Here is another wonderful story of the British character. It is enough to warm the cockles of the heart.
This is eerily similar to my 85 year old aunties last trip to her optometrist.
Woman, 81, killed in street mugging ‘ignored by passers-by as she called for help’
An 81-year-old woman, who died after being mugged in the street, was ignored by passers-by as she cried for help.
Police said that Molly Morgan sustained head injuries suffered in the attack on her from behind - yet people who could have helped her thought she was drunk.
She was left on the pavement for 10 minutes before eventually being taken to hospital on Thursday evening, but died the following day from her injuries.
A post-mortem examination gave cause of death as head injuries. She also had a broken left arm and multiple fractures to the left side of her face after being dragged to the ground during the attack.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:What if the Americans are right and it is not particularly a good idea not to want to own any guns?
…i went on a little road trip last september, to the Ardennes, and wanted to make a detour into Germany where, as far as i understand it, small caliber handguns are sold over the counter, and get me one. I never got round to it on that trip, but still would like to buy one…
…but, as far as i’m concerned, there aren’t pressing reasons for the dutch to be able to own guns. I’ve been a doorman for eight years, four of which spent on the Rembrandt square in Amsterdam, and during that time i’ve never encountered a weapon of any kind. Guns aren’t prolific over here, and the chance that you are mugged on the street by someone carrying one is small. I have never been mugged, robbed or threatened. I do not know of someone who has been mugged or robbed at gunpoint [or with any weapon]…
…what reason is there, at this point in time, besides wanting a gun just for the coolness factor, to own a firearm in Holland at the moment? Actual reasons, not what might happen in the future…
[/quote]
Holland is a nice country because it has been relatively affluent for quite some time. So the society there has evolved to be very orderly. But make no mistake the rest of the world is not like that.
Britain used to be very orderly and peaceful with low crime too. Not many countries in this world were like that either. The British Labour government has thrown all caution to the wind with it’s policy of unrestricted immigration from the most lawless in the world.
As bad as things are today in Britain they are nothing compared to some of the countries who have sent millions of people to Britain. But the Labour government does not care that they have imported lawlessness.
The same thing could happen to Holland in a very short period of time. There is not that big of a population that it could absorb and assimilate a massive influx of people from a lawless land. Look at how quickly Malmo Sweden has changed in the last decade.
Too many Europeans are totally taking their freedoms and their civil societies for granted. There is no conscious thought given to the idea that freedom and civility need to be protected.
Europeans just reassure themselves that by saying “it can’t happen here” and go on taking everything for granted. Just like how the Weimar Germans attitude about the Nazi’s was “it can’t happen here”.
Then they make fun of Americans as backwards rednecks when they say it can happen here so we need to be ever vigilant in defense of our freedom.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:What if the Americans are right and it is not particularly a good idea not to want to own any guns?
…i went on a little road trip last september, to the Ardennes, and wanted to make a detour into Germany where, as far as i understand it, small caliber handguns are sold over the counter, and get me one. I never got round to it on that trip, but still would like to buy one…
…but, as far as i’m concerned, there aren’t pressing reasons for the dutch to be able to own guns. I’ve been a doorman for eight years, four of which spent on the Rembrandt square in Amsterdam, and during that time i’ve never encountered a weapon of any kind. Guns aren’t prolific over here, and the chance that you are mugged on the street by someone carrying one is small. I have never been mugged, robbed or threatened. I do not know of someone who has been mugged or robbed at gunpoint [or with any weapon]…
…what reason is there, at this point in time, besides wanting a gun just for the coolness factor, to own a firearm in Holland at the moment? Actual reasons, not what might happen in the future…
[/quote]
But you do own a gun almost exclusively for what might happen in the future, because the gun should already be there when you need it.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
No. Britain’s class system applies very much to politics. The vast majority of British politicians are very much career politicians who have no significant experience in life other than being politicians. The only reason why most of them did mundane jobs was to pay the bills while they were waiting to get into government.
ie Labour front bencher Harriet Harperson the minister for Equality is the niece of the Earl of Longford. Former Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was her cousin.
[/quote]
You have already embarrassed yourself by showing you don’t understand your own political system, don’t compound it further. You clealrly have no understanding of the make up of the commons. All that is coming out here is a standard yank fear of British Aristocracy. Don’t worry, you don’t need to curtsy.
