The wisdom and foresight of Tomfurbs and Trish here on H.A.

[muhmuh]

what about undoing wheel nuts trish?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11...tgun_mechanic/

[Tomfurbs]

History really is filled with examples of tyrants disarming the populace, and is one of reasons the right to keep and bear arms has been enshrined in various political documents; for instance the Protestants demanded the right to keep arms that was included for them in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

This argument gets tossed around a lot, but does it really make sense? I don't have the right to bear arms in my country, but do I feel I have been disarmed by some tyranical govt.? Not really. I would argue that as a citizen of the UK I have more actual rights and freedoms than a citizen of the US, and the ability to carry arms has no bearing on those freedoms.

Also, people who claim that because Hitler disarmed his population gun-control is wrong make as much sense as saying that because he was a vegetarian all veggies are evil.

I cannot think of a single fracas that I or any of my friends have been involved in, where a gun would have helped the situation.

Considering the possibilities of accidents taking place with lawful gun owners, I find people who advocate gun ownership quite incredulous. People are kind of stupid, as a rule, and liable to get drunk and crazy to boot. A populace able to purchase guns relatively freely is a less safe one, IMO.

@ SarahG, I wasn't being exclusive. But looking at the crime situation in the US, it would be blinkered if one ignored the ready availablity of firearms as a factor in the crime situation of that country. Either way, would you want to live next door to someone who owned guns?

[NYBURBS]

History really is filled with examples of tyrants disarming the populace, and is one of reasons the right to keep and bear arms has been enshrined in various political documents; for instance the Protestants demanded the right to keep arms that was included for them in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

This argument gets tossed around a lot, but does it really make sense? I don't have the right to bear arms in my country, but do I feel I have been disarmed by some tyranical govt.? Not really. I would argue that as a citizen of the UK I have more actual rights and freedoms than a citizen of the US, and the ability to carry arms has no bearing on those freedoms.

Also, people who claim that because Hitler disarmed his population gun-control is wrong make as much sense as saying that because he was a vegetarian all veggies are evil.

I cannot think of a single fracas that I or any of my friends have been involved in, where a gun would have helped the situation.

Considering the possibilities of accidents taking place with lawful gun owners, I find people who advocate gun ownership quite incredulous. People are kind of stupid, as a rule, and liable to get drunk and crazy to boot. A populace able to purchase guns relatively freely is a less safe one, IMO.

@ SarahG, I wasn't being exclusive. But looking at the crime situation in the US, it would be blinkered if one ignored the ready availablity of firearms as a factor in the crime situation of that country. Either way, would you want to live next door to someone who owned guns?

With all due respect, this is a weak argument that gets beat to death. Because there are irresponsible people we should ban possession by everyone. I can drive down the street on any day in the US and see dozens of irresponsible drivers. Do we prevent everyone from driving because of the few? Why not ban cars and only allow government operated Mass Transit. I'm sure this would also cut down dramatically on motor vehicle related fatalities.

I have had firearms all my adult life, from the military to employment. People live next door to me, I've never heard a complaint (possibly because I've never done anything to disturb my neighbors, and certainly not with a weapon).

As for the fact that you don't feel as if you've been disarmed, you really haven't been because you've never owned one to begin with. You were born into a system of essentially no guns and have never known differently. Your entire continent is a millennium (plus) long example of tyrants, wars, etc and perhaps you may feel differently one day.

I understand that you look at this from a practical view, where much of my argument is for the bogeyman in the closet. But just because you have not been molested by it doesn't mean it's not there, or not a dangerous possibility. At the end of the day, what is good for Europe is not necessarily good for America.

[SarahG]

Either way, would you want to live next door to someone who owned guns?

Would I? Honestly I wouldn't give a shit either way. If you're my neighbor and want to own a firearm- sure go ahead, whatever blows your skirt up.

I can't even think of a time where I've lived next door to someone who didn't have a firearm.

