How should I respond to an anti from europe?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I posted up another response, this time regarding hoplophobia and the fear of weapons. Here is a response I got. Any suggestions to this?

by Kevin Ronayne on Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:53 pm

A stapler, a carving knife, a power drill and an X-ray machine are all "inanimate objects" as well. They all have ostensibly peaceful and constructive purposes, but we are all quite careful about how we use them. We are also wary of them, in proportion to our familiarity (or lack of) with them, how much control we have over them, and how much damage they can cause in the event of carelessness or improper use.

Kevin Ronayne wrote:
Leaving aside the question of phobias in humans and other animals (a fascinating subject in it's own right), I dispute that you should not fear an inanimate object. A weapon is usually much more than just an "inanimate object". A pebble is an inanimate object, but so is a one-tonne boulder perched on a cliff above you. Are man-made objects such as an automatic rifle, a 60-ton tank, or a nuclear warhead all just "inanimate objects"?

And his replys to me

by Kevin Ronayne on Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:22 pm

Zionist wrote:
Kevin Ronayne wrote:
Leaving aside the question of phobias in humans and other animals (a fascinating subject in it's own right), I dispute that you should not fear an inanimate object. A weapon is usually much more than just an "inanimate object". A pebble is an inanimate object, but so is a one-tonne boulder perched on a cliff above you. Are man-made objects such as an automatic rifle, a 60-ton tank, or a nuclear warhead all just "inanimate objects"?
Perhaps if it were used in a threatening matter. If a person were to pick up a rock and point it towards me as if they were going to throw it, why do I feel threatened or fear? Generally the same reason as if you were crossing traffic and saw cars coming at you at full speed. The issue with weapons is that the media and the political groups associated against them generally project the object as having a mind of it's own.

I am not aware of any such general tendencies to vilify weapons or weapons system themselves. Most people understand that what matters is the combination of the weapon itself and the willingness to use it in a certain way and/or for certain ends. The unreliability or instability of the person or organisation controlling the weapons would also result in a very natural fear of the combination of weapon and operator, as would any known reliability or control issues in the weapons system.

Zionist wrote:
Perhaps I am different but I view weapons as a form of art, something interesting about how they were designed. To me, it's the same way I view an animals defense. I've always been interested in how bears attack or defend themselves. In the same way, it's similar with humans.

To an extent, I share your fascination with the design of weapons, the history of their design, and all that this entails. At one level though, they are still just objects designed to do a job. A Vulcan bomber may look beautiful, but it was not designed to look beautiful to the human eye - any aesthetic value it possesses would be just purely coincidental. Washing machines are not very pretty to look at, but they do the job they were designed to do.

Zionist wrote:
We have our tools (thanks to technology) to protect ourselves.

Almost all of our weapons today are designed for use against other humans with weapons. Unlike other animals and plants, we can make concious decisions about whether or not we really want or need certain weapons or levels of weapons usage.

Zionist wrote:
The subject appears to be very controversial though. Politically speaking, it's a constant debate of civilized vs uncivilized. I really don't see anything uncivilized about weapons, perhaps using them to kill out of aggression absolutely. The weapon it's self should not be feared though, you don't fear a shark or a lion at the zoo do you? I wouldn't unless it were coming after me in a threatening matter.
The weapon most certainly matters when one considers what a given weapon is designed to do, and how it can be employed. A hand pistol is a trivial weapon in comparison to others, but it is easy to produce, distribute, conceal and operate.

God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within
organized religion. - Superintendent Chalmers

_________________________________________________________________________________

This was posted on a humanist atheist forum. It's not easy to convince them.
 
I work with several European expats (Britain, Belgium, Spain). All but the Spaniard are anti gun, the Brit being highly anti. Funny that the Spaniard, one old enough to have lived under Franco, is the only gun owner among them, and very pro 2A.

I've discussed guns/gun rights with others from Europe, both expats and those currently living there. Other than the obvious cultural differences, my feeling is that with recent centuries of recurring wars in Europe, and having to live through it, their culture just doesn't have the stomach for violence. To them, the gun symbolizes violence regardless of the fact that it is an inanimate object used by both good and evil alike.