Stick to the point and stop rambling god damn it, I have agreed with you that there were serious problems with the UK CJ system, and you say I am crazy. Are you just arguing against anything that is written for the sake of it?
Any chance you want to back up this wild statement?
So because Australia is a huge country with a very spread out population and lots of areas where there is not very much police pressence, reporting of crime will be far higher than in a smaller more controlled country and that is why you chose Australia as being similar to the UK even though by your own argument it is different to the UK and similar to the US.
Wow, that’s a coherent argument.
[quote]Not at all. You keep rationalizing every fact you are confronted with. There are specific quantifiable reasons why some parts of the US experience a lot of crime while most of the country experiences very little crime.
[/quote]
So by your arguments there is absolutely no need for people in most of the US to have a gun, unless they are planning to overthrow the government, which they of course won’t because the US government is all about freedom and not like that nasty British government.
Your rationalization about the vote in Brazil is the evil gun lobby must have used the Jedi mind trick through some kind of magical use of words. It is because you absolutely refuse to admit that maybe, just maybe the gun manufacturers presented their case in a way that was logical and made sense to the overwhelming majority of people.
[QUOTE] Brazil has a population of 200 million people. A $5 million dollar advertising budget to reach that many people is not a lot. The EU spent more than that in it’s failed attempt to get the Irish to vote in favor of the EU Constitution and there are only 5 million people in Ireland.
[/quote]
You ask me to present the information, I do, now it is irrelevent!
Oh and of course advertising costs in Brazil are totally comparable to Ireland.
The point is that the gun manafacturers spent what they needed to in order to win. They had more available money than the yes vote and they used it to maintain their business. Which is of course totally sensible. If you make guns, you want people to buy them.
Your point being?
[quote]You are the one who keeps claiming that he is speaking for the whole world. Yet you have provided not one poll that supports you. I on the other hand have presented referendum results from one of the worlds largest countries.
[/quote]
OK, I’ll repeat the question. Was the vote indicitive of world opinion? You have stated yes and no in separate posts. Please clarify your position.
[quote]No the way decisions are made in the UK is the commoners elect a party of political class elites who make promises that they don’t intend to keep. Then when they get into power they proceed to ignore the peoples wishes and do whatever they feel like.
ie. I2005 the Labour party said that they would hold a referendum on the EU constitution. They never held the referendum and an essentially unelected Prime Minister had to sneak into Lisbon to sign it.
The reaction of the British people as was to be expected was spineless, non existent and demonstrative of no character.
[/quote]
Please, please, either stop talking about the UK political system, or at least read up on it.
We don’t vote for a party, we vote for a local representitive. The commons is made up of mostly normal everyday people. Yes Labour has gone back on promises and it has been bashed for it. Because of this and other issues Labour will probably not have a majority in the next election. This is how democracy works in the UK.
[quote]Since it is a lot easier for gangs to threaten and kill unarmed people it makes a lot of sense that the drug gangs would have supported the yes vote. It is also quite obvious that if the drug gangs have no problem getting ahold of drugs to sell that they would have no problem getting ahold of guns either.
[/quote]
Another contradiction from you, you previously stated that there wasn’t any negative propoganda. This is exactly an example of it.
[quote]Not at all. We are people who are just like them. We share the same genes. We face the same issues of crime and the ever present threat of government tyranny that all people face. We have come to the same conclusion as to the correct answer.
[/quote]
Whereas most of the rest of the world disagrees, are they genetically different then by your argument?
[quote]I have presented you with plenty of statistics. Yet you have still not presented election results to back up your claim that you are speaking for the entire world.
[/quote]
What the hell are you rambling on about now? Election results? To what?
[quote]If anyone is trivializing it is you. School shootings account for an extremely small fraction of all violent crimes but they are repeatedly brought up by gun control nuts in order to fear monger and push their agenda.
[/quote]
I have never said anything other than that they are rare, horrific and something that is easier to happen in an area where guns are easier to get hold of.
Are you retarded or lieing? If it wasn’t an international news story how do you even know about it?
I am not arguing for criminalisation of guns, please, please, please stick to the argument.
[quote]Obviously an 11 year old wouldn’t be packing. However there were adults in the area. If the gunman’s calculus had to include the possibility of a third party opening up on him as he gunned down the 11 year old he might not have been so quick to shoot. But that wasn’t my point anyway.