The only time I have ever had someone next door to me be a problem, it wasn't due to guns. Of these times- and they were rare (I've lived in more places than I can easily count), the neighbors in question were either drug dealers (small time, either growers or the street's pharmacy), or illegals. The problem with the drug dealers was never with them individually, hell one of my drug dealer neighbors at one address fixed my leaky sink just to be a good neighbor- the problem was with the customers who would show up at all kinds of odd hours, sometimes so intoxicated that they didn't even know how old they were. These customers were a problem, not because the were violent or destructive- because they generally left stuff alone near their supplier, but because they'd be annoyingly loud (if the dealer wasn't home they'd just stand at his front door banging on the door real loud and yelling assuming he was just ignoring them... drug dealers have to go grocery shopping too you know! ) . In the case of illegals, the problems I've had were mostly annoyance-thefts, like stealing my gasoline out of my car, breaking off my locking gas cap to get gas, lifting packages that are left on my door by shippers- stuff like that.

Next door neighbors aside, most places I've lived were far from being a "high crime area," and I usually don't live in cities or anyplace where you're really close to your next door neighbor. Where I live now is an apartment, which for me is unusual, and it isn't in a high crime area (it is actually pretty isolated, to the point where even pizza delivery guys can't seem to find the place). But because it is isolated I sometimes find that gangs- who don't even live in the area, will use this street and others like it to dump stuff like gutted stolen cars, purses that they've picked apart etc. In either case none of that has been aimed at us, so it isn't a problem for me personally. The police know about it, which maybe why we're left alone the way we are (I really don't know).

I'm a gun owner myself but I don't have any of my guns at this address, and I haven't had any neighbors who knew about it complain to me over it. They were inherited, each piece has been in the family for generations (the one has been in the family for over 150 years). In the "real world" they'd be considered antique firearms for the most part, as in pieces that antique gun specialists and collectors would have, buy, sell etc and half of them are models that I have seen regularly in museums- but the law defines an antique firearm as something so old that it is impossible to supply it with ammunition (the problem here is that just about everything going back beyond revolutionary war flint lock rifles can still get ammunition- there is no such thing as a side or long arm that meets this statute). The guns I don't circulate but I have a lot of weapons, and military artifacts (not firearms) that do regularly get lent out to museums.

[SarahG]

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

I bookmarked this page so I could go back to it and read it, having now read it I have a few comments:

-The facts, evidence it presents I did not see to be obviously flawed, I agreed with most of his conclusions.

-But it appears to be a work aimed specifically at German history in these years. This is to be expected, since he succeeds in, Imo correctly, showing that gun control was not a sequence in the raise of the nazis in Germany.

The nazis certainly met resistance when occupying or trying to annex other lands, some of these resistance groups were more organized than others, some had more international support (like from England) than others, but nonetheless gun ownership & availability in certain areas under Nazi occupiation were tied to civilian resistance movements, and i know there where such examples from France, Italy and what was at the time the Soviet Union. I think they were rare, and I really cannot comment from a historiographical point of view, how historians have since judged the effectiveness of these groups (they could have been nothing more than an annoyance for the local German patrols, I can't say). I also do not know if Germany made any efforts- in the 30s and 40s, to disarm civilians in nations they invaded (France, Poland, parts of Russia, etc).

I do know, that in August of 1914 this was a whole other story. In August 1914 the German invasion force in Belgium conducted gun seizures from civilians, and the Belgium government also went around confiscating firearms from their own civilians.

There were two different reasons for this. WW1 at first was a war of time tables, and the invasion centered on defeating belgium, then france before England could arrive, and then once England arrived this was adapted to mean conquering each nations' military before they could combine (since Germany was grossly outnumbered). Because time was stressed so much, the Germans were afraid angry belgium civilians would put up an armed resistance, slowing down the invasion. This was the reason behind the Belgium atrocities; Germany explained their atrocities were only a responses to insurgency risks- and would post notices saying they'd kill the whole town if they find they've been shot at, and there are reported instances where towns in 14 were partially rounded up for this as a response to being shot at by non-civilian snipers.