What bothers me the most is that many of these people's parents and grandparents lived under Nazi rule and all the horrors that entailed. With that memory so near and dear, they gladly hand over their rights to keep arms in order to at least possibly defend themselves. Makes no sense to me. But then, we Americans ARE quite different that our European brethren. We always have been though, haven't we.:cool:
 
Pilman wrote:

That's because they believe no one else should be armed except themselves. Look at Feinstein, she has a CCW permit yet it's nearly impossible for anyone else to get a concealment permit in California. I talk to Jewish friends who live there and end up carrying concealed illegally (not saying it's right) because it's nearly impossible. Not sure what the deal is with the politicians.

There are more than 40,000 Californians who would disagree with you, Pilman.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/ccwissuances2006.pdf

http://www.calccw.com/
 
The only way to win an 'anti' over is to use cold, hard facts. Show the statistics of rising violence in areas that have banned guns both abroad (England, Australia) and here in the United States. Until then it is pointless arguing against pure ignorance.

This is a reply to a older posts, but oh well:

JWarren said:
It is entirely possible that the nations of Europe could have eventually defeated Hitler without US aid or involvement. It is equally true that it is possible that the USSR could have eventually beat Hitler without the aid of anyone else. But the job would have been a lot harder without our aid in both cases.

This is very debatable. It's possible without U.S. military involvement, but both allies would have literally choked due to a lack of resources. Have you forgotten the Lend-Lease act?

17poundr said:
So, if you wish to rant on about how effing great the americans are and (without the obvious knowledge on military history), think that the US bailed out the Europeans, who after all were responcible of about 80-90% of the German army's losses in ww2, and about 50-70% of the Luftwaffe losses, and pretty much totalled the surface fleet single handedly by british ships... (Thanks for the B-24s for getting the atlantic gap closed btw, that was a really cudos for the US thing)...

Europeans were not responsible for the majority of Heer losses. That credit goes solely to the Soviet Union entirely on the Eastern Front. 8/10 men in the German Heer died on the Eastern Front. Great Britain's accomplishments, however difficult, absolutely pale in comparison to that of the Soviet Union. Taking over North Afrika is much easier to do when your opponent has no supply line, no equipment, and a makeshift fighting force. British actions in Europe after D-Day have been described lack luster by many commanding officers and many historians. I am not trying to discredit European involvement in the conflict, but the United States was involved in the taking of what I'd call the 'harder ground' after North Afrika with the British defeating Rommel.

The invasion of Italy and Europe were centered around American involvement and American drive. There is no way that G.B. could have accomplished such things by itself but the U.S.A. could have if they had a land area capable of giving them a jump off point such as England did.

The Kreigsmarine was a joke almost from start to finish with a lack of funding and development of capable ships. The Royal Navy did it's fair share but Hitler turning his eyes to the East played a bigger one. Operation Sea Lion was not even discussed between members of the OKH and the lackluster Battle of Britain was the end result.

17poundr said:
The US did great in ww2, but the desicive war turning battles of El-Alamein and Staligrad both took place before the US could make it's appearance... Sorry but thats the truth.

G.B. could not have had an 'El-Alamein' with the supplies given to them by the United States through the Lend-Lease act. I'd also like to remind you that the Americans landed in Africa, alongside the British, shortly after El Alamein was completed, in Operation Torch. Stalingrad was the result of bad military policy through Hitler, not Russian ingenuity or strategy.
 
The only way to win an 'anti' over is to use cold, hard facts. Show the statistics of rising violence in areas that have banned guns both abroad (England, Australia) and here in the United States. Until then it is pointless arguing against pure ignorance.

I think there's two types of anti, and this is only true of one of them. The other kind is the sort who are anti-gun purely because they have never considered anything else, it's just the default state in Britain today unless you grow up in a household with guns. Some people do get indoctrinated and really believe in what they think, others just assume it to be correct and can be convinced quite easily with stuff like Oleg's posters.
 
The only way to win an 'anti' over is to use cold, hard facts. Show the statistics of rising violence in areas that have banned guns both abroad (England, Australia) and here in the United States. Until then it is pointless arguing against pure ignorance.

