{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by BrayerIncognito:
11/3/2014 7:36:11 PM
15
OK gun owners of the US I would like to ask a small question. Before I do I would say I am from the UK and not pro-gun, but that has little to do with the question. I agree it is not a gun that kills someone it is the owner. I just think it makes it easier for someone who is that way inclined to kill someone with such easy access to guns. Anyways....
I am currently having a spat lower down the thread with a guy who I believe is from the US and possibly a gun owner who honestly believes that more people are killed here in the UK each year with baseball bats than are killed in the US with a gun. I mean there is no reasoning with the guy. I thought he might be a troll but i'm not so sure. I was just wondering how many other people would believe this so called fact?
Disclaimer: please refrain from flaming this person if you happen upon our conversation, this is simply to see if others think the way he does.
Edit: Also I know this is slightly off topic but is of interest and I think is in the general contexts of some of the discussions being had.
English
-
The guy arguing with you is misinformed. But our right to own firearms is about more than defending ourselves from murderers and hunting for food. Its about the people being a threat to our government, should it fall into tyranny. It isn't about a bunch of school kids in Connecticut or patrons at a movie theatre. Its simply a standing warning that the populace is armed and capable of fighting back. The US was established through war and rebellion, not through subjugation, like in Europe.
-
Maybe the Europe of old but not today. Civil war and rebellion is one thing (though still a terrible thing as life is lost) but fighting back an invading force lead by a few who are hell bent on your entire destruction is another. Apart from what happened at pearl harbour the US was never that close to a full invasion unlike what Europe went through during WWI and more so in WWII. Sure you guys have gotten involved and helped a lot in conflicts over the years but having the enemy so close to your door in such a real way changes a country. I'm going off on a bit of a tangent now but I know there is a lot of stuff chucked around about Americans being up themselves and there is a culture clash sometimes between the 2 sides of the pond but I can honestly say that after what happened at the world trade centre we over here really felt your pain. It was a pain we understood to well after the blitzkrieg and wished no one would have to feel again. The way you guys came together as a country was amazing and shows great strength, just never allow fear and paranoia to take it's place.
-
It wasn't meant to be a knock. The US fought away from tyranny, we did not trade one king for another. We fought to empower our people, that is very different from Europe's history and I believe in the psychological impact of that.
-
Edited by BrayerIncognito: 11/3/2014 11:21:19 PMI know but where you fought away from a monarchy we simply removed their power though politics. The queen is nothing more than a face on a bank note or a postage stamp. She holds no real power anymore and what she costs to keep she gives back in tourism revenue. A figure head she may be but she also knows her place in British society now. God save the queen and all that but god help her if she ever tried to interfere with political issues or the way the country is run. Edit: also tell that to the French aristocrats who lost more than their power!
-
After the french overthrew their monarchy they almost got another one in Napoleon.
-
But the monarchy still exists. Does your monarch not have the power to dissolve parliament?
-
Edited by BrayerIncognito: 11/3/2014 11:32:12 PMShe can dissolve parliament after a maximum 5 year term (to stop any form of dictatorship starting) or earlier if asked by the current prime minister, but she has to ask for an immediate election for a new prime minister. Also she has no power to create new laws, she just puts her seal of approval on some of the more important ones that parliament pass. She is not even aloud in the houses of parliament with out knocking first and asking permission.
-
Back to the point at hand, our firearms are a warning to whoever runs the country, "If you become a tyrannt, we will take you out and start over."
-
That as an idea is good, but as we have seen time and time again when a tyrant takes charge he normally has control over the army. He who controls the army can control the country ergo why so many generals attempt coups. This leads to civil war and bloodshed and forces the tyrant to rule with an even harder iron fist. Most countries that descend into this kind of civil war, civilians vs army, normally end up needing out side help.
-
In you're example, those people didn't know freedom.
-
The army is made up of citizens... one's tasked with defending the people of the US and the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. A would be king would not have all the military at his call.
-
Again the idea is sound but in reality it doesn't work that way. Isn't it every army's job to defend their country? Oh a lot of those countries have known freedom or why else would the civilians stand up and fight. A lot of these places unknowingly voted in their dictator, they just love the power so much they won't let it go and democracy fails, a tyrant is made and he uses fear to keep control. A lot of tyrants start with the little things. Start with a simple curfew or a bit of marshal law, you know, to uphold the rights and safety of people. That way the military are put between the public and the tyrant. The military start to become the focus of civil frustration and aggression as they are on the front line and in turn the military more and more see civilians as threats. Thus the military can be manipulated more by the tyrant against the civilians, especial with a few good generals in his pocket.
-
Depends on how the politics are played out. If the Tea Party crazies try to stir up a revolution, the people will more than likely rally to protect the current government. It would be a rag-tag group of would-be soldiers against the military. They would lose in the absence of outside support. Now, if the government started taxing people at 99% to provide funds for the President's golfing hobby, then perhaps there would be a chance for a violent revolution where the military does not protect the government. To the original point, though: There are over 11,000 gun homicides annually in the US. If there are over 11,000 homicides with clubs in the UK annually, then the poster you were talking with is correct. I find this doubtful.
-
Edited by BrayerIncognito: 11/4/2014 12:17:26 AMThere was only 551 homicides in the UK last year in total. That includes all forms of weapons (guns, knives or bats) or any other means you could use to kill someone.
-
So then you're right, he's a loon, and we can all move on happily. :)
