re: AR-15 The NBC news report is the same one that I heard quoted on talk radio, which led to my initial belief that only hand guns had been used. I think Stu and BuckT posted statements from the coroner and the sheriff that this was not so... re: patriotic movement I've hit a black hole here. I'm not familiar with this particular situation, but I would appreciate any info on it so that I can learn.
Jim, my best guess based upon Tom's reference that the "British military practically ran so fast they left most of their armament behind" suggests the time of the destruction of the British army at Dunkirk and subsequent evacuation from the beaches wherein they were forced to leave huge stores of their supplies and equipment behind. After Dunkirk and the fall of France, at Churchill's urgent pleas, Roosevelt pledged the US as the "Arsenal of Democracy" and began supplying vast amounts of military equipment via "cash and carry" and subsequently the more famous "Lend Lease" program. I have to believe that the notion the NRA was a driving force behind the resupply effort is found only in NRA PR materials.....
Whether or not it was NRA Pr material or not, the US was in a position to help a nation that blindly deprived their subjects the right to bear arms. Why not discuss the details rather than attack the source?
Tom, just having a little fun....not trying to attack anything. To me it's just like poking fun at Al Gore for inventing the internet.....the NRA has done a great many fine things I'm sure, but being responsible for the resupply of the British Army after Dunkirk ain't one of 'em.... The destruction of the British Army by the Germans at Dunkirk is a well known historical event. That the Brits were at fault and "blindly deprived their subjects the right to bear arms" and hence unable to defend themselves from imminent Nazi invasion is just classic rhetorical overreach. They were at risk from an invasion of a modern military juggernaut because their army had just been destroyed in battle and the English Channel ain't very wide....... Under similar circumstances, had our army been destroyed by a superior force in battle, we would be at risk also - no matter how many homeowners possessed guns - unless they maintained stores of armor, rockets, artillery, ammo and other heavy infantry weapons in their garages. That is just more over the top rhetoric practiced by both sides of this debate. Those of us in the middle just shake our heads..... While they do in fact have more restrictive gun laws, at present in England and Wales, there are millions of weapons in the homes of millions of citizens. Far from unarmed, target shooting and hunting remain quite popular sports in the UK today....... I just saw a poll that suggested that 85% of households with an NRA member is now supportive of universal background checks. Recent statements by NRA officials lead me to be encouraged that something positive can be done.... I hope we can find common ground on this issue and result in some helpful legislation.
I wasn't around in the 30's and 40's so can't really speak to the truthfulness of the claims. I think that you are distorting somewhat the NRA statements. Having more fun than a man can stand. :wink: I have not read it claimed that the NRA tried to rearm the British military. I do believe that there was a movement to collect various firearms and send them over to help in the civilian defense movement in Britain, as indeed they had been pretty much disarmed. Unless you count those millions of pheasant and target shotguns. I read an interesting article about an NRA member who sent a couple of his rifles over to England and decades later by coincidence got reunited with one of them. It sounds very quaint...sending a few thousand civilian arms over to try and stop the entire Nazi army, but (according to my understanding...not my memory) civilian defense was very big at the time. Over here after Pearl Harbor we took some steps out of fear of a Japanese invasion that seem quite bizarre retrospectively. FWIW (you can take it or leave it) here is the information from the NRA history page;
Fair enough....my reading of what Tom posted suggested that the rearming was for the military destroyed at Dunkirk and the timing was also consistent with the Roosevelt's efforts to open up the "Arsenal of Democracy". I have seen you make similar references several times in the past. Deer hunting (stalking) is quite popular in the UK with harvests of about 350,000 per year and seeking even larger harvests to control the booming herd population. It's amazing how well they can bring down such a large animal with bird shot from a pheasant gun! :wink: In truth the UK deer hunters use the same weapons that we do here in the US..... http://www.countydeerstalking.co.uk/rifle-calibres.aspx
All sarcasm and "gotcha's" aside, I think that we are in agreement about what England's system is, though the statistics I find are a bit different than yours; http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/gun-ownership-firearms-certificates 1.8 million firearms, nearly 1.4 million of which are indeed shotguns. They completely ban handguns, and have very strict registration and licensing requirements on all rifles (and shotguns with magazines greater than 2 shells)...even to the point of home inspection. A more honest argument would not be about whether or not England is "disarmed" (we are just going to disagree on that) but rather if we want to go down the same road. Their gun violence record is certainly better than ours though the reports that I see indicate that theirs is on the rise while ours is clearly decreasing. Then if we do want to go down that road, there is the 2nd Amendment to deal with. I don't think you can become as stringent as England without another amendment.
Many of the data that I have referenced encompass the entirety of the UK, not just England and Wales as the data you referenced. Parts of Scotland are very much big time deer hunting country.... Not to play gotcha but the data that I have seen is indeed just the opposite in terms of trends....note this data is also England and Wales lnly http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales We are agreed....I would not be supportive of "going down the same road" and don't believe it necessary to go that far and still have a meaningful impact. As it relates to the second amendment, we as a society have long put up with common-sense restrictions to our constitutional rights - freedom of speech, free press, assembly - when the general welfare of the people is at risk. I believe that is where we stand today. My view is that we can do the same as it relates to gun control..... Recent polls have shown that sizeable majority of NRA households would support universal background checks, yet the NRA is still officially opposed. Will the NRA change their position and allow something to get done here?
