Guns...

[Kurt Codean]

@ Codean, exactly right. That was the longer version of what I wanted to say. /default_smile.png 

Right on Bro!

 

[julimond]

I don't wanna start a problematic thread here, but what the f*ck is up with you Americans and your guns. Seriously, what's the deal? Can someone explain?

Over here in the Netherlands we kee laughing about those guys on CNN after school shootings, telling everyone to get more guns and to arm teachers etc. That's so maniac! I think with regard to this topic, there is a GIGANTIC cultural gap between the USA and Europe.

Were you guys also laughing when Anders Breivik killed 77 people in Norway in 2011? 69 of them were killed by gunfire. And what's up with that Pilot who recently intentionally crashed a passenger plane into a mountain that was going from Spain to Germany? Yeah I would say you got your fair share of oddballs there too.

Action needs reaction....so what do you expect from guys who took the action in buying a gun.

So bad that the law is working like that.....

 

[PTFC]

I'm not averse to the US gun laws at all codean. But your understanding of the revolutionary war is a little oversimplified. Firstly, the UK was at that time a constitutional monarchy, as it still is, parliaments members elected by the people passed laws and suchlike as they still do, the Crown is merely a figurehead or The Head of state. The colonists wanted representation at parliament, but it goes a little deeper than that. We were only a decade or so past from throwing the French out of Quebec and keeping them out of British North America (now Canada) Many of the North East coast colonies had asked for British Army and Royal Navy protection from another possible French invasion and so this was done. The main problem started, not with "No representation " but with the British government expecting the colonies to contribute to the cost of stationing around 50-80 thousand troops there, whilst we were also fighting various other wars at the time. It was essentially a political war when you add in the admittedly ridiculous taxes that were imposed and split the colonists so much, that afterwards, many of the loyalists made haste for Canada in fear of their lives. There were several times that the continental Army could have been wiped out and the revolution put down, but Sir William Howe I think it was, felt that it was a travesty Englishman vs Englishman and refused to do so, notably at New York. Many of the colonists were loyal to what they considered their mother country. In any case, by he time a political solution was found, which was self governance within the auspices of the empire of the colonies that wished to do so, it was too late. Then the French and Dutch got involved on the revolutionary side to exact revenge upon Britain for their past defeats. In any case, what emerged was a fledgling nation, with much in common with its former mother country, and still has, culturally and politically. As I said though, I have no problem with the firearms legislation in the US, I don't live there, it's an internal matter for you folks. Gun crime exists in the UK too. 

 

[Kurt Codean]

I'm not averse to the US gun laws at all codean. But your understanding of the revolutionary war is a little oversimplified. Firstly, the UK was at that time a constitutional monarchy, as it still is, parliaments members elected by the people passed laws and suchlike as they still do, the Crown is merely a figurehead or The Head of state. The colonists wanted representation at parliament, but it goes a little deeper than that. We were only a decade or so past from throwing the French out of Quebec and keeping them out of British North America (now Canada) Many of the North East coast colonies had asked for British Army and Royal Navy protection from another possible French invasion and so this was done. The main problem started, not with "No representation " but with the British government expecting the colonies to contribute to the cost of stationing around 50-80 thousand troops there, whilst we were also fighting various other wars at the time. It was essentially a political war when you add in the admittedly ridiculous taxes that were imposed and split the colonists so much, that afterwards, many of the loyalists made haste for Canada in fear of their lives. There were several times that the continental Army could have been wiped out and the revolution put down, but Sir William Howe I think it was, felt that it was a travesty Englishman vs Englishman and refused to do so, notably at New York. Many of the colonists were loyal to what they considered their mother country. In any case, by he time a political solution was found, which was self governance within the auspices of the empire of the colonies that wished to do so, it was too late. Then the French and Dutch got involved on the revolutionary side to exact revenge upon Britain for their past defeats. In any case, what emerged was a fledgling nation, with much in common with its former mother country, and still has, culturally and politically. As I said though, I have no problem with the firearms legislation in the US, I don't live there, it's an internal matter for you folks. Gun crime exists in the UK too. 

