Question for the English Folk, "no guns?!?"

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » July 18, 2002, 10:35 am

Bubba- what utter bollocks- Yes, if the other guy may have a gun you may be more cautious around him....right up to the moment you blow him away by surprise to make sure he cant use it on you if he does have one. And you havent been invaded because you all have guns??? You havent been invaded because nobody who's wanted to in recent history has been able to REACH you to invade you in the first place, numbnuts. Those big wet things on each side of the country make it sorta difficult for most of the planet to get to you to teach you manners- Even if you had no naval defences at all, 2000+ miles of ocean is a pretty darned big barrier to overcome with a serious fighting force. The US is well aware of that too- there is a reason why they spent the money to make the US navy what it is, and its not because they needed more things they could paint grey... Twit.

*Hugs*
Varia

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 18, 2002, 10:40 am

You can modify a gun to do anythng if you want. Why stop at a clip? Go for a drum, heh.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » July 18, 2002, 11:24 am

I was thinking more along the lines of a four or five shot clip, Fairwether.

The clip makes it easy to secure the weapon and assure it's safe. Also makes bringing the weapon to "red" status very fast.

And nothing stops you int he night like the sound of a shotgun action being racked. I'd rather not shoot someone unless I have given him every chance to retreat.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » July 18, 2002, 12:31 pm

Varia

I suppose you are right about that because there is no way Canada would ever invade. And I think anyone from Mexico who wanted to be here already is. However, if there were an invasion of the US a major factor in the mind of the invader is the fact that there is a large number of people here who do have guns and know how to use them. Remember the movie Red Dawn? One of the first things they did was to find all the people who owned guns.

I grant the fact that you are able to shred any argument you focus on but I am just tossing out ideas into the mix even if they don't hold weight in your eyes.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 18, 2002, 12:36 pm

the reason nobody would invade the US has zero to do with the "armed citizenry" and everything to do with the fact that our military would own them.

since even the most backwards country has cable nowadays, they have watched our military play Missile Command as we wipe out enemy targets with virtual impunity to our forces.

i am told by a friend who studied history in college that Japan was actually contemplating an invasion of the US through Mexico during WW2, which is part of the reason we decided to drop nukes on them, because our army was extended in Europe and would have a hard time mobilizing to deter a land invasion. Something about Zimmerman reports or papers if you are gonna search on this. so consider the info above from me 3rd hand and weigh accordingly

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 18, 2002, 1:06 pm

Xyun:
A gun is not exclusively designed to kill people. Assault rifles are designed to kill people. A 30.06 is designed to kill meat on the hoof. Shotguns are designed to kill meat on the wing. Your second premise is invalid, therefore your conclusion does not follow.

I'm very sorry that most people don't see the value of exposing their kids to guns at an early age. IMO, changing the kids' perception of them as an icon of masculinity or whatever is key.

In most of the tragic "Johnny shot Billy" stories I read, it always comes out that someone was showing off how grown up they were by flashing the piece. I was never tempted to do this as a child, as I knew exactly what guns were all about. There was no aura of manliness or taboo around them, therefore I treated them like any other dangerous household item: I left them alone until it was time to use them.

I don't hear a public outcry to "lock up" our supplies of Windex or Chlorox, but these common products are just as deadly if mishandled as a gun.

Hammerstalker PE · Post by **Hammerstalker PE** » July 18, 2002, 1:12 pm

Little Paranoid there Apollyon

. Sorry you can argue all you want about the right to bear arms or the reasons to ban them and like was mentioned earlier it is an endless arguement.

However if you want to talk statistics Fallanthas all you need to do is look at England or Canada for that matter. Countries with strict gun control laws have FAR FAR less gun related/pick a method murders per capita than those with loose gun control laws. The USA is by far the leader in violent crime and murders in the industrialized world.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 18, 2002, 1:12 pm

you can kill people by pulling a windex trigger?

holy jeebus!

Hammerstalker PE · Post by **Hammerstalker PE** » July 18, 2002, 1:19 pm

OMG Thanks Voro, you owe me a new keyboard ya Bastard! I just spewed coffee on mine. If ya don't pay up I am coming to your place with a loaded Clorox bottle!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 18, 2002, 1:33 pm

Do we have a bunch of Ms. Cleos on this board?

The arguement no one could possibly invade the USA is terribly short sighted.

Can you predict the future? Drop back to 1900, Quickly fly through 100 years to the present. Could you predict in 1900 the tremendous changes the next 100 years brought?

