Flashermac Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 I had cousins in London then. I regret I never met the ones who were old enough to tell me about their experiences in the Blitz. "During the previous two months, the Luftwaffe had targeted RAF airfields and radar stations for destruction in preparation for the German invasion of the island." Len Deighton, in his history of the Battle of Britain, argues that Churchill deliberately provoked Hitler into attacking London. The RAF was in serious danger of being effectively eliminated, so Churchy ordered an air raid on Berlin. The furious fruitcake from Austria immediately ordered the Luftwaffe to strike London in retaliation. This allowed the RAF to survive and continue the air battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 p.s. Interesting they used Ernie Pyle's description. He was one of my dad's heroes -- the soldiers' favourite combat reporter. Pyle was killed by a sniper on Okinawa late in the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 Actually, the recommended weapon for home defence is an old fashioned double barrel shotgun Very true. If there are two sounds readily recognizable world-wide, they are the cry of a baby and the ratcheting sound of a shotgun shell being chambered. :grin: HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pe7e Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 Interesting thing is there are expat Brits at my local pub where I watch football games and more than a few of them are proud gun owners and never thought they would be. Quite a normal reaction really, I'm firmly in the anti gun camp, but, if the gun possesion laws were changed in the UK, so as to enable wide spread gun ownership, I would feel the need to have one myself for my own protection. Would that make me safer than I am now? No it wouldn't! I would feel safer than if I was unarmed, but in reality, I would be more at risk than I was before all the nutters aquired them. A country awash with weapons is inherently more dangerous than one devoid of them, statistically this is proven beyond a doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
was_usvirgin Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 Flash, I'm surprised you haven't posted this link yet (unless it's in another thread). It seems even Miss America 1944 packs a pistol and ain't afraid to use it. This one's for the NRA side: Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 I don't remember the Blitz really. Too young. But I recall going out in the fields later with other kids...we were looking for airplane parts. There were lots of wrecked planes around. There was a lot of babies born around that time. I don't suppose it had anything to do with American soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 I am not surprised that some have not mentioned the place in the USA with the toughtest guns and weapons restrictions, and that is the USA prisons. Even with the toughtest gun control, people still get killed there virtually every day. Some want a waiting period to buy a gun, but can you imagine having a waiting period to buy a car, rope, knife, or a bag of fertilizer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 They should arm all the convicts so they can defend themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kojis Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 "They should arm all the convicts so they can defend themselves. " Lol! I must say that was a very daring argument from BKKTraveller... I got to see a few vids from US state jails BTW and those are some scary places... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 21, 2007 Report Share Posted April 21, 2007 I'd still maintain its cutlural. In an absolute sense, yes, a place that has guns gives one human another one more means of committing murder than one with out. However, without knowing the stats (too lazy to look it up) I'd be shocked if Finland's and Switzerland's murder rate (2 countries with guns) were higher than England's. Plenty of states in the U.S. that like Montana, the Dakotas, etc. where guns are plentiful, primarily for hunting I'd guess which have a very very low crime rate. Probably lower than England's. Various factors, socio-economic factors decide crime rates, not just the availability of guns. I can almost guarantee you if you lived in certain parts of the southern U.S. or the midwest you'd feel as safe as anywhere in England. You would forget that guns were legal and that everyone had until hunting season. You don't even think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.