Anti Gun Control propaganda by stealth

heavymental

Has anyone noticed all this bllsh1t stuff appearing on Facebook that in a roundabout way is getting the message into heads that gun control is the reason the Nazis succeeded and therefore it's essential that the yanks hang onto their right to bear arms? So they can fight off the Nazis when they come knocking at their doors.

I'm finding it hard to believe how people are falling for such a basic tactic. This is the latest article that is doing the rounds http://blog.beliefnet.com/on_the_front_ ... z2H1AFUfiS ...the same text accompanied by a picture of the speechmaker and getting shared all over Facebook by normally sensible people.

The other day I read a claim that Japan didn't invade the USA because they were concerned that lots of people had guns. I would have loved to have seen the memo from the Japanese; In the face of all the geographical and logistical problems of invading America, the problem was hicks with shotguns. :roll:

Then there's that guy ranting at Piers Morgan on his show. My god it's depressing. Has anyone got a link to a decent article with some stats that show that everyone owning guns doesn't make for a peaceful society?

RonB

Try "Bowling For Columbine" but be prepared for the odd face palm or two. Depressing stuff.

heavymental

Didn't get around to seeing that when it came out. What depresses me about the latest stuff is how it's popping up on Facebook posts from friends in the UK under the guise of some other point. I guess lots of people don't actually bother reading all the text on some of these things.

daviesee

Heavymental wrote:

Didn't get around to seeing that when it came out. What depresses me about the latest stuff is how it's popping up on Facebook posts from friends in the UK under the guise of some other point. I guess lots of people don't actually bother reading all the text on some of these things.

Some of these things are sent out by Apps automatically on people's behalf's because some people are too lazy to check their privacy & App settings.
I have just had to sort out my wife's and the things that she had unwittingly signed up for was shocking, from a privacy point of view.

mbthegreat

Loving all this stuff like "Hitler socialized our medicine" without mentioning the same thing happened across much of Europe in the same period, and the food rationing, without mentioning that again, the whole war thing meant food was rationed everywhere.

pinno

Heavymental wrote:

... and getting article with some stats that show that everyone owning guns doesn't make for a peaceful society?

viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=12895085&p=18038867#p18038867

I'm loving it. The real red necks are coming out of the woodwork. The guy who had a rant at Piers Morgan had an argument that was so seriously flawed and illogical, but despite this, I think he really believed the garbage that was coming out of his own mouth.

tiredofwhiners

Did you see the nutjob CEO of a security firm who posted a video on Youtube and said, very clearly, that if the government tried to take away guns, he would go out and kill someone ?

Naturally, he had his gun licence withdrawn and pulled down the video and issued a re-edited version minus the threat...... except lots of folks have been reposting the original despite his ranting threats against them. Now putting to one side the rights and wrongs of the specific argument, what sort of moron goes online and posts death threats and expects to not be taken seriously ?

Never underestimate the stupidity of the Americans in the 'red' states - the states where shoe size = IQ

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/1 ... 59456.html

Phil Fouracre

Scary bloke - Is it me or are all Americas weird - apologies to all those who are probably perfectly quite normal

marz

tiredofwhiners wrote:

Did you see the nutjob CEO of a security firm who posted a video on Youtube and said, very clearly, that if the government tried to take away guns, he would go out and kill someone ?

Naturally, he had his gun licence withdrawn

Which means squat as you don't need a license to own guns. The concealed handgun license means you can carry in public. There is no federal requirement to owning a gun, the only two restrictions are that you are not a felon and are not crazy. It's easier to buy a gun than buy a car, hence the mess.

daviesee

Phil Fouracre wrote:

Scary bloke - Is it me or are all Americas weird - apologies to all those who are probably perfectly quite normal

Population of over 311 million.
Assume 1% weirdos = 3.11 million weirdos.
Give them access to the internet and guns and here we are.

PS:- i before e, except after c. And in weird. Weird.

finchy

daviesee wrote:

PS:- i before e, except after c. And in weird. Weird.

The "ei" in weird is a diphthong (2 letters which make different sounds contained within a syllable) that I don't think that "ie" could make in English - the "ear" sound. I'm sure I'll keep myself awake tonight thinking of examples which contradict what I've just said and squirming in agony, knowing that my stupidity can be viewed by anyone connected to the Internet.

DesB3rd

would have loved to have seen the memo from the Japanese;

I've seen this quote (something like "I'm less concerned about the US army than the 200 million armed civilians") used often as an example as IJA/IJN bombast/chauvinism rather than in connection with the firearms control issue; so I'm inclined to believe something at least similar passed the lips, albeit flippantly (they weren't complete fantasists!), of an IJ grandee.