Hey I wasn't directing any of my previous comments about Europeans towards you PTFC, it was more so directed towards the OP from the Netherlands. I accept your explanation and I guess what I've always heard is that the Colonies wanted independence so they wouldn't have to pay taxes to the UK. I also thought that the Crown was more directly involved in affairs back then and that the Parliament came about more recently but I guess I was mistaken about that. I don't want to get into conspiracy theories, but I've heard that the war for Independence and the war of 1812 were both the direct result of the Colonies refusal to allow the big bankers which had a pretty good grip on Britain and all of Europe to get charters to open National banks in America. The war of 1812 was basically instigated by European bankers after the American president at that time refused to renew the charter for the 2nd National American bank. I've read your other posts and you said that Britain was a great trading partner with the Southern Colonies. I believe that is true, and also Britain supported the Southern States in their war for secession. However I believe the Southern Exports were also traded with other European powers like France and Spain, both of whom also supported the Confederacy and whom wanted to increase their empires by establishing their presence in the Western and Southern parts of what is now U.S. territory. France wanted to attack Britain  in the early 19th century, but never were able to do so because Napoleon was defeated by Prussia which was led by Otto Von Bismarck. Later on Napolean III sold the Louisiana territory to the States for a small amount of money which he needed for European wars. Spain wanted to create a Mexican empire which was really just a tool for France at that time and moved in troops along the Southern border with Mexico to take advantage of the Civil war that was going on in America. I think what neutralized the French and English support for the South was when the Russian Tsar sent his naval fleet to New York and San Francisco and threatened to declare war against England if they entered the American Civil war on the side of the South. It seem like a very delicate balance of power existed between the Major European countries at that time. Also I believe you are right about Americans being culturally similar to Britain and in essence like a child born from it's mother country, England. After World War 2 it seemed like America took over much of the territory that was previously held by Britain, but I think a time will come when like Britain, America will lose it's position of dominance in the World. 

 

[PTFC]

Don't worry, I know you were referring to the OP, the UK has always stood on the periphary of Europe and historically looked for a delicate balance of power in Europe, whilst remaining dominant. Our main enemy was always the French, and we defeated them time and time again, indeed, the war of 1812 we were also fighting Napoleon in alliance with Austro-Hungarian empire and Prussia. France would never had been able to invade Britain, mostly because it was an act of parliament that the Royal Navy had to be bigger than the next 2 biggest navies of the world, usually France and Spain, and remained so until the first world war when it was repealed. Napoleon tried though, but the French Navy was tiny compared to ours at the time. We didn't really support the southern states in the civil war though, we acknowledged them as the belligerents and indeed, many Britons emigrated to fight on the unionist side, we had effectively banned slave trading in the 1820's and frequently intercepted slaving ships. The only bone of contention was a few private individuals selling arms to the south, and if i remember correctly we were building ships for them, and subsequently didn't deliver them. What I said about the south before is that as colonies they were worth more in monetary terms than the Northern ones because of tobacco etc. In any case, after the revolutionary war we still held much of the carribean islands and in time, we traded peacefully with the US. The war of 1812 is an interesting one though, the main reason was the fact that Britain was preventing the US from trading with France and impressment of US merchant sailors into the Royal Navy along with a few other things. It is seen here in the UK as part of the napoleonic wars which in 1815 we managed to finally defeat Napoleon for good at Waterloo. After which followed the longest peace Europe had known in centuries, up until the first world war albiet a minor war with Russia in the crimea in the 1850's. The war of 1812 finished status quo ante bellum, stalemate, no boundary changes. We were concerned the US wished to push into Canada also. I like my history codean, colonial British history especially, it's a pleasure to discuss it with you! There is a great parallel between current US foreign policy and 18th/19th century UK foreign policy. We had 3 wars in Afghanistan in the late 19th century, all part of "the great game" to stop Russian expansion. The only difference now is technology. Great lessons should be learned from the past! The US never took over any of our colonies, we just granted them independence one by one to whoever wanted it. We still hold many overseas territories, mostly islands dotted about the globe. Indeed we went to war with Argentina in 1982 when they had the gall to invade the Falklands. 

Another interesting thing, which is relevant today as we see Russia sabre rattling is that, after the Germans defeat by the Allies, Prime minister Churchill who didn't trust Stalin one bit, proposed we continued the war against the Russians, but the US was reluctant after a long war , but I think history and the present goings on there show Churchill had the right idea.

Anyway, guns, BANG BANG BANG. ?

