An example of why Americans likes guns
- Thread starter Rentonite
- Start date
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Yossarian said:
The early years of the twentieth century saw an increasingly bitter series of confrontations between capital and labor throughout the English-speaking world. In Britain, the rising militance of the working class was beginning to make the aristocracy doubt whether the people could be trusted with arms. When American journalist Lincoln Steffens visited London in (p.409)1910, he met leaders of Parliament who interpreted the current bitter labor strikes as a harbinger of impending revolution.[46] The next set of gun control initiatives reflected fears of immigrant anarchists and other subversives.
As the coronation of George V approached, one United States newspaper, the Boston Advertiser, warned about the difficulty of protecting the coronation march "so long as there is a generous scattering of automatic pistols among the 70,000 aliens in the Whitechapel district." The paper fretted about aliens in the United States and Britain with their "automatic pistols," which were "far more dangerous" than a bomb. The Advertiser defined an "automatic pistol" as a "quick-firing revolver," and called for gun registration, restrictions on ammunition sales, and a ban on carrying any concealed gun, all with the goal of "disarming alien criminals."[47]
In Britain, the government worried about what would happen when the war ended and the gun controls expired. A secret government committee on arms traffic warned of danger from two sources: the "savage or semi-civilized tribesmen in outlying parts of the British Empire" who might obtain surplus war arms, and "the anarchist or 'intellectual' malcontent of the great cities, whose weapon is the bomb and the automatic pistol."[56] At a Cabinet meeting on January 17, 1919, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff raised the threat of "Red Revolution and blood and war at home and abroad." He suggested that the government make sure of its arms. The next month, the Prime Minister was asking which parts of the army would remain loyal. The Cabinet discussed arming university men, stockbrokers, and trusted clerks to fight any revolution.[57] The Minister of Transport, Sir Eric Geddes, predicted "a revolutionary outbreak in Glasgow, Liverpool or London in the early spring, when a definite attempt may be made to seize the reins of government." "It is not inconceivable," Geddes warned, "that a dramatic and successful coup d'etat in some large center of population might win the support of the unthinking mass of labour." Using the Irish gun licensing system as a model, the Cabinet made plans to disarm enemies of the state and to prepare arms for distribution "to friends of the Government."[58]
http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html#h4
Dandred said:
Gov't pushing prozac and ritalin dip-shit.
We've always had access to lots of guns but the go'vt has only recently started drugging children.
Do the math.
http://www.truebooks.com/prozac.html
http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/2000-05-16-School-Shootings-Psychotropic-Drugs.htm
http://www.oism.info/adhd/1999_03_gb.htm
http://www.insiderreports.com/storypage.asp_Q_ChanID_E_HQ_A_StoryID_E_20001670
Once again liberals fuck things up massivly and then try to blame a strawman like guns.
Those few words are probably some of the stupidest, nonsensical rubbish I have ever read....Except of course anything that pee has ever written.
You see Rentaprick the proof that your thesis is rubbish is the fact that if what you wrote was indeed true...you would have been shot many times, a long time ago.
So Pee...you are blaming the Government for giving children Prozac? and this is what you believe the reason to be as to why the shooting sprees happen in High Schools in the US?...is that right?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
pbman said:Ask nice if you expect me to waste my time with you.
Or f-off.
That should be simple enough even for you.
[Mad as hell: ain't gonna take it anymore.]
shoddysolutions
back by dope demand
Rentonite said:
FNORD
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
fair point. but then we cant say the US has more gun homocides SIMPLY because it has more guns can we?pbman said:
edit; which was my point so why you disagreeing with me?
OhioCitizen
New Member
ResistanceMP3 said:
I have stated in other posts that guns (which can be used both offensively and defensively) are not the problem. Its the underlying social problems.
Its my opinion that the majority of these problems are caused by the Federal Government. The Federal Government causes these problems through selling their power to the highest bidder. Ultimately it is multi-national corporations and the ultra-rich who are to blame. That is, of course, if you are the type of person who must assign blame.
When 5% of the population controls (through economics) the remaining 95%, you're going to have a lot of pissed-off peasants (serfs, peons, etc.). When the media actively directs attention anywhere but the source, they'll spend their anger upon the wrong causes.
Which brings us back to the gun issue. I'm sure that the first time archery was used in combat, the other side wasn't happy about it and probably made noises about how unfair it was and how REAL warriors would only use swords. Very similar to the "guns cause crime" arguements, or the "disarm yourself to prove you're not a criminal" arguements presented in this forum.