I guess it depends what you read; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html Yeah, I know...1999...but the article was from January, 2013. And there is this from 2009; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html Again...we are just playing gotcha with stats...pointless.
Why would anybody use 13 year old data in an article? That is pretty weird....not your reference, but the guy that wrote the article. I can't agree that it is entirely pointless, but I can see, as was stated in the more recent article, that many stats are not comparable due to classification differences between countries. However, the more specific the dataset becomes, e.g., murder, the more comparable they become in my estimation. All that said, if there is a source that can contradict the overwhelming volumes of data that suggest that we have far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world, I would be very interested to see it......at the end of the day, that is the problem in my opinion
To be sure, but there are, I believe, multiple societal causes for that. If we are blaming the guns, then we should be talking about a ban on handguns, not rifles. And if we are talking that, then we better be prepared to make big changes...i.e. the amendment thing. Rifles of all kinds account for only a tiny fraction (3%) of firearms homicides, and so-called assault weapons only a fraction of those. The FBI doesn't even seem to have data on "assault rifles", perhaps because it is a made-up term. I prefer the term "modern sporting rifle." 8)
Stu, I don't blame guns per se....but it is clear that we have too many guns in the hands of those unworthy of their possession. I don't believe we will ever get to a handgun ban given the Supreme Court ruling and the second amendment but we can make meaningful progress in limiting weapons in the wrong hands by instituting universal background checks and registering and licensing all weapons and owners. Perhaps controversial for some, but a "no-brainer" to me.....indeed if the NRA would step up and support universal background checks it would be a done deal and a done deal is what we need. "Assault" weapons and high capacity mags....not so much for me, but many are adamant about their inclusion in any new control regs. Not a perfect solution, nor will it eradicate all gun violence but a meaningful one and a step in the right direction, imo. For the life of me, I can't understand the NRA's resistance to universal background checks, particularly in light of the polling results that suggest 85% of homes with an NRA member are in support.....seems as if they are more focused on catering to the radical fringes of their membership......
I can tell you why the NRA taks the "radical stance" as you call it. Lets look at this analogy: All negotiations require compromise at some point to come to an agreement. I think we are in agreement here or at least I hope we are. When you go in to buy a new car, they ask what you want to pay. You start out at Zero, or at least I do. I make them make the first offer having research in my back pocket to make an educated guess as to what it will take to buy this car. I then determine how much more they are quoting than what I am willing to pay and subtract that difference. For example. If I am willing to pay $45000 and they come up with $50000, I offer $40000 hoping to hit my $45000 or less at the end of the negotiations. If I don't get to the desired number, I walk out. The NRA knows that the liberals are going to offer eradication of guns (eventually) so they offer NOTHING with the actual expectation that something is going to have to be given up but they are not starting there.
That was my statement based upon recent polling that found 92% of all surveyed and 85% of households with an NRA member were in favor of universal background checks. My view is that the outlying 15% of most issues are radical or perhaps extreme is a more accurate description..... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_1...gun-background-checks/?tag=nl.e879&s_cid=e879 Not gonna happen Tom, that is just more propaganda coming from the gun lobby. Until the overwhelming majority of the people in this country want to eradicate guns, no politician can wave a magic wand and deem it so.....our country is still governed by the people. As it stands the overwhelming majority of the people do not support any ban but do wish to see more effective and stronger gun controls.... I hear what you are saying about NRA negotiating stance and I get that, but let there be no mistake, they are the biggest impediment at present to legislation enabling universal background checks and will be acting contrary to the desires of 92% of the people and 85% of their members.....
I wonder how many people said that in Great Brittan? You know, if you throw a lobster in a pot of boiling water, he'll try his best to jump out of the pot. If you put him in room temperature water and gradually increase the temp, you'll cook him without him ever knowing it. The Brittish people were cooked over several acts that finally eliminated their freedom. Do you want us to be slow cooked in the same way?
The Brits (gun owners and avid hunters amongst them) that I know are quite happy with where they are at and don't feel as if they have been boiled in any way, shape or form.....they do however have some questions about our society in light of recent events If they felt otherwise, they too as we do here in the US, live in a representative democracy and can throw the bums out and tell them to change the law.....I'm just not buying the whole dictatorial, totalitarian central government conspiracy theory about a weapons ban contrary to the wishes of the people.....in truth, the majority of the people in this country want more strict gun control laws
We are not a "majority rules" country...we have a constitution...so far. If 50% of the country says "who cares?" then it is merely a piece of paper...a museum piece. I don't much care how happy the folks in England are. There are plenty of folks there (and in Australia) who are not so happy. Got no big issue with universal background checks. I don't particularly wish to be registered as a gun owner nor do I want to have each of my guns registered and on some list to be looked up. It did not decrease the homicide rate in happy ol' England and I don't think it would here. Register sex offenders and criminals, please. If that makes me some kind of crazy radical in your mind, so be it...I can live with it.