 

[Kurt Codean]

@PTFC you are right that the Southern States being the economic power house of the United States prior to the Civil War. In addition to tobacco they also exported lots of Cotton to Britain and France. The Northern States were basically were industrialized and made products to sell to the South but was far less lucrative than the value of the Southern States' crops. The North also basically had terrible working conditions and in some cases being a free worker in the North may have been worse than being a slave in the South. I think Britain was neutral during the American Civil war but considered involvement  for a while. There were mixed opinions in Britain which side to support though. Trade was still taking place with Britain during the Civil war, so it seems like it would have made more economic sense for them to Support the South. Also the Civil war made America a weaker nation which would have been easier to exploit by the major European nations, but I guess the balance of power in Europe at the time prevented anyone from taking sides in the Civil war. I think the reasons you mentioned for the war of 1812 are true, but  I also l believe it was European based bankers which caused the war of 1812 and also precipitated the start of the Civil war in America. The charter for the First Bank of the United States was created in 1791  and was to last for 20 years. It expired in 1811 and the renewal of the charter was blocked by some senators. As soon as that charter couldn't be renewed all of the sudden conflicts began to arise between Britain and America, which made no sense really since they still traded with each other. After the war of 1812 the Second Bank of the United States was created in 1816 under president James Monroe. That bank also was charted for 20 years and was not renewed in 1837 because President Andrew Jackson recognized that central banking was a corruption. In order for the bankers to re-establish their central bank in America they had to create another war, and this time it was a War between the North and South. This war would not only make America a weaker country as a whole, but it would cause both sides to borrow lots of money in order to fund their battles. I believe the abolitionist movement was spread in the Northern States in order to create hatred against the South, At the same time the Secessionist movement spread through the South, which put the Southern State were made to fear a loss in equal representation in congress if new territories in the West were added to the country as non-slave States. Both of these movements could have been caused by agents planted by central bankers, just like Communism was used to overthrow the Russian Royal family and establish a central bank over there. This may seem far fetched by the dates of these wars and the expiration and renewal of the Banks of the United States coincide with the beginning and ends of the wars. After the Civil War ended the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913. Abraham Lincoln decided to use the US treasury to print his own currency at one point but then he was assassinated. The Constitution of America says that only Congress has the power to print money through the treasury at 0 interest, but for some reason the U.S. has always borrowed money from privately owned central banks at interest. Every President who tried to put a stop to that and follow the Constitution's guidelines for printing money was assassinated. There were a total of 4 or 5 presidents that were assassinated. 

You are also right that after Germany was defeated ind World War 2 the American and England should have taken out Russia. That would of been the next logical move. One of the famous Generals of the U.S. Army, General Patton, also expressed the need for this after the end of the 2nd WW. He was killed not long after he made his feelings public in a freak car accident. For some reason the powers that be in America did not want to attack Russia. Russia got a hold of the Atomic bomb secret through American spies, and after that the Cold war began and lasted until 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed. Now there is instability in the world in which nuclear weapons exist. If another war breaks out between these nuclear countries it may be the final war on this planet. 

 

[2earls]

Oh fun! History buffs, I love it.

 

[Meltheangel]

History 101 baby!

My favorite subject 

 

[Scootover88]

Reviving the thread based on the above history lesson (which I find fascinating) to ask, has anyone ever read any of Bill O'Reilly's historical documentaries like Killing Patton, Killing Kennedy, etc? I'm an avid reader, my husband is not, so we came to a truce with audiotapes on long road trips and these are some of our favorites. Especially Killing Patton, as hubby is a WWII and military buff. 

As to the original topic, I'm actually a certified NRA rifle instructor (mostly do kid's and women's courses) and cheif range safety officer, and concealed carry permit holder, so you can probably guess my stance on that. But in my experience, a lot of fear that surrounds guns and the idea that "guns kill people" stems from a lack of understanding and knowledge of how they actually operate and how to use one safely and responsibly. They do have the ability to be very dangerous and it's human nature to fear what we don't understand. I've been hunting since I was a kid, but was strictly a bow hunter for years because while I could shoot a gun accurately, I didn't actually understand how they operated and wasn't well-versed in safety and operation, so they made me uneasy. Once I spent time with solid teachers learning the mechanics and drilling over and over again in safety so that the actions became second nature, I was much more comfortable around them. Now I really enjoy shooting and especially instructing and sharing knowledge. I have 5 guns of my own, 4 of which are pink . Plans for several more as well. And the knowledge that if something were to happen, even as a small woman, I have the means and ability to defend myself and not only have the option of being a helpless victim, is very empowering and helps me feel more secure day-to-day. That's why I love teaching women's classes and helping them gain that knowledge and confidence. It changes them. They stand a little talker, speak a little more directly and I think it's an amazing thing to watch.  

 

[Biteme]

No I think the fear of guns is that there are plenty of them in the hands of people who don't know how they operate, don't know the 1st thing about gun safety & shouldn't even be trusted to get behind the wheel of a car. I have no problems with responsible gun ownership. If people were willing to accept the training that I would expect in a "well-organized militia" I don't even have a problem with them owning machine guns. But when there's resistance to people on a terrorist watchlists or people with histories of violence towards others or serious mental disorders having access to guns I throw up my hands.