I think there's two types of anti, and this is only true of one of them. The other kind is the sort who are anti-gun purely because they have never considered anything else, it's just the default state in Britain today unless you grow up in a household with guns. Some people do get indoctrinated and really believe in what they think, others just assume it to be correct and can be convinced quite easily with stuff like Oleg's posters.

This is very debatable. It's possible without U.S. military involvement, but both allies would have literally choked due to a lack of resources. Have you forgotten the Lend-Lease act?

I don't think anyone thinks Britain could have avoided an armistice without US shipments of food etc. But aid and military intervention are two very different things - plus, we did pay for all the food and tanks, just like the Nazis paid for all the stuff that was sent to them.

Equally, no one thinks Britain could have liberated the whole of Europe on its own, only that Britain itself was never in danger of being succesfully invaded.
 
This is very debatable. It's possible without U.S. military involvement, but both allies would have literally choked due to a lack of resources. Have you forgotten the Lend-Lease act?
The weapons here went to the MILITARY,including the HOME GUARD.Most citizens,particulary the war wives and widows,wouldn't have wanted a gun anyway.Lend-lease,was weapons to arm the soilders and home guard soilders and the resistance movements and not ordinary citizens.

why is it that we bring lend/lease into it?
 
Quote:
Pilman wrote:

That's because they believe no one else should be armed except themselves. Look at Feinstein, she has a CCW permit yet it's nearly impossible for anyone else to get a concealment permit in California. I talk to Jewish friends who live there and end up carrying concealed illegally (not saying it's right) because it's nearly impossible. Not sure what the deal is with the politicians.

There are more than 40,000 Californians who would disagree with you, Pilman.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/...uances2006.pdf

http://www.calccw.com/

Is a total of 40,000 CCW out of 36,457,549 (2006 estimate) supposed to indicate that anyone other than the elites, especially in LA county can obtain a California CCW?

I do know that in the more rural counties CCW permits are more accessible for us commoner trash.

I lived in Contra Costa County for 8.5 years, inquired as to the possibility of obtaining a CCW, and was flat out told that I did not need one, could want in one hand and spit in the other, and was not a member of the appropriate political party and did not contribute to the appropriate party's campaigns.

Anygunanywhere but not when I lived in California.
 
Originally Posted by JWarren
It is entirely possible that the nations of Europe could have eventually defeated Hitler without US aid or involvement. It is equally true that it is possible that the USSR could have eventually beat Hitler without the aid of anyone else. But the job would have been a lot harder without our aid in both cases.
This is very debatable. It's possible without U.S. military involvement, but both allies would have literally choked due to a lack of resources. Have you forgotten the Lend-Lease act?

I have pointed out in a different forum, the United States has saved France three times.

We saved them in WWI by turning back the big German offensive which they launched with the resources no longer needed on the Eastern Front after Russia capitulated (and a near thing it was, too.)

We saved them in WWII by liberating them from the Germans.

And we saved them again in WWII by making sure they weren't "liberated" by the Russians.
 
anygunanywhere wrote:

Is a total of 40,000 CCW out of 36,457,549 (2006 estimate) supposed to indicate that anyone other than the elites, especially in LA county can obtain a California CCW?

I do know that in the more rural counties CCW permits are more accessible for us commoner trash.

I lived in Contra Costa County for 8.5 years, inquired as to the possibility of obtaining a CCW, and was flat out told that I did not need one, could want in one hand and spit in the other, and was not a member of the appropriate political party and did not contribute to the appropriate party's campaigns.

It isn't a very good percentage, is it? What it indicates, though, is that it isn't impossible for Californians to get a CA CCW. If you look through the county info in the table, you see that (as you noted) rural counites have the bulk of the CCWs. The Bay Area counties and LA County fit the "impossible to get a CA CCW" mold very well. Politicians and celebrities get them, but not the little people. Right next door in Orange County (yay) however, it's much more doable (not "shall issue" but doable). CA is a long way from a "shall issue" state, and has a lot of irrational restrictions, but there IS a growing number of ordinary people (like me) who are finding out that it's possible (again, depending on where they live) to get one, and those people are applying for and receiving CCWs.
 
The Bay Area counties and LA County fit the "impossible to get a CA CCW" mold very well. Politicians and celebrities get them, but not the little people.
And that's the whole point. The 14th Amendment guarentees us equal protection under the law, and California violates that along with the 2nd Amendment.
 
