Bluenote
Member
UH HUH , you're dodging , the rise in violent crime in Great Britain is undeniable , as is the current trend towards the abrogation of the right to defend one's self , via ANY method.
-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Boston Marathon attack
- Thread starter canuck
- Start date
UH HUH , you're dodging , the rise in violent crime in Great Britain is undeniable , as is the current trend towards the abrogation of the right to defend one's self , via ANY method.
Bluenote
Member
Sorry but Hitler *did* disarm the populace , starting first with those who might have opposed him. As did the other regimes I cited an many , many others.
Bluenote
Member
You're making assumptions again , do I seem to be unaware of what's going on in my own country?
And ya might as well dispense with the " living in fear" garbage. Your constant reiteration on that one and it's attendant assumption rings quite hollow , as does the constant pontificating on " danger" from one who has quite obviously *never* been shot at , never faced the wrong end of a firearm , never been in pitched battle , never been tasked with recon , interdiction , training of indigent forces , and quite likely has ZERO in the way of training or experience with the direct subject that you're attempting to pontificate upon and wax "expert" about.
Must I reiterate again for you that I am ex military and ex law enforcement? And that I was not a line grunt? Some here have already been bright enough to read between the lines on that one and figured out that I'm not a desk pogue.
And danger? Here's a basic reality for you , you're trying to blow smoke up the pants leg of an individual who has been in places long term that would reduce *you* to a quivering , gibbering mass of protoplasm crawling on your belly stinking with the FEAR you claim in others.
How do you think it is that I'm able to point out the errors in small unit tactics in the response by the authorities in Boston? That should have been a clue right there.
Now get back to me when you can point out the differences in the current beretta platform and the previous 1911 platform , when you can run down the operative differences between a Glock and a Sig , when you can explain the why of the current trend towards the .408 Cheytac , the .416s and the the .338 lapua as opposed to the .50 bmg rifles and why the latter will end up in an anti material tasking , when you can actually explain the differences and the line of development in the Stoner platform rifles..........and that's just to start.
Lets just get down to brass tacks , *you* know sod all as regards firearms , *you* have never been shot at in any capacity etc.etc.
Indeed your entire " expertise" comes down to rehashed rhetoric sourced from nebulous sources that you quote and requote.
It's ironic that you started mentioning the far right , because in the end you're now coming across as just as ill-informedly and illogically rabid as a whole lotta that crowd does.
When you've spent a few days on your belly in a ghillie suit behind a set of glass gathering intel in the midst of unfriendlys , had your extract called off due to weather and then had to hump it across 50 miles of bad terrain with unfriendlies all the way ya THEN might have some room to run your mouth like your doing , until then you don't.
We straight yet? Have an idea as to who and more importantly WHAT you're trying to play "expert" with yet?
Source?
The lone gun law we know of is from 1938, which is WAY after he took power (1933), and it's a liberal law. Hitler (like Stalin, like any dictator worth their salt) knew that a properly terrorized opposition could be generally controlled. He just marched up to the opposition and smashed them. That's been his tactics for years before he even took over.
Again, sources?
As for the Stalin example, that one is just as misleading. He did pass a gun law but it's from 1928/27, after the opposition had already BEEN crushed, without much resistance.
I looked up the dates and the gun control law is from 1928 and in 1927 he raided the big farmers with basically no resistance. and these were the rich people. these were the people he sent to the camps. The Kulaks were the enemy (Russia at that time was basically an agrarian society), the rich fatcats, and if anyone could have resisted it was them. they also bankrolled the Whites, the major opposing party to the Communists. after crushing the whites, stalin just tried (and succeeded) to grab all power to him, killing more than half of the reviolutionaries that fought alongside him. He was a paranoid monster.
Gun control was not a practical measure, it was basically a completist measure.
Again, as with Hitler, the rhetoric: "gun control came first..." doesn't pass the litmus test.
There is one relevant fact: the Weimar Republic weapons laws were super restrictive and between 1933 and 1938, the Nazis made a point of enforcing them in the most narrow manner. They used them to search the houses of Jews and political enemies etc. But these were democratic laws.
Another aspect: the Nazis on one side, and the Communists on the other had fighting troops in the streets before 1933, and each side did indeed try their utmost to steal the other side's weapons. This has nothing to do with gun control, but it happened. In part, the rabid belligerent nature of political discourse on the margins of democracy led to the restrictive 1928 laws in the first place. Sound familiar?
Landslide
Well-Known Member
Why would one have to know any of those things to be able to express an opinion on gun ownership law? I get that you're in the military and I get that you have inside experience and knowledge none of us has, but that doesn't mean other people are not allowed to have and to express their own opinion. I'm not an american but I do believe freedom of speach is another one of the rights garanteed by the american constitution?
I'm not trying to provoke you, Bluenote, but it seems to me you're being too agressive towards those who do not share your opinion and, in my opinion, when people start doing that, they just loose credibility and risk ending up talking to themselves...
Conscious Bob
Well-Known Member
I'm dodging... I don't see what the overall crime figures have to do with my point unless you're advocating we all give them guns and let them blow each other away. Incidentally I made a couple of mistakes, the overall homicide rate for England and Wales published in 2012 is 551 of which 9.3 percent were gun related.
Peder
Well-Known Member
Including Meadow?
Peder
Well-Known Member
Meadow you are out of control.
You did say that fear of one's life and a good lawyer were the only circumstances under which one could go "scott free," your phrase.
Second there was no intimation in my post whatever about mowing down intruders with assault rifles or with impunity either.
Save your lessons, they are exceedingly condescending.
And there I stopped reading. You have run out of content and are now on Ignore.
May the good Lord help me to keep you there.