 

[Guest]

There really is a massive culture gap between the US and Europe regarding guns.  Whenever there is a mass shooting or the annual murder statistics appear many Americans will justify arming themselves with enough weaponry each, to invade a small county. Too much money is made by too many people for guns to be banned there. Whilst Americans defend gun laws can they really continue to justify 10,000 gun deaths every year?

 

[theview]

Id say guns are alright its the person who owns the gun thats the problem

here in the UK we get arrested for protecting out property lol So its kind of like the stone age for us UK people looking in  at the US gun laws 

 

[Kurt Codean]

@Scootover88 I read  a few Chapter's in Bill O'reilly's book Killing Lincoln, his account is nothing but a rehashed version of the Politically Correct stance on U.S. History, in my opinion it was a shallow look into that event, as I'm sure all of his books were. Also he didn't write the book himself, he had a co-author who probably did most of the writing. I have a feeling his entire series was just attached to his name to sell books as a brand. A money making scheme perhaps.

@Deviltrax I think the figure is more like 30,000 deaths a year that includes suicides, accidental shootings. And yes that is easily arguable because if you look at the number of total deaths per year in the U.S. it's like 400,000 from all sorts of different things like gang violence, car accidents and more.. I forget what the causes were but there is no gun problem in the U.S.. There are much bigger problems. The only people worried about guns are the Government and powerful ant-gun lobbies who want to strengthen the ability to impose there tyranny over U.S. law abiding citizens. As I'm sure you know criminals seem to have no trouble getting guns. Look what happened in Paris, France, a city where there is strict gun control. 

 

[theview]

You are right, but if there are more guns available (like in US), there are a) a lot of accidents with guns, b ) there a more suicides, because a gun is pretty easy to get one, (some suicidal persons, who could be helped with therapy can easy end his life by gun, if they have a short-circuit action) and c) there are so many deaths because of murders.

yea true ..Its always going to be one of them things that wont change ..I would like more guns in the police force ,in the uk anyway but then again the police are under investigation for beating and killing a friend of mines .would they have shot him who knows , it does say something that the US police are over getting trained by scottish police on how to not shoot a criminal .

 

[Kurt Codean]

oh yeah those 400,000 deaths I mentioned were due to accidental deaths caused in hospitals alone. Not gangs or anything else. Just recently a nurse in Oklahoma city accidentally exposed 7,000 patients to the Hepatitis C virus. You're more likely to die by accident In a hospital stay than by a gun. That's something to think about. 

 

[PTFC]

Crikey! That's a LOT of accidental hospital deaths a year, even accounting for percentage of population! I'd agree though, you are also probably more likely to die in a car accident/knocked down than by getting shot in US. 

 

[Biteme]

I don't care about people who want to own guns, but they give you a false sense of security. It is still more likely that a gun in a person's home will be used against someone who lives in that home than against a criminal. The biggest cause of gun deaths is actually suicide. I've had two family members blow their brains out. You can argue they would have attempted suicide anyway, but they would be more likely to use a non-lethal means if they didn't have a gun. One reason men are more likely to die from suicide even though women are more likely to attempt it is that they are much more likely to use a gun. Also shootings are much more likely to be committed by someone who's a friend or family member than by a stranger.

 

[Kurt Codean]

@Biteme that's sad, sorry to hear that. But I think it's still useful to own a gun for personal protection, especially for home invasions. You do have the right to defend yourself and use lethal force to protect you, your family and your property. It extremely hard to own a gun where I live though and I've never owned one. Personally I don't think I will ever need one in this city unless I move out to the country or something. 

 

[Biteme]

I'm not questioning the right to protect yourself. I'm just saying that most people don't approach this subject rationally & that's true for people on both sides of the argument. My oldest brother is a big believer in having a gun for self-defense, but even when he lived in Detroit he never needed one. He also never expected his 17 year old son to use the gun on himself, but that is a real danger, although I'd never say that to him. There are far too many gun owners who are not responsible. I said in an earlier post that I'd be happy to let people own fully automatic weapons if they were required to have the appropriate vetting and training. In Switzerland, most homes have guns but I think people think of gun ownership very differently.

 

[PTFC]

There are certainly cultural differences, in Switzerland I think just about every male between 20-30 is reservist militia. Afterwards they get the choice to keep their Rifle, although it is converted to semi automatic from automatic. SIG 550 I think, though I may be wrong.