My point again is that a school aged kid shot and killed another school aged kid. The law that was trumpeted as being something to keep school children safe from being shot failed.
There have been scores of unnecessary adult deaths because of a law that has failed to achieve it’s stated purpose.
A law that prevents adults from having self defensive firearms has failed to prevent a 16 year old criminal getting a gun and killing an 11 year old. If you can’t see something wrong with that picture there is something seriously wrong with you.
The Rhys Jones case is most relevant to this discussion. But you don’t want to debate it because you know you will come out the loser.
[/quote]
So you would advocate adults having a shoot out in a public place with kids now?
[quote]I have news for you. It is much easier to buy guns off of the black market than it is to go through the FBI background check.
You don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to violence in the US. There are plenty of areas in this country that are just as safe as Switzerland and have just as many guns.
[/quote]
But I thought everyone was in mortal danger, that’s why they need the guns.
[quote] When you talk about all the violence in this country what you are really referring to is just a small handful of ghetto areas that are populated by a minority group that has had a lot of bad things done to it and have a lot of problems as a result.
[/quote]
Figures that are still far below those in the US so your argument doesn’t add up.
[quote]This doesn’t change the fact that legally owned guns are used to shoot people illegally in the US and at an alarming rate.
Bullshit. The majority of guns used in crime are illegally owned.
[/quote]
Could you back that up? How large a majority are we talking? There are thousands of gun crime events so just saying a majority doesn’t really paint the picture.
[quote]Bullshit. The only people who are kept from owning guns are the ones who obey the law. And people who would not otherwise break the law are forced to become criminals if they want to be able to defend their lives. It is bullshit.
[/quote]
Try looking up the word impeded in a dictionary. And again you are equating a gun as the only way to defend your life. You are right, that is bullshit.
[quote]They are not as rare as they used to be before the 1997 gun ban. Plus the British compensate for a lack of guns by using other deadly weapons that honest people can’t defend themselves from.
[/quote]
They are not as rare as they used to be before 1994 either or 1980. There was no sudden spike after 1997 due to the fact that you were not allowed to own a gun for self defence purposes at any time since the 40s.
So are you arguing that the war on drugs increases crime rates? (I actually agree with this but it has nothing to do with the argument.)
A less competitive drugs trade is a good thing. Also, what the hell has this to do with US attitude to guns? Please try to stay on track.
Air ambulance crashes are irrelevant and you know it, so why mention them? Is it because you want to pad the really short post that you were writing?
[quote]Nothing like Britain’s. But that was just a legal disclaimer because someone spilled hot coffee on themselves sued Mcdonalds and won. So stop being a retard.
[/quote]
What about the ‘may contain nuts’ warnings on packets of nuts? Is this another example of how the US has a higher level of common sense?
[quote]Your whole argument has been based upon serious exaggerations.
[/quote]
Whereas yours is based on solid fact, except when you disagree with yourself, or misrepresent numbers or randomly pick countries to talk about or choose to take reports from a newspaper that is ridiculed in the UK or ramble off into a totally unrelated argument.
Yes they did, it was registered. Also as the person was not allowed to use their legally owned gun for self defence, how would it have effected the crime figures?
[quote]What permissive attitudes? The vast majority of American gun owners handle their guns responsibly.
[/quote]
Another word for you to look up. Permissive.
[quote]Are you crazy? In Britain the people are completely dependent upon the government for protection and security because they are not allowed to do it for themselves. Since the government isn’t too interested in taking care of them they are fucked.
[/quote]
No. In Britain, if we need garbage taken away, we leave it to the dustbinmen. If we need surgery, we go to a surgeon. And if there is a criminal act taking place, we call the police.
If I were in a bank with my wife and daughter and someone walked in with a gun to hold up the bank. The last thing I would want is some Johnny Rambo have a go hero pulling a gun and trying to resolve the situation.
In a country where they have warnings about coffee being hot and nuts containing nuts, are you really, truthfully and honestly comfortable that Joe Public is going to sensibly use their hand gun in a well trained safe manner?
[quote]No. The has sought to systematically render the British people as dependent upon it for everything in their lives as it possibly can.
The Labour government is committed to achieving abslute control over the British people. Welfare dependency is one rung of the ladder, security dependency is another. The way things are going they will eventually have a database recording everyone’s emails, phone calls, movements, DNA etc… The British will just sheepishly go along with it because they are a nation of spineless sniveling cowards who don’t have the stones to stand up for themselves.