We preserve the 2nd amendment for the future. YOU NEVER KNOW what the future brings. Who's to say 100 years from now the US isn't invaded? Who's to say what might happen?

The 2nd amendment is life insurance. We retain it, we never know when we might need it.

Look at your history. Count how many times governments have changed into repression.

Wise people learn from historical mistakes. The 2nd amendment embodies this.

Rikk Wolvenkin · Post by **Rikk Wolvenkin** » July 18, 2002, 1:44 pm

I guess it all comes down to the value you place on human life. Frankly its appalling to me that some of you would agree that certain laws would save lives but you won't agree to them because it will lead you losing even more gun privledges 20 years from now. In our society everyone is so completely fixated on their "Rights" Noone worries about their "duty" to fellow man. People need to be less self centered and willing to sacrafice something that is their "right" for the benefit of others. Before the smoking laws, my cig is making you sick? choking are you? well to fucking bad, its my right to smoke here.

The most basic righst of every man are the rights to life liberty and happiness. Life has to paramount.

I've never understood the fixation some people have on their weapons. I used to work with a guy that kept saying they could have his guns when they pryed them from his cold dead hands.

Don't you people see how warped your priorites are? I can understand loving guns, as a hobby, for hunting, whatever. But if it came down to them being outlawed you would die first? I'm not talking about fighting against some foreign opressor or radical government change. I'm talking about everything else is the same, but they pass a law that outlaws guns. You are going to die some pitifull death, the ones who say that all seem to think they'll take a bunch of feds with them. But you won't, they'll come in with years of training and armor and flashbangs and you will be like a little girl.

Ohyea, PS.
To say that we would have just as many murders if guns were outlawed, they'd all be with knives, etc.. is just beyond stupid. Killing someone with a gun is in no way the same as killing someone by hand. You don't need to have any str to kill someone with a gun. You can do it from across a room you don't have to be right up staring into the persons eyes as you slide steel into them.... people who donn't have a gun are so far less likely to kill someone in the heat of passion... its just totally absurd to think that if they'd shoot someone they'd kill them another way if a gun wasn't around.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » July 18, 2002, 1:49 pm

Countries with strict gun control laws have FAR FAR less gun related/pick a method murders per capita than those with loose gun control laws.

Absolutely no argument from me, Hammer.

But then, I can't think of another country that has similar gun-rights laws either. You are making an assumption based on a statistical group of one. Are you familiar with the anecdote from the scientist that cutting off a frogs legs makes em deaf because they will no longer jump when you yell at them?

Also, would you like to see the statistic on how many violent crimes are committed with legal guns (hint: it's a very small portion of one percent)? How about a stat on how many gun murders are committed with the assault weapons everyone like to get their shorts in a wad over? Maybe a comparison on deaths from handguns versus deaths caused by long guns?

Not picking on you, Hammer. Guns just seem to make people knee-jerk a lot. The issues with gun-related crime are so far away from the areas most anti-gun rhetoric centers around that it makes anti-gunners look flat silly.

The previous poster on kids and guns was 100% correct. Watch the news. Tell me how many of those tragic incidents occured in a home where hunting and gun use was prolific, and how many were from a kid whose father had a handgun stuck in the top of a closet, doing his damndest to prevent the kid from ever touching the weapon.

Eidted because I can't spell for shit.

Apollyon · Post by **Apollyon** » July 18, 2002, 2:09 pm

Hammerstalker PE wrote:Little Paranoid there Apollyon . Sorry you can argue all you want about the right to bear arms or the reasons to ban them and like was mentioned earlier it is an endless arguement.

I guess you're right to a certain extent there Hammer. I see way too much crime in this society to think that the police will serve any function other than be a cleanup crew at most violent crime scenes.

Until our legal system puts the bad guys away and removes them from society for good, I will practice my inalienable right to protect myself and my loved ones. Don't ever forget that my authority is derived from the fact that I was born a citizen of this free country, and my right to self-preservation is intact, regardless of what laws are passed, based on the 2nd amendment.

The second part of this argument is that I was a patriot long before 9/11 happened, not some post-9/11 flag-flying hyprocrite who is STILL trying to pass laws and elect people who want to destroy my freedom. Flying a flag does not make someone a patriot, protecting and defending our Constitution, in its entirety, does.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 18, 2002, 2:33 pm

Ok, then how's this for getting straight to the issue for me.

