Gun control...

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything,

I am confident
that u are a lot MORE INTELLIGENT than u pretend to be.
The anecdotal evidence, as u choose to characterize it,
demonstrates the PRINCIPLE that is sought to be shown.
Intellectual honesty demands that u answer
the questions that are addressed to u on the subject matter.
Instead, u ignore them. I say that is because u cannot refute the principle.

izzythepush wrote:

the figures speak for themselves.
You're far more likely to suffer a gunshot wound in America than Britain.

While Mrs. G was fighting for her life
she was probably not interested in STATISTICS.
Incidentally, I understand that a lot of the anti-gun statistics
have resulted from intentional fraud, motivated by anti-freedom ideology.

I will not take my chances in England.
My guns and I will remain in America.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

My guns and I will remain in America.

That's something else to be grateful for.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

There would have been U-boats out there with the little boats...

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Well as you're making making it all up, why stop at U boats? Why not include the Red Skull with all his fiendish Nazi weaponry?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

David wrote:

My guns and I will remain in America.

izzythepush wrote:

That's something else to be grateful for.

On THAT we can agree, Izzy.

David

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

You're basically claiming that rifles were not a meaningful part of warfare in 1940.

One person who would have disagreed was George Patton who described the M1 rifle as one of the super weapons of WW-II; he noted that the rifle was still the most basic weapon of war and that any sort of a major advantage in that most basic weapon was a gigantic factor.

Another person who would have disagreed was Isoroku Yamamoto, who was the only Japanese flag officer to have spent time in the US prior to WW-II. This occurred at a very high level meeting months prior to Pearl harbor. Another participant asked what the big deal was about, why not just invade the West coast of the US with sufficient force and have done with it.

Yamamoto replied that the problem was not the 200,000 guys in uniforms but rather the 50,000,000 lunatics with their own high powered rifles, and that there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Even a couple of hundred committed guys with rifles in their hands can create major problems for just about anything or anybody.

2 Replies

Why is this STUPID topic in the philosophy section?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Why is this STUPID topic in the philosophy section?

What interest could a stupid person such as yourself possibly have in philosophy?

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

YES!
"The greatest battle implement ever devised." General George Patton

David

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

You're basically claiming that rifles were not a meaningful part of warfare in 1940.

No I'm not, I'm claiming the second hand guns sent over in 1940 did not play a meaningful part in WW2.

2 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

What interest could a stupid person such as yourself possibly have in philosophy?

Smart guys believe Peruvians rode dinosaurs.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

gungasnake wrote:

You're basically claiming that rifles were not a meaningful part of warfare in 1940.

izzythepush wrote:

No I'm not, I'm claiming the second hand guns sent over in 1940 did not play a meaningful part in WW2.

That was never the allegation,
for the reasons that I have just posted (on the last page hereof).
When we sent u our guns,
we had no way of knowing that there 'd be no infantry invasion
of England because the 3rd Reich was distracted to its East.

It is not OUR fault if the Germen did not invade u.
Send your complaints to the German Ambassador to England.

( U borrowed our guns ANYWAY. )
U did not pay interest on those loans.
It seems to me that if u borrow a hunting rifle for a couple of years,
then morally, u shoud pay at least an additional Derringer.

David

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

No I'm not, I'm claiming the second hand guns sent over in 1940 did not play a meaningful part in WW2....

You don't have any idea what sort of **** England HAVING those rifles prevented. Even twenty or thirty thousand German commandos loose in England with rifles if England didn't HAVE any rifles would have been a total nightmare and they could have landed that many people in small boats on an overcast night or from U-boats on the far side of England or Scotland somewhere and there would not have been a thing in the world the RAF or the British navy could have done about it.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

So Germany decided not to send any raids into Britain because they found out that a load of second hand rifles had arrived from America? Do you have any proof of your ridiculous allegations?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

( U borrowed our guns ANYWAY. )
U did not pay interest on those loans.

This is completely off topic Dave, but nonetheless we paid a heavy price for the war. At the end of the war the UK was pretty much bankrupt, American debt was not completely paid off until Tony Blair's period in office. The only export we had was coal, all the good coal was exported leaving poor quality, high sulphur coal. This caused incredible smogs in London in which people died. Rationing was far more extreme in post war Britain than during the war itself.

Perhaps you should satisfy yourself with the fact that America escaped bombing and emerged as a superpower, though what this has to do with gun control I don't know.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

( U borrowed our guns ANYWAY. )
U did not pay interest on those loans.

izzythepush wrote:

This is completely off topic Dave, but nonetheless we paid a heavy price for the war.

U DID. The price 'd have been lower, if u 'd stopped Hitler 's advancements, earlier in his career.
Blame Neville Chamberlain n those of his ilk (the same ilk that undermines the self defense of each English subject).

izzythepush wrote:

At the end of the war the UK was pretty much bankrupt,
American debt was not completely paid off until Tony Blair's period in office.

U were more honorable than the French.

izzythepush wrote:

The only export we had was coal, all the good coal was exported leaving poor quality, high sulphur coal.
This caused incredible smogs in London in which people died. Rationing was far more extreme in post war Britain
than during the war itself.
Perhaps you should satisfy yourself with the fact that America escaped bombing and emerged as a superpower,
though what this has to do with gun control I don't know.

U didn 't like my little joke?
I was hoping that u woud (or that u 'd give me a Derringer).
That 's another joke; I 'd be afraid to use a Derringer.
U know that thay actually sell them in .44 caliber ?

David

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Your use of the term "second-hand(TM)" is what's ridiculous here. American firearm owners typically keep rifles in significantly better shape than you'd ever have found in any army in the world in 1940.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Actually, two exceptions to that general rule in Sweden and Switzerland, neither of which Germany has ever invaded. The Swiss K31 rifle was pretty much the ONLY reason for that turning out the way it did, neither Hitler nor anybody in the German military wanting any part of facing those things while looking uphill.

1 Reply

Izzy,
suppose that your favorite person (or favorite people)
were abruptly beset with predators, giving rise to a dangerous situation.

Woud u want them to possess the means to CONTROL that emergency,
to defeat the threats and to survive the emergency ?
even if that required killing the threats (human or not) ?

Will u reveal that information to us ??

David

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

The Swiss kept the Nazi gold safe, and the Swedes were already selling their coal and other resources to the Nazis. Rifles had nothing to do with it.

1 Reply

Gun control...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know