[/quote]
Or they will vote Tory at the next election.
So just because some dumb gangs in a small part of one city in the UK choose to name their gangs after the first part of their postcode (E5 actually represents hundreds of postcodes as does E9.) You surmise that every postcode in the UK has a gang? How stupid are you? And I see that you just love sensationalist headlines (this time from the Beeb whose standards of journalism have been dropping like a stone in recent years.)
[quote]You know damn well what my point was. Besides the Tiananmen Square massacre did not happen in the sixties dumbass.
[/quote]
I was talking about a typical 60s attitude of being fearful of the Reds. And I don’t know what your point was. Are you saying that you need a gun to protect you from the Chinese government?
[quote]
Tiananmen square disproves your absurd theory that government tyranny no longer exists in this world so we can now let our guard down and surrender our only defense. [/quote]
OK, yes you are. Hope the tin foil hat isn’t too scratchy.
So you can’t come up with anything on your own, other than to reference a bunch of liberals pissing and moaning.
The mail in the UK is shorthand for xenaphobic rabble rousing. It’s a joke paper, deal with it.
You answer is not good enough. In Britain anyone who simply disagrees with the Labour governments policy of unrestricted immigration and anti-white discrimination is slandered as a racist or called a xenophobe.
You need to prove what you are saying. [/quote]
What policy of unrestricted immigration?
You asked me for a source for stating that the daily mail is toilet paper, xenophobic, badly written and sensationalising. I sent you a link showing that it is used in slang in England to represent exactly those sentiments.
A teaching student was just inches from death after she was glassed in the face by a drunken woman.
Laura Clarke, 21, was dancing with a friend in a city centre club when she was left scarred for life by 23-year-old Lisa Scraggs.
One of the cut narrowly missed her left eye, while a second was just an inch from her jugular vein.
Laura, a teaching student at Manchester Metropolitan University, said: 'The ambulanceman said if the wound had been an inch lower it could have hit the vein and it could have killed me. [/quote]
A lot of this problem could be resolved by changing the type of glass that is used in pubs. When I worked as a barman in Mcr 13 years ago there was lots of talk about it but at the end of the day, the Breweries wouldn’t swallow the cost and claimed that their customers wouldn’t accept the hike either.
Oh sorry, that can’t be true, this has only been an issue since the law changed in 1997. Seriously, give up, this has nothing to do with guns.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Here is another wonderful story of the British character. It is enough to warm the cockles of the heart.
This is eerily similar to my 85 year old aunties last trip to her optometrist.
Woman, 81, killed in street mugging ‘ignored by passers-by as she called for help’
An 81-year-old woman, who died after being mugged in the street, was ignored by passers-by as she cried for help.
Police said that Molly Morgan sustained head injuries suffered in the attack on her from behind - yet people who could have helped her thought she was drunk.
She was left on the pavement for 10 minutes before eventually being taken to hospital on Thursday evening, but died the following day from her injuries.
A post-mortem examination gave cause of death as head injuries. She also had a broken left arm and multiple fractures to the left side of her face after being dragged to the ground during the attack.[/quote]
What the hell has this to do with anything? I could respond by posting every report of a shooting in the US for yesterday, want to guess who will run out of stories first?
The fact that you like the mail does explain a lot though.
Save yourself the bother of going to the site, just click refresh on here
[quote]Sifu wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:What if the Americans are right and it is not particularly a good idea not to want to own any guns?
…i went on a little road trip last september, to the Ardennes, and wanted to make a detour into Germany where, as far as i understand it, small caliber handguns are sold over the counter, and get me one. I never got round to it on that trip, but still would like to buy one…
…but, as far as i’m concerned, there aren’t pressing reasons for the dutch to be able to own guns. I’ve been a doorman for eight years, four of which spent on the Rembrandt square in Amsterdam, and during that time i’ve never encountered a weapon of any kind. Guns aren’t prolific over here, and the chance that you are mugged on the street by someone carrying one is small. I have never been mugged, robbed or threatened. I do not know of someone who has been mugged or robbed at gunpoint [or with any weapon]…
…what reason is there, at this point in time, besides wanting a gun just for the coolness factor, to own a firearm in Holland at the moment? Actual reasons, not what might happen in the future…
Holland is a nice country because it has been relatively affluent for quite some time. So the society there has evolved to be very orderly. But make no mistake the rest of the world is not like that.
