Because of the disturbances on April 10 in Amristar, Gen. R.E.H. Dyer was sent with troops from Jullundur to restore order, and, though no further disturbances occurred in Amritsar until April 13, Dyer marched 50 armed soldiers into the Jallianwallah Bagh (Garden) that afternoon and ordered them to open fire on a protest meeting attended by some 10,000 unarmed men, women, and children without issuing a word of warning. It was a Sunday, and many neighboring peasants had come to Amritsar to celebrate a Hindu festival, gathering in the Bagh, which was a place for holding cattle fair and other festivities. Dyer kept his troops firing for about ten minutes, until they had shot 1650 rounds of ammunition into the terror-stricken crowd, which had no way of escaping the Bagh, since the soldiers spanned the only exit. About 400 civilians were killed and some 1200 wounded. They were left without medical attention by Dyer, who hastily removed his troops to the camp. Sir Michael O'Dwyer fully approved of and supported the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre, and on April 15, 1919, issued a martial law decree for the entire Punjab:
'The least amount of firing which would produce the necessary moral and widespread effect it was my duty to produce . . . from a military point of view, not only on those who were present, but more specially throughout the Punjab.'
Dyer was relieved of his command, but he returned to England as a hero to many British admirers, who presented him with a collected purse of thousands of pounds and a jewelled sword inscribed "Saviour of the Punjab."
You see Rentonite, the British abhorence of personal firearms comes from a historical preference for a.) letting their paid hitmen (ie. British troops) do the killing for them and b.) keeping their hitmen out of personal danger by insuring that the people they're murdering can't shoot back. {They learned this from the American Revolution where armed civilians caused them no end of grief.}
Churchill demonstrated the same stiff moral fiber by ordering the destruction of Dresden (a civilian target) during WWII.
Of course that was in the past. Todays enlightened British policies would never allow them to be involved against a country that hadn't attacked them first. You know, like Iraq.
But they're embroiled in Iraq, where Sadam's policy of allowing citizens to own guns is causing them (and the US) grief.
Surely you see their point?
P.S. I've noticed that Americans "frontier past" and "cowboy legacy" is occasionally cited as the reason we "love" guns. I guess we now know why you hate them.