It isn't a very good percentage, is it?

No, it isn't. I am continually baffled why this glaring example of total hypocrisy is blind to the minions who robotically drink the koolaid the antis and dems spew forth about gun control/confiscation.

We need another revolution.

Oops! Is this turning political?

Anygun
 
Vern wrote:

The 14th Amendment guarentees us equal protection under the law, and California violates that along with the 2nd Amendment

As far as CCW goes, it's probably more accurate to say that a number of County Sheriffs violate it. There are some good ones who do their best to allow their county's citizens exercise their 2A rights. Sheriff James Allen (Mariposa County) and Sheriff Michael Carona (Orange County), for example, are two of the good ones.
 
"I'm actually not particularly against gun ownership from a, like, moral perspective. What is a fact though is that a gun is a tool for killing. It's a dangerous thing to have because it enables people to do serious harm in their moments of greatest weakness, when they succumb to rage or other anxieties.

So stop driving your car and burry your kitchen knives. Ask him, “Do you think a gun has some magical mind controlling powers. Do you think that as soon as you pick up a gun it will take away your free will, ability to think reason or make decisions?”

Of course, in the end, it is the people that do it, not the guns, but even so, society hardly needs every person to own weapons. In another post, you make it seem like it is the only thing that keeps a government from becoming a tyranny, but this is hardly what has happened in Europe, where no one carries guns. The argument is therefore hardly sound.

Do you mean like in the former Yugoslavia where the first thing the Serbs did as the nation was falling apart was to confiscate privately owned weapons? Or are you talking about Adolf, one of the first to come up with gun control laws all together. Stalin, Mao, Adolf, agree, people don’t need guns, the government will provide for your security.

As far as safety goes, I am shocked that people feel so insecure on the streets in America. What kind of Mad Max society have you got going there? The worst 'bad guys' I encounter sometimes are people that openly laugh at me for wearing a cool hat. I've never in my entire life been confronted with a gun in a threatening way (i.e. as something other than a museum piece). Surely this is a much more relaxed organisation of a society than one where everyone has a cocked gun under his shirt, always on the look-out for some madcap aggressor?

Just because you don’t talk about the crime in your streets does not mean there is none. Until VT the school shooting with the single highest death toll EVER was in Germany, Erfurt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1952869.stm

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,449492,00.html

In fact, you had TWO school shooting back to back within 1 ½ years. Ask your “intellectual” European friend if he has a right to self defense? This natural right to self defense is about as basic as it comes; ants and monkeys understand the concept, why can’t he?


Also; gun owners will state that guns are necessary to rise up to their government if necessary. It occurs to me that it has never been more necessary than in the last eight years, going from the amount of damage the US has done to international relationships and wars. But where were all the gun-toting citizens? Despite your guns, you are just as codependent and harmless of and to the government as the rest of us are."

There is a reason why we have had a “republic” for 232 years and the Germans in this time an City states, Emperor, a republic, a dictator, and now a republic again. BTW, Switzerland, another nation with very liberal gun laws, has been a free nation how long? I wonder what 6 million Jews would have done had they been armed?

Some people deserve to be subjects of an oppressive system, keep talking.
 
As far as CCW goes, it's probably more accurate to say that a number of County Sheriffs violate it. There are some good ones who do their best to allow their county's citizens exercise their 2A rights.

When the state has a law that allows officials to violate civil rights, the state is the primary violator.
 
He doesn't need a gun.

With his huge brain, and intellectual glasses, he'll convince people like Idi Amin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam, the Ayatollah in Iran, OBL etc that through "dialog" they can solve all their problems.

This guy has the typical “sheep” mentality like so many in Europe. You have got to understand, there were thousands like him even in the Cold War who ran around screaming “Lieber Rot wie Tod” (Rather red than dead). Many in Europe would have been fully content with being under Soviet rule. There is a reason why Hitler could seize power and few did anything about it. Why so many in some European countries collaborated with the Nazi’s, why Mussolini and Franco could take and keep power the way they did. Look at how the East Germans lined up and followed the rules of their master in the DDR. You’re dealing with people who think like “subjects.”