I don't want my rights and priviledges revoked because someone else is a fucking moron. You do not punish me for other people's mistakes. I am a responsible adult, and I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want until I prove otherwise. That's what pisses me off about gun control. People I don't know assuming what I may, or may not do.

Apollyon · Post by **Apollyon** » July 18, 2002, 2:48 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Ok, then how's this for getting straight to the issue for me.

I don't want my rights and priviledges revoked because someone else is a fucking moron. You do not punish me for other people's mistakes. I am a responsible adult, and I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want until I prove otherwise. That's what pisses me off about gun control. People I don't know assuming what I may, or may not do.

This is it in a nutshell, and exactly how I feel! Don't tread on me! Personal freedom, personal responsibility, and yes, I am a card-carrying Libertarian and lifetime member of the NRA, and proud of it!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 18, 2002, 3:04 pm

I would be cautious to link violence stats from other countries and try to explain those stats based on gun ownership alone.

To do so assumes that cultures across all countries are the same.

A region's attitude towards violence determines the level of violence.

Its not about hardware. Its about culture.

Hammerstalker PE · Post by **Hammerstalker PE** » July 18, 2002, 3:52 pm

Good point Adex.

I guess being a Canadian living in the US I would rather see a harder line taken on hand guns. Thirty odd sixes, shout guns etc don't account for many of the annual murders.

I just don't know hwo you differentiate between the morons and the law abiding citizens.

Anyway like I said an endless arguement.

BTW I do go shooting with a buddy of mine in Canada. He has a 50cal Desert Eagle, talk about firepower from a handgun. Personally I like the Glock or the 9mm Beretta. I like to go to the range and fire these guns but I would never want to bring them home with me.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 18, 2002, 3:57 pm

Umm, Voronwe, I have to disagree.

Firstly I will state I have no desire for anyone to attack America, or anyone else for that matter.

No war please^^

Secondly, if you think that the world is scared of America, you are incorrect.
Most people, in England anyway, if they are in anti-yank mode, scoff at the ludicrous job the US has done in Afghanistan. Friendly fire incidents? Learn to fucking shoot you morons. (This is not directed at America, merely the morons that like to shoot their own army)

Most friendly fire cases (like 90%?) are caused by Americans.

Vietnam...well I won't go into it, the proof is there. It was a stupid war to begin with...nuff said.

The only impressive thing I can see the US having done in the past 100 odd years is drop a couple of nukes on Japan.

WW2 was a European war, America had it's place at the end, no doubt about it, I will not be like many of yourselves with my 'WE WON THE WAR FOR YOU' bullshit.
Still, the US suffered in no REAL way in WW1 or WW2, apart from maybe financially (OH NO!). This is in comparison to the likes of the United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, France, etc

I have no hatred against the US, wish no harm on any US citizens etc etc, but blindly believing you are invincible will inevitably lead to your downfall.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » July 18, 2002, 4:04 pm

Thirty odd sixes, shout guns etc don't account for many of the annual murders.

Actually, the two most often used weapons in murder cases are 12 gauge shotguns and .22 caliber handguns.

BTW, the new Glocks are very impressive. Light, simple, and the new rounds they are chambering are much more controllable and crowd-friendly. Nice weapons.

Rikk, I'm sorry you feel that way. As Adex said, the right to carry a firearm is insurance against oppression of whatever sort. If you don't think owning a firearm is a deterrent to professional law enforcers, then explain to me why every registered gun owner has his address flagged with a warning to anyone conducting law enforcement buisness? There is a reason, and believe you me, we pay attention when that flag comes up on an address.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 18, 2002, 4:12 pm

"Most people, in England anyway, if they are in anti-yank mode, scoff at the ludicrous job the US has done in Afghanistan. Friendly fire incidents? Learn to fucking shoot you morons. (This is not directed at America, merely the morons that like to shoot their own army)"

Your still pissed because we threw your Tea into Boston Harbour

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 18, 2002, 4:14 pm

Nah Cart I think they're over it.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 18, 2002, 4:14 pm

Cart, not at all.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 18, 2002, 4:29 pm

Teenybloke wrote:Umm, Voronwe, I have to disagree.

with what? that windex is not a deadly weapon?