The Belgium gov took this in an other direction, they knew how the Germans would react to civilian insurgency so they collected guns from shopkeepers, villagers etc hoping that it would decrease the odds of an angry civilian with a death wish taking pop shots at the Germans as they passed through.

So the question I have is two part, first did the Nazis engage in weapon seizures in occupied or enemy territories, and second how effective were the armed civilian resistors in these same lands (i.e. France, Russia, Poland etc)? In 14 they must have anticipated it to be an effective problem hence the over-kill response executing towns worth of women & children, burning that one archive, and making sure the civilians knew not to try to resist... alternatively it is possible that if nazi gun confiscation in these lands occurred while there were not any effective civilian resistance groups (without international aid) then perhaps this could be "fighting the last war syndrome."

[Tomfurbs]

As for the fact that you don't feel as if you've been disarmed, you really haven't been because you've never owned one to begin with. You were born into a system of essentially no guns and have never known differently. Your entire continent is a millennium (plus) long example of tyrants, wars, etc and perhaps you may feel differently one day.

What? The UK hasn't been invaded since 1066. And we've had a universal franchise for a good few years more than the US. So that paragraph makes pretty much no sense at all.

Smallarms were outlawed in my country in my lifetime, after the Dunblane massacre in 1996. It was one of New Labour's key election issues. Do your research pal.

Cars are designed to drive people from A to B. Guns are designed to kill things. Yes there is a difference.

@ SarahG: you have a lot of faith in human nature. I once lived next door to some guy who collected snakes. Was he a responsible adult? Hell no. Did I feel safe living next door to him? Hell no. Would I feel safe if he owned firearms? Hell no.

There is a massive difference between US attitude towards gun-ownership and European attitude. What you both need to aknowledge ( and Uncle Sam needs to acknowledge) is that Europe is a lot older than the US. Therefore we just might have a better handle on how a civilised country should conduct itself. You never know... one day America might learn from it's neighbours instead of assume it is better than them.

[chefmike]

Enemies of the republic

The number 23.

It's coming for you, Nino.

[chefmike]

As for the fact that you don't feel as if you've been disarmed, you really haven't been because you've never owned one to begin with. You were born into a system of essentially no guns and have never known differently. Your entire continent is a millennium (plus) long example of tyrants, wars, etc and perhaps you may feel differently one day.

What? The UK hasn't been invaded since 1066. And we've had a universal franchise for a good few years more than the US. So that paragraph makes pretty much no sense at all.

Smallarms were outlawed in my country in my lifetime, after the Dunblane massacre in 1996. It was one of New Labour's key election issues. Do your research pal.

Cars are designed to drive people from A to B. Guns are designed to kill things. Yes there is a difference.

@ SarahG: you have a lot of faith in human nature. I once lived next door to some guy who collected snakes. Was he a responsible adult? Hell no. Did I feel safe living next door to him? Hell no. Would I feel safe if he owned firearms? Hell no.

There is a massive difference between US attitude towards gun-ownership and European attitude. What you both need to aknowledge ( and Uncle Sam needs to acknowledge) is that Europe is a lot older than the US. Therefore we just might have a better handle on how a civilised country should conduct itself. You never know... one day America might learn from it's neighbours instead of assume it is better than them.

You gotta admit one thing, Tom. The Brits don't need guns. They have kidney pie.

[Tomfurbs]

You gotta admit one thing, Tom. The Brits don't need guns. They have kidney pie.

Trust Chefmike to home straight onto my one weakness! I have no argument against steak-and-kidney-pie! None whatsoever.

You win everything, chef!

Incidentally, I present my Sunday afternoon hangover cure:

[muhmuh]

The UK hasn't been invaded since 1066.

it is my continental european duty to point out that you conveniently forgot to mention that it was invaded by the french

as for the germans disarming the belchans... have they ever even once noticed that the english and the germans fought out their differences on belgian soil before the war was over?