Britain used to be very orderly and peaceful with low crime too. Not many countries in this world were like that either. The British Labour government has thrown all caution to the wind with it’s policy of unrestricted immigration from the most lawless in the world.
As bad as things are today in Britain they are nothing compared to some of the countries who have sent millions of people to Britain. But the Labour government does not care that they have imported lawlessness.
The same thing could happen to Holland in a very short period of time. There is not that big of a population that it could absorb and assimilate a massive influx of people from a lawless land. Look at how quickly Malmo Sweden has changed in the last decade.
Too many Europeans are totally taking their freedoms and their civil societies for granted. There is no conscious thought given to the idea that freedom and civility need to be protected.
Europeans just reassure themselves that by saying “it can’t happen here” and go on taking everything for granted. Just like how the Weimar Germans attitude about the Nazi’s was “it can’t happen here”.
Then they make fun of Americans as backwards rednecks when they say it can happen here so we need to be ever vigilant in defense of our freedom.
[/quote]
Of course because their has been no imigration in the Netherlands, that is why the football team is entirely made up of white guys…
OK, so can you tell me when you are referring to that the UK was a crime free idyl? I won’t tie you down too tightly, just give me a decade.
Are you saying that you need a gun to protect you from the Chinese government?
Sifu wrote:
Tiananmen square disproves your absurd theory that government tyranny no longer exists in this world so we can now let our guard down and surrender our only defense.
Cockney Blue wrote:
OK, yes you are. Hope the tin foil hat isn’t too scratchy.
[/quote]
He wasn’t arguing that we in the United States need to protect ourselves from the Chinese government.
He was saying that a potential for a government to abuse its subjects is always prevalent, and the more defenseless the populace is, the more flagrant the abuse.
I’ve mentioned this on other threads, but every genocide, pogrom, cleanse and terror perpetrated by a government against its subjects in the 20th century began with disarmament.
China. Turkey. Russia. Nazi Germany. Guatemala. Uganda. Cambodia. Rwanda.
In every one of these places, the pattern was the same: first register all guns, and license all gun owners. Second, ban the possession of guns, and offer “amnesty” for everyone voluntarily turning in their firearms. Third, conduct house-to-house searches for “illegal” weapons, confiscating all weapons. Fourth, make possession or sale of illegal weapons a capital offense. Finally, slaughter defenseless political or ethnic undesirables at your leisure, and with little worry of reprisal.
No, we really don’t think our own government would do anything like that.
But we’ll hold onto our guns, just the same, thanks.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…what reason is there, at this point in time, besides wanting a gun just for the coolness factor, to own a firearm in Holland at the moment? Actual reasons, not what might happen in the future…
Might’ve come in handy for Theo van Gogh.[/quote]
…well yes, when i decide to antagonize muslims in the bluntest possible way on an almost daily basis, and wave all offers to assign a security detail after numerous threats against my life were issued ánd continue to live in a neighbourhood that dominated by immigrants thén a gun could come in handy for me…
…seriously, i don’t think van Gogh would’ve even considered carrying a gun, because he had the opinion that thát is caving in to threats against his right to free speech, and when you do thát [letting fear control you] you’re not a free man…
…that’s nice and dandy ofcourse, but being dead does him no good either…
Are you saying that you need a gun to protect you from the Chinese government?
Sifu wrote:
Tiananmen square disproves your absurd theory that government tyranny no longer exists in this world so we can now let our guard down and surrender our only defense.
Cockney Blue wrote:
OK, yes you are. Hope the tin foil hat isn’t too scratchy.
He wasn’t arguing that we in the United States need to protect ourselves from the Chinese government.
He was saying that a potential for a government to abuse its subjects is always prevalent, and the more defenseless the populace is, the more flagrant the abuse.
I’ve mentioned this on other threads, but every genocide, pogrom, cleanse and terror perpetrated by a government against its subjects in the 20th century began with disarmament.
China. Turkey. Russia. Nazi Germany. Guatemala. Uganda. Cambodia. Rwanda.
In every one of these places, the pattern was the same: first register all guns, and license all gun owners. Second, ban the possession of guns, and offer “amnesty” for everyone voluntarily turning in their firearms. Third, conduct house-to-house searches for “illegal” weapons, confiscating all weapons. Fourth, make possession or sale of illegal weapons a capital offense. Finally, slaughter defenseless political or ethnic undesirables at your leisure, and with little worry of reprisal.