Most sincerely
Peder
Bluenote
Member
Yeah right , I'm being too aggressive after being mischaracteised , having words put in my mouth , having borderline ad hominem aimed at me along with implied stupidity and hearing chapter an verse about firearms and defense from an individual who has quite likely no experience with either.
Sure thing , and if your measure of " credibility " is finally getting irritated at the constant strawmen , doublespeak , hypocrisy , and assorted rabbit trails , all of which continue to ignore the *realities* then I'd rather think that it states a great deal more as regards your emphasis and viewpoint than it does me.
Expressing an opinion and indeed open discussion and debate is one thing , the tactics exhibited by some individuals here are quite another.
And frankly it you're going to pontificate upon firearms to others then it damned well behooves you to have some actual knowledge of 'em , if you're going to yap about "violence" and your entire arguement/experience is " well I live in a violent country" in response to an individual who has faced , responded to , diffused and dealt with the aftermath on a daily basis in both military situations and civilian LE scenarios , well then ya haven't much of a leg to stand on.
I have consistently been middle of the road in this , I have mischaracterised nobody , nor did I slag off entire countries. I have pointed out that I don't feel that everyone is suitable to own a firearm. I have pointed out regimes wherein the disarming of the populace has contributed to the deaths of many tens of millions.
In return , because I refuse to subscribe to some Pollyanna notion that the entire world should immediately lay down all it's weapons and things will instantly be hunky-dory , rosy , puppies and kittens.........well all of which I cite has transpired.
Mankind is a violent creature , this has been so since weapons consisted of rocks and is indeed nothing new , and that factor is not going to change , those who wish to dominate others will seek to do so , be the employed weapon a nuclear missile or the one at the end of ones arm or the ballot box , all the strawmen in arguement and the assorted hypocrisies attached to them won't change that basic fact one iota.
Hugh
Member
Your experience with violence in the military or LE doesn't mean jack shit to me. And it doesn't preclude anyone from giving their opinion, either. See that header up top of your browser? It says "forum". Where people come to chat. Everybody here who registered a handle has permission to give their opinion. You have no right to tell them they don't have a leg to stand on.
Bluenote
Member
And again with it , please show us ALL wherein I ever at any time advocated firearms ownership for everyone? A singular example will suffice.
And you are going to deny the crimes of violence are you? When you remove the victims recourse to self defense you allow criminals a field day to operate with impunity.
Will you also deny the 80 percent plus increase in firearms crime In the U.K. in the last decade , where it's virtually impossible for a law abiding citizen to obtain a firearm?
Contrast that with the American state with the highest percentage of firearms owners , 60 plus percent.......Wyoming where murders in the last year overall can be counted on the fingers of your hands.
Again , the fact *remains* that the locales in this country with the strictest firearms laws , that constrain law abiding citizens from owning firearms have the highest crime rates.
I have given you a former LEOs perspective , I was paid to deal with this crap *directly* on a daily basis and facts will remain facts.
I'm done with this , with being mischaracterised , having words put into my mouth and direct experience discounted , especially from those with no direct experience with violence and it's aftermath , defensive measures and whom merely seek a convenient scapegoat and pollyanna solutions.
Bluenote
Member
Oh for crying out loud , wherein did I state that it precluded anyone whomsoever giving their opinion? Show me where , and I damn sure DO have a right to tell 'em they don't have a leg to stand on , even more so when they engage in hyperbole without any experience.
And of course it doesn't mean " jack shit" to you , I'd hazard a guess that nothing that doesn't agree with *your* opinion means such.
And YEAH it does say " forum" , doesn't say ' Hugh's Forum' , therefore you have indulged in nothing save hypocrisy.
Last Warning: Chill Out or face Time Out.
Landslide
Well-Known Member
I'm repeting myself here but, again, one does not to have to be an expert on firearms to be allowed an opinion about them. Or on any other matter for that instance. And I realise that you have the kind of experience none of us has but I would be willing to give it a lot more credit if you expressed it in another way. I guess that does state something regarding my emphasis, but then again I'm more partial to people who can state and defend their opinions on a calm and orderly manner.
As for the Pollyanna notion you refer to, I do think the world would be a better place if the entire world would lay down all it's weapons although it would never be perfect. I'm not naive and, as you stated, mankind is violent. But the amount of damage one is capable of inflicting with a knife or a rock is not comparable to the one done with a firearm.
As for my opinion on the matter, I do believe a complete prohibition of guns in the US is utopic because they are very much ingrained in society. But I think if the argument for owning them is security and protection, people should only be allowed to own one firearm. One per person. And the screening of who should be allowed to possess one should be tighter. As should be access to ammunition.
To be honest it scares me to know that there are separatists militias arming themselves, and preparing for some kind of war, and I'm not even an american.
Will
Active Member
Might I ask where you got that information from? It's just according to Home Office data compiled by the Institute of Economics and Peace: "violent crime rate was down by about one quarter - from 1,255 per 100,000 people in 2003, to 933 in 2012".
Further, according to the Institute of Economics and Peace the UK has seen the "fastest decline in violence of any country in Europe", with weapon crime down 34% and public disorder offences down 29% in the last 5 years. Total homicides in the last 5 years are also down 28%. Also - UK homicides per 100,000 people have fallen from 1.99 in 2003, to one in 2012.
The report detailing these statistics can be found here. There's also a piece on the BBC News website detailing this and a few other related pieces of data relating to violent crime in the UK here.
So, I would suggest that the rise in violent crime in the U.K. is far from undeniable.
Hugh
Member
Yeah, well, your food is still bland. Eating a shepherd's pie is like eating a box of Kleenex. You guys ever hear of salt and pepper? Tabasco sauce?