Though it might be thought that you're clutching at straws if you're attempting to support an argument via a throw-away, 60 year old statement from an individual whose caste were not know to be questioning thinkers, and indeed which might never actually have been said....

daviesee

johnfinch wrote:

daviesee wrote:

PS:- i before e, except after c. And in weird. Weird.

The "ei" in weird is a diphthong (2 letters which make different sounds contained within a syllable) that I don't think that "ie" could make in English - the "ear" sound. I'm sure I'll keep myself awake tonight thinking of examples which contradict what I've just said and squirming in agony, knowing that my stupidity can be viewed by anyone connected to the Internet.

= attempt at humour = not meant to be taken seriously.

finchy

^^^ I know, but as an ex-English teacher I thought I could bring the joy of knowledge to my fellow forum people.

rick_chasey

Bloke who went off at Piers Morgan believes in a new world order.

I.e. he suffers from psychosis.

bompington

...if this is propoganda by stealth, I'd hate to think what they're like when they drop the subtlety :shock:

deerman

Just to cover the other side of the argument, can any of you tell me how much gun crime has reduced since the government banned handguns in the UK ?

B.M.R.

I've never understood the bit of the "gun ownership" debate where citizens of a country feel the need to own guns to protect themselves from their own government.
In the unlikely event of a mass Government agenda where they turn on their own populace with the might of the US Armed Services (sort of like a NWO scenario), does Joe Shotgun from Alabama really think he will be able to fend off a batallion of well drilled soldiers or a Hellfire missile from a Predator drone turning his well-fortified home defense bunker into matchwood?
"Ah" says Joe, "but the men and women of our fine Armed Services would never turn on their own people, destroy their own neighborhoods, just because someone ordered them to, they'd join us!"
Ok, I say, so then why do you need the guns in the first place if the whole "Government turning its armed forces against its populace" scenario would, by your own admission, never happen. And if it did you'd have 99% of the military on your side.

Like I said, setting aside the other arguments for/against gun ownership, I just can't understand why so many Americans are so distrusting of their own government that they feel the need to own an Assault style weapon, just in case.

As an aside, I read this comment somewhere, and I apologize if I've misquoted, but it's something like "If your first thought upon hearing that 20 children and 6 adults were murdered in a mass-shooting was that the Goverment would try to take your precious guns away, then you fail as a human being".

/soapbox

asquithea

deerman wrote:

Just to cover the other side of the argument, can any of you tell me how much gun crime has reduced since the government banned handguns in the UK ?

I wasn't in favour of the handgun ban (I used to shoot), but you might as well ask how much the price of milk has reduced since the ban. The two things are entirely unconnected.

It isn't legal to own a gun for self-defence in the UK, and the ban was never about getting guns off the streets (since those are already illegal). It was about removing the opportunity for a repeat of Dunblane - a lesson that clearly hasn't been learned in the US, demonstrated by repeated school shootings.

Now if you'd asked how many deaths there have been using lawfully owned handguns since the ban, your question would make more sense. It's worth pointing out that gun deaths are literally 40 times higher in the US than the UK per 100K population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate

B.M.R.

New twist - NRA released an advert criticising Obama for not considering putting armed guards in every school, whilst his children are protected by the Secret Service, and saying how he is a elitist hypocrite.

Words fail me, well, actually they don't - firstly its disgusting they are using his children to make a political point, secondly, while EVERY child is important, how is it not obvious that the children of the POTUS are a huge target for foreign/domestic enemies who wish to do the President harm, and should have an appropriate level of protection around them. Thirdly, he had very little choice in whether his children were protected by Secret Service, it something that has been done for years for all the Presidents in recent time.

I'd love for some NRA spokeman to actually hold a press conference where they allow questions, just to see them destroyed by journos using logic and reason. The best they can come up with is a paranoid Radio Presenter who seems to think that if he shouts his view, it makes it more valid.

finchy

deerman wrote:

Just to cover the other side of the argument, can any of you tell me how much gun crime has reduced since the government banned handguns in the UK ?

Don't know, but there are so many factors involved (organised crime, poverty, gang culture, etc.) that it would be difficult to form any meaningful conclusions from a rise or fall in gun crime.

Moontrane

B.M.R. wrote:

New twist - NRA released an advert criticising Obama for not considering putting armed guards in every school, whilst his children are protected by the Secret Service, and saying how he is a elitist hypocrite.

Words fail me, well, actually they don't - firstly its disgusting they are using his children to make a political point, secondly, while EVERY child is important, how is it not obvious that the children of the POTUS are a huge target for foreign/domestic enemies who wish to do the President harm, and should have an appropriate level of protection around them. Thirdly, he had very little choice in whether his children were protected by Secret Service, it something that has been done for years for all the Presidents in recent time.

I'd love for some NRA spokeman to actually hold a press conference where they allow questions, just to see them destroyed by journos using logic and reason. The best they can come up with is a paranoid Radio Presenter who seems to think that if he shouts his view, it makes it more valid.