WW2 was a European war, America had it's place at the end, no doubt about it, I will not be like many of yourselves with my 'WE WON THE WAR FOR YOU' bullshit.
Still, the US suffered in no REAL way in WW1 or WW2, apart from maybe financially (OH NO!). This is in comparison to the likes of the United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, France, etc

Teeny if it wasnt for the US, the UK would have eventually succumbed to the buzzbombs. In fact the US was funding a substantial portion of the British military effort before we got into the war. If Hitler had only to hold the Eastern front, they would be speaking German from Moscow to Middlesborough.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 18, 2002, 4:33 pm

-----------
they would be speaking German from Moscow to Middlesborough.
-----------

Incorrect.

For no other reason than it is never an option to give up, isnt that what the US is bleating on about in this War on Terror?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 18, 2002, 4:40 pm

One often forgotten aspect of WWII was America's provision of arms and supplies to the allies long before the engagement of our troops.

That kept a lot of folks afloat.

Another interesting tidbit was many of the European countries paid for supplies with gold. This exchange ended up transfering something like 30% of the world's gold supplies (at the time) into Fort Knox.

Think about how many supplies that bought.

Also consider the Marshal Plan that financed billions of dollars into the rebuilding of European cities after the war.

......two huge beams of support that the Americans provided that didn't even involve troops.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 18, 2002, 4:50 pm

That is covered in my post.

I am not, and did not say America didn't do anything in the War's. However, in comparison to the main countries, it was a lot less.

You are misinterpreting what I am saying.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 18, 2002, 4:50 pm

We were hard pressed to win the war with the USA. Without, it would've been over years prior, with a victorious Germany.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 18, 2002, 5:09 pm

The first American forces arrived in Britain on Jan 26, 1942.

The war had already been going for 3 years.

The first bombing raid by the US airforce was Jan 27, 1943

The war had already been going on for 4 years.

The US forces had a few noteable victories (D-Day, Ruhr, Battle of the bulge - which was an allied battle anyway, but the US were there in force)

The US forces in Africa did jack.

This is not an argument between you and me, this is some of you not recognising the MILLIONS of Europeans who died to fight for what you Americans are so hung up on, freedom.

When your country actually wins a war (you know, an actual one, not ALMOST killing Saddam, or being fucked over in Vietnam), then you can boast all you want.

However, don't boast about a war where the human life you lost was minimal in comparison to GB, Russia, France blah blah.

Financial aid does not a war hero make.

To the guys who died in WW1 and WW2, that were American, they fucking rule. You should maybe aspire to being like them, as opposed to your current self.

---------------
This was done purely against the dickheads who like to post about how if America didnt exist, the nazi's would be running the show.

If you decided to check up on the actual facts on the war, instead of watching Saving Private Ryan, you may be surprised at just how retarded you are.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » July 18, 2002, 5:20 pm

If Hitler didn't open up another front by attacking Russia, all of Europe would be his. It would definitly have been a different world. It's true we didn't lose as much as the Europeans but that could also be the result of our not actually participating until 1943.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 18, 2002, 5:23 pm

We all pulled on the same rope.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 18, 2002, 5:24 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Ok, then how's this for getting straight to the issue for me.

I don't want my rights and priviledges revoked because someone else is a fucking moron. You do not punish me for other people's mistakes. I am a responsible adult, and I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want until I prove otherwise. That's what pisses me off about gun control. People I don't know assuming what I may, or may not do.

And if someone shoots you or a close family member of yours dead? Then what?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 18, 2002, 5:24 pm

Just like if Osama Bin Laden had dropped a nuke on the US, wiping out the entire north continent of America. It would have been a very different story.

It's a moot point Bubba.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 18, 2002, 5:25 pm

Fuck you, Teeny!!1!!!1!!

I don't base my views solely on "Saving Private Ryan." I also watched the ENTIRE series "Band of Brothers" so I know how Ub4r the American troopers were and how fagzor teh Euros were!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 18, 2002, 5:26 pm

You know what Adex, you are right.

We were and still are allies. Let's not forget that.

Edit: HAHAHAHAHAHA masteen

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 18, 2002, 5:28 pm

AUDIE MURPHY PERSONALLY KILLED 7000 NAZIS WHILE WOUNDED AND CONSTIPATED.

Laliana · Post by **Laliana** » July 18, 2002, 6:18 pm

Now that's a "fun fact"! ^^^

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 18, 2002, 6:38 pm

Band of Brothers was really good

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 18, 2002, 6:45 pm

Audie Murphy was a Texan.

Sorry couldn't resist

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » July 18, 2002, 6:48 pm

/em Reminds Adex where his Stetson was made.