You've got those gun ban laws in Britain. Tell me, have all the criminals turned theirs in? Nobody is converting things into guns or smuggling them in?
Violent crime is non-existent now, is it?
OhioCitizen
New Member
Yossarian said:
Sorry, friend. You missed that shot. Primarily because, unlike certain US posters, I'm am more than aware of the criminal activities of the Federal Government, past and present.
So is your arguement that US government can out-atrocity UK government? Or that one justifies another?
Governments have always killed more people than any other man-made cause. I think they're all bastards.
Further, the first steps of any totalitarian government is to disarm their citizens. What some refer to as "progress", others see as "history repeating itself".
Or, so you will understand:
Ook, okk, grunt, scratch, sniff, fall off tree branch.
alphaDelta
◘◘\«ˆ»/◘◘
I've never been shot. I've never been shot at. I don't know anyone who has. I've never seen a gun. I quite like that.OhioCitizen said:You've got those gun ban laws in Britain. Tell me, have all the criminals turned theirs in? Nobody is converting things into guns or smuggling them in?
Violent crime is non-existent now, is it?
XerxesVargas
formerly MrMalcontent
OhioCitizen said:
Again you are mixing up the miltary use of weaponry, be it arrows or guns, with civillian use of weaponry. These thigns are incomparable. Nobody is suggest you disarm to prove you are not a criminal. People are suggesting it as the private ownership of guns ahs vastly increased gun crime in the US. There is no p[roblem with military weaponry, that I am aware of, all the points relate to the private wonership of guns.
OhioCitizen said:You've got those gun ban laws in Britain. Tell me, have all the criminals turned theirs in? Nobody is converting things into guns or smuggling them in?
Violent crime is non-existent now, is it?
No it isnt. But you've got almost no chance of being shot. The gun crime that does exist tends to be confined amongst criminal gangs and not the general public. Whilst there are instances of people getting caught in the crossfire or mis-identified and guns are very, very ocassinaly used in commiting crime.
Answer me this Ohio, do you think the average house breaker in the US carries a gun? They don't here.
The point is undeniable, from a pure logic point of view, that less guns would = less gun crime. Its a simple equation. It wouldnt mean less crime necessarially, but less gun crime. Which in turn would mean that less people would die each year. Which in turn would lead to the lowering of the gun crime stats.
Dandred said:What was my statement peabrain? Rentoprick was idealising the gun culture I mearly mentioned the words "School shooting" next thing you start having a fit about prozac
Have you been doing some spelling courses while inside? It seems to be helping!
Why did you mention them then?
Yossarian said:
I think he's an a-hole.
But tell me what spicific gun law he broke, and the real facts of his case. And i'll tell you if i think he should be locked up.
Press reports i have seen a vauge to say the least.
So tell me, or are you so neive as to belive that the gov't only trumps up charges on drug dealers?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
ViolentPanda said:
Aye, I worked that one out too. Renton is on the border with Canada. Is there a connection here between say, someone on one side of the border and the other? Coincidence? I dunno.
The per capita stats speak for themselves. We are nowhere near the gun crime levels of the US, though it is too high. Nor is anyone in the West.
There is something rotten in US society. I'd agree with Ohio that economics underlies it all. I suspect pb would rather blame individuals. The downside of that argument would be that all societies are composed of individuals, but they clearly aren't behaving the same way everywhere else.
friedaweed
Me and me girl named Jane
I like it.shoddysolutions said:
23's a magic number in Renton. I hear Renty drives number 23
Hail eris
Jo/Joe said:
So what?
No gun crime = more regulare crime.
IMNSHO that a pretty poor trade off.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1184515.stm
Here's an interesting link.
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=661.0
Aperenlty some people and cops even in new hampsire are to stupid to know that thier are no laws against carrying handguns in the state.
No laws whatsoever.
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=661.0
Aperenlty some people and cops even in new hampsire are to stupid to know that thier are no laws against carrying handguns in the state.
No laws whatsoever.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
where as with guns it would bepbman said:
less regular crime = more killings
IMNSHO that a pretty poor trade off.
God, what frigging nonsense. For starters crime is defined differently in different countries, though gun crime is constant everywhere.
And would you really trade off 10 victims of pickpocketing for 1 victim of gun crime? One is absolutely devasting for the victim and their friends, family and community, the other is a pain in the ass and perhaps unsettling for some.
Similar threads
- Locked