Think about what statement he’s making about his people in general? He’s basically saying people are stupid and emotionally unstable and need to be sheep held in pens managed by their government. From what you’re telling us, that’s basically the end state when following through with his reasoning.

You're dealing with someone who thinks they're smart because they practice some form of group think within their crowd; someone who in their opening argument will basically base everything on the assumptions that a government can be trusted, that freedom is a stable and universal right respected by governments and people alike.

Essentially arguments for gun rights pivot on three pillars: Preservation of the Republic and freedom, the right to self/home defense, and recreation and leisure.

(Preserving the Republic)
Here’s the bottom line-
You can appeal to higher moral values.
You can resort to laws, conventions, treaties etc.
You can exert political and economic pressure.
When all else fails, you resort to violence or the threat thereof.

People without the means of force are only free at the grace of their political elite.

Again, why have we had a republic for 232 years? Teachers in schools teach about a balance of powers. That balance is not only there between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches, it also exists between states and federal government, and the individual and his elected government. The second amendment is guarantor of this power to the people.

(The right to defense)
It’s a natural right as I said before. It’s like breathing or drinking water. What kind of state takes away the most fundamental right of self-preservation? Monkey’s, ants, a garden spider, even they understand this concept. But our intellectual European friends have moved on beyond this. The Police are not always there. In many countries by law they are not required to respond……. For example, in Germany alone (and they have less than 1/3 our population there were 2,500 murders last year: http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2006ev/pcs_2006.pdf

(Recreation and leisure)
Ask him what he likes, then tell him you think it needs banned. Jet ski, boating, water ski etc pollute far to much. Skiing is to dangerous and costs society in medical expenses, scuba diving is dangerous and interferes with sea life, motorcycle is too dangerous, quad runners pollute, rock climbing defaces natural rock, mountain biking rips up the environment….. It does not matter what he says anything can be twisted into being evil and hazardous or damaging to the environment. Since the gun plays no significant role in “his” life he is generally agreeable with rules and restrictions placed on this sport and lifestyle. How open minded is that? Trap, skeet, hunting, target shooting, western shooting, the fun at gun shows, collectors…… he doesn’t care, because essentially he’s selfish and narrow-minded.

Arguments against gun ownership come in one form. They all argue in some form that the greater security of society supersedes the individual’s needs and wants, that guns need restricted for this collective safety.
 
Last edited:
Those of us who live in the US, for the most part, enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms, with exceptions being major metropolitan areas. The problem is the introduction of the various "isms" in the 20th Century, and the confusions that they inspire. The first being, that the RKBA is a right "recognized" by the Bill of Rights, and a prohibition on the government, NOT a means to justify the infringement on the right. Our entire system depends upon the voluntary compliance with the laws of the United States. Millions of citizens voluntarily pay taxes and comply with the laws, no matter how stupid that they are. Why? Because we understand we have a say in the matter and the government operates by our consent. When some politicians think they can force compliance or impose some unreasonable or illegal restriction against the people, they are actually endangering the very basis of the government. For the Assault Weapons Ban, it was an illegal law forced upon the citizens by a certain political ideology. Fortunately, it demise came about peacefully.

There is also the problem of Moaral Relativity! Those opposed to gun rights use it quite often. Basically, they see no difference between the death of criminals in the mdist of committing a crime and the innocent victim of that crime. That's why they count criminals shooting other criminals, criminals being shot by police, and criminals being shot by citizens with murders. Criminals being shot in self defense are not murder, they are not shot out of malevolence, they are shot out of expediancy. For the government to impede or outlaw self-defense, or in the case of firearms, the means to self defense, criminals run rampant, or in an even worse case, the government runs rampant. The book, Death by Gun Control catalogs the millions of people killed by their governments aided by gun control.
 
I have pointed out in a different forum, the United States has saved France three times.

We saved them in WWI by turning back the big German offensive which they launched with the resources no longer needed on the Eastern Front after Russia capitulated (and a near thing it was, too.)

Hmm.

The American help was more than welcome, but to say that we would have lost without you is pure fantasy. We still had plenty of young teenagers in reserve who were eager to sacrifice themselves thanks to a very efficient state propaganda.