No, we really don’t think our own government would do anything like that.
But we’ll hold onto our guns, just the same, thanks.[/quote]
He was either equating the US government to the Chinese government or he was claiming that he needed a gun to defend himself from the Chinese government. Either way he is out there…
[quote]orion wrote:…what reason is there, at this point in time, besides wanting a gun just for the coolness factor, to own a firearm in Holland at the moment? Actual reasons, not what might happen in the future…
But you do own a gun almost exclusively for what might happen in the future, because the gun should already be there when you need it.[/quote]
…then that is no reason for me to get me a gun. I forsee no pressing reasons in the near future that requires me to get a gun. I choose not to live my life in fear of what might happen, and won’t take precautions based on that fear. I think that is fairly reasonable, but if the shit does hit the fan eventually, i simply have to accept the consequences whatever they may be…
[quote]orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:What if the Americans are right and it is not particularly a good idea not to want to own any guns?
…i went on a little road trip last september, to the Ardennes, and wanted to make a detour into Germany where, as far as i understand it, small caliber handguns are sold over the counter, and get me one. I never got round to it on that trip, but still would like to buy one…
…but, as far as i’m concerned, there aren’t pressing reasons for the dutch to be able to own guns. I’ve been a doorman for eight years, four of which spent on the Rembrandt square in Amsterdam, and during that time i’ve never encountered a weapon of any kind. Guns aren’t prolific over here, and the chance that you are mugged on the street by someone carrying one is small. I have never been mugged, robbed or threatened. I do not know of someone who has been mugged or robbed at gunpoint [or with any weapon]…
…what reason is there, at this point in time, besides wanting a gun just for the coolness factor, to own a firearm in Holland at the moment? Actual reasons, not what might happen in the future…
But you do own a gun almost exclusively for what might happen in the future, because the gun should already be there when you need it.
[/quote]
The first time that I ever really needed a gun I didn’t have one. Despite the fact that I knew that I was going to be in a bad area and a friend of mine had offered me one just in case. But because I didn’t want to run the risk of a felony arrest I went out defenseless and almost paid for it with my life. Even though I am still alive the sheer stress of the experience probably has done some damage to my health.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
OK, so can you tell me when you are referring to that the UK was a crime free idyl? I won’t tie you down too tightly, just give me a decade.[/quote]
How about at least three decades? I don’t know about crime-free and idyllic, but the period of time between 1900 and 1930 looks pretty tame. 2.4 indictable offenses (crimes serious enough to be tried by a jury) per thousand in 1900, as opposed to a peak at 109.4 in 1992.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The first time that I ever really needed a gun I didn’t have one. Despite the fact that I knew that I was going to be in a bad area and a friend of mine had offered me one just in case. But because I didn’t want to run the risk of a felony arrest I went out defenseless and almost paid for it with my life. Even though I am still alive the sheer stress of the experience probably has done some damage to my health. [/quote]
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
OK, so can you tell me when you are referring to that the UK was a crime free idyl? I won’t tie you down too tightly, just give me a decade.
How about at least three decades? I don’t know about crime-free and idyllic, but the period of time between 1900 and 1930 looks pretty tame. 2.4 indictable offenses (crimes serious enough to be tried by a jury) per thousand in 1900, as opposed to a peak at 109.4 in 1992.
I have no data for petty crime. Presumably it was consistently high throughout history?[/quote]
Yes you have picked a really quiet period there, First World War, Great Depression, Partition of Ireland.
It was also a period where the government in the UK was predominantly Liberal and when the Labour party had it’s first prime minsiter so this doesn’t exactly tie up with Sifu’s rapidly unravelling beliefs.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:…what reason is there, at this point in time, besides wanting a gun just for the coolness factor, to own a firearm in Holland at the moment? Actual reasons, not what might happen in the future…
But you do own a gun almost exclusively for what might happen in the future, because the gun should already be there when you need it.
…then that is no reason for me to get me a gun. I forsee no pressing reasons in the near future that requires me to get a gun. I choose not to live my life in fear of what might happen, and won’t take precautions based on that fear. I think that is fairly reasonable, but if the shit does hit the fan eventually, i simply have to accept the consequences whatever they may be…
[/quote]
The problem, I do not believe you and neither do you.