Sorry, I find the fact that Teans attach so much identity to a hat they don't produce amusing.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 18, 2002, 7:01 pm

I don't wear cowboy hats.

Arsecn · Post by **Arsecn** » July 18, 2002, 7:06 pm

nice cologne

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 18, 2002, 7:17 pm

I love it when people say you can't compare the US to other cultures because we are a much more violent society and therefore we need guns. Isn't it just possible that the reason we are a much more violent society is precisely the lax gun laws? Yah, what came first, the chicken or the egg?

Fallanthas I dislike your method of argument. You state this and that statistic that you believe to be true but don't actually have any proof of it.

would you like to see the statistic on how many violent crimes are committed with legal guns (hint: it's a very small portion of one percent)? How about a stat on how many gun murders are committed with the assault weapons everyone like to get their shorts in a wad over? Maybe a comparison on deaths from handguns versus deaths caused by long guns?

Yes I would. Find these statistics if you are going to use them in support of your argument.

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

A gun is not exclusively designed to kill people. Assault rifles are designed to kill people. A 30.06 is designed to kill meat on the hoof. Shotguns are designed to kill meat on the wing. Your second premise is invalid, therefore your conclusion does not follow.

Wrong here. My 2nd premise said guns are used primarily to kill people. I did not say anything about design or what-not. If you like i can take the word people out of my premise. Guns are used to kill. Then my argument would stand.

Oh and no, I don't believe hunting is really a sport when you have to use a gun.

I'm not saying that there are not advantages to having armed civilians. I am saying that when you have lax gun laws, you have to deal with the consequences. The murder per capita in the U.S. is by far higher than any other civilized nation. Is this due to the fact that guns are legal? or are guns legal due to this fact?

I feel safe without owning a gun. I would feel safer if every tom dick and harry didn't own one also.

Apollyon · Post by **Apollyon** » July 18, 2002, 7:21 pm

"Unintended Consequences" is a good book!

Rikk Wolvenkin · Post by **Rikk Wolvenkin** » July 18, 2002, 8:00 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Rikk, I'm sorry you feel that way. As Adex said, the right to carry a firearm is insurance against oppression of whatever sort. If you don't think owning a firearm is a deterrent to professional law enforcers, then explain to me why every registered gun owner has his address flagged with a warning to anyone conducting law enforcement buisness? There is a reason, and believe you me, we pay attention when that flag comes up on an address.

I'm not sure what I said that you're disagreeing with....

That being said, I would think they're flagged so that if you have to go question someone and you see from some file that they have a gun, you will be looking for nervousness and maybe a bulge in their pocket and not be surprised.

Also, carrying a firearm only insures that any confrontation will escalate to a mortal level. Now instead of you losing $50 to some desperate mugger, either you or him will lose their life. I would rather lose the $50 bucks than either being killed or having another humans blood on my hands.

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » July 19, 2002, 5:56 am

Bubba- having an unruly countryside and partisans up the wazoo due to all the guns in the US would be an issue if someone did actually invade the place to be sure, I'm just saying that its a trivial issue in comparison to actually managing to get an army ashore on US soil to invade the place in the first place. 2000+ miles of ocean is a huge obstacle to overcome for an invasion force, even if it was totally undefended. Its the same reason that Britain has been able to fend off all comers for 1000 years or so, and thats only a 25 mile wide ditch in places keeping them safe. 2000 miles or more is wildly luxurious as a defensive barrier. And of course its far from undefended.

Lend Lease was very valuable to both Britain and Russia in WW2. It wasnt spending US lives or anything, but it was nevertheless a contribution not to be despised. Unfortunately I am uninformed of the national makeups of the merchant marine crews who most certainly did lose their lives delivering the cargoes, so its possible some american crews died doing that, I just dont know.

US troops in africa- Actually they made quite a valuable contribution to the african campaign, albeit a subtle and non-glamorous one. They managed almost bloodlessly to remove from the field an entire opposing army merely by BEING americans. The french forces in Africa, who would have fought almost anyone else at least to some degree, surrendered and switched sides instead because it was americans who landed in west africa first, and not a less trusted nations forces, thus saving countless lives on both sides. Its hard to build a statue to a battle that never happened, but never discount the value of what they contributed by being in the right place at the right time.