Did you even see the ad? There was no mention of the secret service detail guarding the daughters because it's irrelevant to the ad's point.

The school the daughters attend has armed guards. If the daughters didn't attend the school it would still have armed guards.

President Clinton said the same as NRA VP Mr. LaPierre about armed guards in schools - 12 years ago - going so far as to pledge $120 million in new federal grants to place more police officers in schools. Does this put Mr. LaPierre in good or bad company?

B.M.R.

Yipes, smacked wrist for me, you are actually right the advert doesn't mention the Secret Service, it talks about armed guards.

I'm still concerned though that, what with the "High Noon" protests, there seems to be a real "them and us" situation brewing. Certain people seem to think the US Government is trying to take away ALL their guns, but the legislation being proposed only covers a certain type and high capacity magazines doesn't it? No one is saying "we are going to take away your right to bear arms, just restrict some of them a little."

Plus Obama has announced he wants a study done on videogames/violence link, and mandatory checks on potential gun purchases (to close the "gun show" loophole?) so it's not just a "gun grab", he actually is suggesting a few different things to try to reduce gun deaths.

Is it not worth even trying to see if it makes a difference?

tiredofwhiners

The NRA advert turns out to be even more full of inaccuracies than normal for them.

a Four Pinocchio Award as the article puts it ....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

marz

Moontrane wrote:

Did you even see the ad? There was no mention of the secret service detail guarding the daughters because it's irrelevant to the ad's point.

That's because the ad failed to mention that the guards at the school are actually part of the daughters security detail. Not employees of the school or even funded by the school.

B.M.R.

Interesting - I unslap my wrist pending further clarification.

Edit : was flicking through Slowtwitch forums the other day (can be amusing at times) and someone was debating whether to carry a gun whilst they trained, and other people posted up saying how they already carry when out for a run / on the bike.... Says something when your kit check before heading out for a ride is "water bottle, spare tube, multitool, Glock, pump".... I can't fathom living in an environment where you don't feel safe going out for a bike ride unless you have a loaded gun with you. Scary.

Second edit : Why is f l i c k i n g starred out? Makes it look like I said something rude there...

marz

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

Seems I was half right. Seems the school does have a security team, but they are not armed. The only armed security on campus are secret service.

DesB3rd

does Joe Shotgun from Alabama really think he will be able to fend off a batallion of well drilled soldiers or a Hellfire missile from a Predator drone turning his well-fortified home defense bunker into matchwood?

I suppose he thinks he'll make as good a fist of it as, say, Joe Taliban or Viet Billy-Bob, maybe better, and with good reason!

I don't mean to suggest that "fighting the state" isn't paranoid fanaticism, but don't suggest that tens of thousands of hicks with military-ish small arms, IEDs, witless commitment and millions of hectares of bogs, forests and mountains to move among would be simple and bloodless to root out...

ben@31

B.M.R. wrote:

Interesting - I unslap my wrist pending further clarification.

Edit : was ******* through Slowtwitch forums the other day (can be amusing at times) and someone was debating whether to carry a gun whilst they trained, and other people posted up saying how they already carry when out for a run / on the bike.... Says something when your kit check before heading out for a ride is "water bottle, spare tube, multitool, Glock, pump".... I can't fathom living in an environment where you don't feel safe going out for a bike ride unless you have a loaded gun with you. Scary.

Second edit : Why is f l i c k i n g starred out? Makes it look like I said something rude there...

Can you buy cycling jerseys with a built in pistol holster? Or do they tuck the pistol down their bib shorts? Can you get 9mm Glock pistols in carbon fibre?

Tricycleboy

I always thought the 'right to bear arms' meant that in America they were allowed to wear short sleeved shirts when it was hot.*








*Shamelessly stolen from Family Guy i believe.

edit: yes, i am aware that it doesn't work quite as well written down.

Mike Healey

ben@31 wrote:

B.M.R. wrote:

Interesting - I unslap my wrist pending further clarification.

Edit : was ******* through Slowtwitch forums the other day (can be amusing at times) and someone was debating whether to carry a gun whilst they trained, and other people posted up saying how they already carry when out for a run / on the bike.... Says something when your kit check before heading out for a ride is "water bottle, spare tube, multitool, Glock, pump".... I can't fathom living in an environment where you don't feel safe going out for a bike ride unless you have a loaded gun with you. Scary.

Second edit : Why is f l i c k i n g starred out? Makes it look like I said something rude there...

Can you buy cycling jerseys with a built in pistol holster? Or do they tuck the pistol down their bib shorts? Can you get 9mm Glock pistols in carbon fibre?

Very long thread on "Do you carry" on bikeforums.net which hasn't been re-activated yet. Detailed technical discussions on what holster and where to position it and what handgun is best. And when you would use it, etc.