aren't the enemy, ignorance and a lack of education is.

Somewhat agree - and the Swiss national service is a very good way of ensuring that all gun-bearers are educated about what guns can do. I would like, though to congratulate your Dad on the sensible way he educated you about guns - and the you-as-a-child who was willing/able to be educated. Sadly, neither are all Dads like yours, nor all children/young adults like you.

If those kids at schools shootings couldn't get guns, they would make chemical or explosive weapons.

Again, simply not true. European college kids do not go out and make explosives. They just don't.

Also to note that any country that could land on a counties shores that had strict gun control laws could invade it with ease especially without a population that doesn't know how to use firearms.

Somewhat agreed. In the UK, we have been defended by the sea and navy fro 600 years, and are perhaps therefore a little complacent.

I'll address the international examples at a later point - I will have to look up a bunch of which I'm ignorant, and need right now to go be a family man.


Nice to have a civlised discussion with you about this. Denny, if this is off the topic, let me know - I sort of think it follows on OK.

 

[DeletedUser]

You know, strike raider, I don't oppose gun ownership on an individual basis in principle. I actually believe the right to be armed is a gaurantee of some freedoms and also useful for self protection. What puzzles about the US of A is why those who support the right to bear arms often overlap with right wing nut jobs? I really don't get it. I mean, you have the nutty militia groups, Neo-Nazi outfits etc. Even the NRA propaganda you cite, is an example of what I am talking about.

And the little section, titled, "A Little Gun History", is not only typical NRA crap but also wrong on so many levels (factually incorrect). Just to mention one example of what I'm talking about you mention, Gautemala. The genocide of the Mayan Indians did not result from the Guatemalan Government establishing gun control(I mean dude, please!). It happened in the midst of a civil war, where the Guatemalan government, its army and police and right wing death squads supported by the US of A exterminated the Mayans because of their support for Left Wing guerillas.

Guys, please read. And also, nphsmith, real nice post man. Was a good read and logical too. Especially like the bit about the English peasant and the long bow. The only bit I would disagree about would be;

The only US war I can think of fought for significantly moral purposes was the intervention in Kosovo/Bosnia.

Even here, US/NATO aggression and occupation was driven by the desire to punish a people and state that have been historically always pro-Russian and again establish a military toehold in the Balkans.

 

[DeletedUser]

Even here, US/NATO aggression and occupation was driven by the desire to punish a people and state that have been historically always pro-Russian and again establish a military toehold in the Balkans.

Heh. Very interesting. Perspective always matters - and I guess from a Balkan perspective, it's all about the seemingly eternal struggle with/against Russian influence there.

Not one I'd thought about, tbh - thanks for making me think.