Buzz-bombs woulda forced Britain to surrender?? Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah! The things were harrassment weapons, nothing more, and were increasingly ineffective as the war went on. More and more they were shot down by radar-guided fighters as time went on, or just tipped over and prematurely detonated (a figher would literally fly up alongside the buzzbomb and use its wingtip to flip the thing over which would hose the buzzbombs' gyros and cause it to crash rather than continuing to its target), and they were hardly precision weapons in the first place. The V2's were more of a pain in that they couldnt be stopped, but hardly enough to make anyone surrender since the germans couldnt follow it up with troops. Only the advent of nuclear weapons combined with the V weapons technology could possibly have forced Britains' surrender. V-weapons alone could in no way have forced it.

*Hugs*
Varia

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 19, 2002, 6:54 am

Well it looks like nobody actually answered the original question so here it is: Guns from an Englishman's perspective.

First off, you stated guns are illegal in England - this isn't strictly true. Guns are controlled and licenced. To get a gun licence you have to be psychologically screened, demonstrate a need to own (protecting your land/home/women is not sufficient) and conform to all the laws on storage and security for your firearm.
The vast majority of privately owned firearms in the UK are shotguns - pest control and hunting in rural areas are accepted as reasons to own.
Handguns, since Dunblane, are pretty much owned only by hobbyist/sporting shooting clubs and must be secured on-site (ie cannot be kept at home).
Anything more potent than this (including any and all machine guns) are illegal for private use. After all, in a more or less gun-free society how do you justify owning such firepower?

Anyway, that's my amateur summary of the laws. Probably wrong on a few cunts but that's about the gist of it.

Now, the police. Yes, airport security are armed with submachine guns (modified to fire songle shot only - no clue why).
In general, all of the large metropolitan police forces as well as regional forces at some level have an Armed Response Unit. If a firearm is suspected of causing a threat the regular police (armed only with batons as a rule I think) call in the ARU and within a few minutes youve got a large number of heavily armed police marksmen all over the place.
And that's how it works. A couple of weeks ago they shot a guy through the leg, about 45mins drive from where I'm sitting now. He had been threatening to jump off a motorway bridge and brandished what turned out to be a replica handgun at the police. You only get to do that once

So there you go

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 19, 2002, 10:10 am

Thanks man

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 19, 2002, 10:29 am

Oh yeah and I just read all that crap about WW2 as well.

It would have all been over for the UK by the end of 1940 if not for The Few and some serious good luck. The south coast defenses were about defeated - pilots exhausted, planes dwindling in numbers, radar stations slowly being knocked out - some estimates say we had 2-3 weeks of resistance left before our defences were weakened to the point where Hitler could have invaded.
But this is where luck came in. A german bomber heading for the Medway shipping yards got lost and ended up bombing London instead. Churchill had standing orders that if London was bombed we would immediately retaliate by bombing Berlin (pure posturing - almost no strategic value at this point). So we did so, and this incensed Hitler to the point where he ordered more bombing of London (The Blitz) and took the heat off the south coast fighter squadrons giving them time to rebuild.

Anyway, the US saved a lot of Euro bacon firstly with the supplies then with the manpower. I grew up in East Anglia (the eastern part of England) - my home village was a B17 bomber base in WW2 (the same base was were Kubrick filmed the first half of Full Metal Jacket) and 3 miles up the road in the other direction was a Mustang fighter squadron. When I was at school we got to meet the veteran pilots of that era and none of them gave us the "you'd be speaking german" speach

Anyway, we Brits will never agree when you say we would be speaking German. If we had been invaded in 1940 the Resistance would still be fighting now!!!!
Strange when you consider most of our royal family are descended from Germans (Windsor is a made up surname for the current crop - their real surname is Sachs-Koburg or something) as was Queen Victoria - easily the most popular royal ever.

Mad world ;p

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 19, 2002, 10:49 am

My 2nd premise said guns are used primarily to kill people.

This premise is even more fucked up than your previous, Xyun. Guns are primarily used for hunting ANIMALS. In Texas and Florida alone, over half a million deer are legally killed every year. Annual statistics of gun violence from Johns Hopkins put the number of people at around 30,000, nationally. Invalid premise, invalid conclusion. Next?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 19, 2002, 10:59 am

guns like knives have multiple uses and many variations on a theme.

certainly some are designed specifically to kill people, while others are designed specifically to kill animals.

thanks for the interesting posts Tancred, i make the posts "youd be speakin german" half in jest. I do agree that invading Britain would have been extremely challenging for the Nazis, and no way you guys would have rolled over like zee Frenchees did.