Mind you, I get pissed off when I hear that the US won single handedly WW1. That big offensive you talk about (the second battle of the Marne) was as much won by the French as it was by the Americans. If you visit France one day, I encourage you to check the WW1 battlefields on which the US Army was involved. You'll see that the French and the Americans were almost always fighting side by side. And don't forget that our boys (and the BRITS) had already been fighting for 3 years when you came.

We saved them in WWII by liberating them from the Germans.

And we saved them again in WWII by making sure they weren't "liberated" by the Russians.

We are very thankful for that. But when a few americans say that in order to be condescending towards me, I tell them that greatness is almost never hereditary.
 
I got more replys, any suggestions for replying to these?

"Yes, and I'm sure the reason he stabbed the person wasn't because he was shot.

I believe in self defense, and the reality of guns that can't be magically erased is just that. But that doesn't mean I have to like them, or even not absolutely detest them. People kill people but guns make it just easy and impersonal enough to enable more people to kille people.

Tell me if someone did break into your house and guns weren't a factor and there was a struggle, how far would you go? Knock them unconscious? Strangle them to death? Guns just make it so clean and simple.

In self defense you do what you have to do, but you won't necessarily go above and beyond that unless the stakes are higher, guns, knifes... things that make killing easy.

I don't have to like them and fear is a healthy response to technology that makes life easier to dispose of."

" How could they mistake it for a real gun? I thought guns were virtually banned in England and Australia? Is that to indicate that these countries are not as safe as we all presumed? Why not ban people who look shady or dress like a gang member? The ban was simply done because of cosmetics. People fear a gun because of what it looks like, yet despite the fact they are banned, they are still on edge that a toy gun could be a real gun? Doesn't seem possible in a country that has banned firearms.

Most firearms are banned, but that only makes illegal guns more difficult to obtain, it doesn't mean that they don't exist. Obtaining a firearm is more difficult in AU, but completely ridding a continent of all illegal weapons is not feasible possible- reducing the numbers is. If you are holding something that looks like a firearm, a police officer has to take a cautionary position and assume the damn thing is a firearm. That's why these things aren't allowed in public.

A gun is as dangerous as it's operator. I would fear the person holding the tool, not the tool it's self.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people! No ****. This doesn't mean a gun itself isn't an intrinsically dangerous tool.


Guns were designed to fire a projectile, what the operator chooses to do with the tool is their decision alone.

Designed to fire a projectile that can very easily kill a person. Fearing or being apprehensive around one is, once again, not unreasonable."

" Zionist wrote:Guns were designed to fire a projectile, what the operator chooses to do with the tool is their decision alone.



Yes, and nuclear bombs were designed to enable fissile material to reach critial mass and rapidly convert mass to energy. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Zionist wrote:How could they mistake it for a real gun? I thought guns were virtually banned in England and Australia? Is that to indicate that these countries are not as safe as we all presumed? Why not ban people who look shady or dress like a gang member? The ban was simply done because of cosmetics. People fear a gun because of what it looks like, yet despite the fact they are banned, they are still on edge that a toy gun could be a real gun? Doesn't seem possible in a country that has banned firearms.



No, they are simply more difficilt to get hold of (and perhaps surprisingly to you, people in the UK generally view this as a civil rights issue in the same way that they view interpretive dance as a branch of theoretical physics). They are still used (rarely) by criminal gangs, and in the days before people started talking to each other (or, at least, possibly agreeing to be in the same room as each other at some potential future date) the IRA obviously had an illegal armoury. They are still very rare - I have never seen a gun in my life (but I don't go looking).

And as I'm sure you can appreciate with your own country's sucesses in the war on drugs, banning something does not make it vanish into vapour.

I do agree with you that there is far, far more to gun related crime than lots of people having lots of guns. But the fact remains (and I admit a strong cultural bias here) that I'm perfectly happy living in a nation where people don't have the crazy idea that gun ownership is some kind of civil rights issue. Guns are designed to kill - you have to accept that unless you want to engage in semantic jiggery-pokery which will lead to the conclusion that MRI scanners were simply designed - for no particular reason - to polarise water molecules. They also make killing - or at least severe maiming - very easy. We are a species who are known to fly into wild rages, and do stupid things at such times, which we later regret. Put simply - I don't trust stupid humans with such dangerous 'inanimate objects'."

"I remember Prince Phillip saying that a person with a cricket bat can kill someone just as someone with an automatic gun.

Ok they are both inanimate objects requiring a person to use them in a violent way. But the efficiencies in which they can be used violently differs - quite considerably. The result is that we may just want to treat guns as weapons, with different controls. I have no problem with control, based not on fear of guns per se but based on the principle that just because you want a weapon to protect yourself does not mean you automatically have the right to own one, or that it is in the interest of scoiety that you should have a gun.

Myself, I think I go along with Queen Put Out the Fire."

"The fear probably has a cultural origin (Television), and also a hugely rational basis.
Ie; if I saw a gun, I would be pretty surprised and shocked to see it.

Is it loaded? Safety on? Where's the (possibly criminal) owner?

If you accidently shoot yourself with it, it's not going to make you any less dead, even if you're not afraid.

Combine_Dave

PS: Having said that, I don't mind using one (firearm), although I think it is better to keep it in online gaming, than real life. Less chance of injury that way."

"Give me a good rock to bash a rivals head in any day :lol:

Bombs are for chumps."
 
dr wenkman wrote:

Europeans were not responsible for the majority of Heer losses. That credit goes solely to the Soviet Union entirely on the Eastern Front. 8/10 men in the German Heer died on the Eastern Front.

Well, I'm sorry, but incase you didnt know, The Soviet Union was basically Russia, with smaller countries attached to it... And almost all of it's population live in Europe.

Russians are Europeans!!! :rolleyes:


The US did a great job in helping defeat the U-boat menace, and were instrumental in getting the Lufwaffe finally out of the game...

Also, the 8th and 15th airforces were instrumental in bombing the Ploesti oilfields of Rumania, and thus created a very favourable cituation for all allies...

The US did much great things, and some mistakes... But so does everybody who embarks on war... They say that no plan survives first contact with the enemy...

I personally belive that the US-British-Commonwealth armies , airforces and navies, were a great great alliance that swept the Germans aside it anywhere it wanted to... (ok, we all had our Market-Gardens, and Hurtgen forrests), but all in all, it was a good partnership...

It was some idiots in the allied media who started playing on the Patton vs Monty animosity, and imho caused Hitler to see a much larger opportunity than there ever was when he desided to attack on the Ardennes and try to split the US & UK Armies...

If some ego's and story greedy journalists are forgotten, the US, Brits and Canadians put their backs into it, and prevailed!!!


And, I wish that we had gun laws like the US. Because anybody can tell you that gun crime is committed with unregistered guns, exept in the drunken argument gone sour case, where anything, a kitchen knife, frying pan can be used just as well... So, registered firearms arent the problem for the violence in the US...
 
When the state has a law that allows officials to violate civil rights, the state is the primary violator.

Or...

When the federal government has a law that allows states to violate civil rights, the federal government is the primary violator.
 
8.5poundr said:
Well, I'm sorry, but incase you didnt know, The Soviet Union was basically Russia, with smaller countries attached to it... And almost all of it's population live in Europe.

Russians are Europeans!!!

The Soviet Union, NOT the rest of European nations you wish to jumble in along with it, killed 8/10 German Soldats. The Soviet Union, not France, Great Britian, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Poland, et cetera. I give credit to what western Europe did but it is unfair to pair them with the Soviet Union.

I personally belive that the US-British-Commonwealth armies , airforces and navies, were a great great alliance that swept the Germans aside it anywhere it wanted to... (ok, we all had our Market-Gardens, and Hurtgen forrests), but all in all, it was a good partnership...

I too believe it was a good partnership but overall it was a slow crawl to get into Germany.

It was some idiots in the allied media who started playing on the Patton vs Monty animosity, and imho caused Hitler to see a much larger opportunity than there ever was when he desided to attack on the Ardennes and try to split the US & UK Armies...

It's funny that the Germans followed the same path of attack three times in 30 years and no one saw it coming. WWI, the Germans go through Belgium. WWII, the Germans go through Belgium. The Battle of the Bulge, the Germans go through Belgium.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...err three times...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top