grr [Archive] - Darkenbane Forums

Darwoth

05-18-2002, 02:27 AM

i wasnt aware the IDF issued pistols (if they do i would think theyd be beretta 92s since they get all their military shit from us lol) let alone a desert eagle, unless it was on a test/trial basis

in any case they arent very accurate, buddy of mine bought one a few months back (and sold it a week later after we shot it a bit when he foudn out they sucked), a .357 mag or the new .357 sig has a far flatter trajectory, even the slow ass heavy .45 does not drop as much as the .50 ae though it doesnt matter really in pistol range to much, but still.
the eagles in .41 magnum are nice and accurate , but there really isnt a point to them with all the other issues of the gun.

everyone carries glocks because glocks own =P.

ive got a couple shotguns and pistols in addition to my sar1 and FAL had an hk91 but sold it (like the FAL way better), then i have my long distance deer buster rem 700 in .300 mag i can hit a paper plate at 800 yards with it on 3 out of 5 shots, need to practice more or get a better scope~
if your ever passing through northern virginia drop me an email few days in advance and well go shooting.

edit: be careful what you say, there probably a lot of antigun faggots on this board that dont understand what freedom or the constitution are and would report you for saying something is illegal and im sure you dont need the jackboots from ATF at your door. but unless your shotguns barrel is less than 18 inches its not illegal, pistol grips dont make it illegal.

Lovaelihn

05-18-2002, 02:33 AM

I don't own a gun.

I don't know shit about guns except my dad ( a sniper in vietnam ) taught me for 3 years how to shoot.

Today's society (provided you live somewhere other that a war-mongering area) has no need for guns.

The most powerful people we know don't have guns, and those that do work for them.

"The pen is mightier than the sword".... Although dated, it is very true. I've had 3 guns staring at my face in my life, cocked and ready, and I can honestly say this : A keen wit, coupled with knowledge and lack of pride can diffuse any situation.

Other than hunting, I see no real need to own a gun.

( Not trying to piss on those who like guns... it's a hobby like any other, I assume. I just honestly feel like plenty of people use them as a crutch to overcome other lacking areas. Growing up in Detroit showed me plenty of these people... =/ )

Darwoth

05-18-2002, 02:44 AM

i choose to own weapons for 3 reasons.

1> the defense of myself and loved ones from whatever threat may come down the road.

2> the fact that an armed populace is the greatest deterrant to a government going out of control and turning totalitarian.
this is the actual purpose of the second ammendment.

3> and i enjoy shooting, hunting, plinking bla bla.

you may think nobody needs a gun, thats fine ive no problem with people having differing views then me, the only problem is when they try to force said views on myself or others.

so if someone doesnt want to own a gun, thats just fine.
the problem comes when the same people think they have a right to picket for laws that make it illegal for me to own said gun.

if all guns were suddenly illegal tomorrow, the people commiting crimes would still have them, overnight we would create an arms smuggling market as big as the drug market.

when a crackhead is breaking into your house in the middle of the night, or someone tries to mug you in the street, or any host of other possible scenarios is when the people with cellphones get turned into a victim or a corpse and the people with guns and the willingness to use them go home at night.

the only thing gun control does is disarm honest people, when only the police and criminals (often times one in the same) have weapons you are no longer in a free country rather a police state.

furthermore the second ammendment is the one that preserves all the others, it is the liberty teeth of the constituion, corrupt politicians are much less likely to get to far out of line when they know they have over a hundred million armed people in their country.

Lovaelihn

05-18-2002, 02:50 AM

Likewise, I respect your views.

You can own as many guns as you please, by right, and by logic.

I don't want them, because in my world, they serve no purpose.

Perhaps in 2 different futures, my ilk will save yours, and vice versa.

I just hate it when 20 year old "ganstas" think that a gun implies evolution, when it was not them that evolved, but they reap from the minds of those who are beyond the need.

If the government gets out of control, however- save a 00-6 for me ;)

Lovaelihn

05-18-2002, 02:52 AM

PS - I would never force this view on anyone. I H A T E people that force others to think like them. "Variety is the spice of life" is an understatement.

The only way we can learn as a race (humans) is to learn from each other in every facet.

Darwoth

05-18-2002, 02:57 AM

aye the various street punks that wander about waving their lorcin around thinking they are the shit are equally despised from my side of the fence as they are a poster boy for the anti-freedom/anti-gun crowd. (not to mention usually the type doing the armed crimes etc.)

yaarii

05-18-2002, 06:16 AM

Ever wonder why your "street punks" are the most violent in the western world?

Darwoth

05-18-2002, 06:22 AM

im not going to bother destroying you in another debate yaari as....

1> you ignore my points and instead harp on your irrational hoplophobic rhetoric.

2> your from australia, hence i dont give a fuck what youve got to say about anything whatsoever having to do with my country.

3> your a dopehead, that lives off welfare, which devalues your opinion on anything even more to me.

please go shoot some more heroin into your arm while collecting your welfare checks and leave matters of american politics to americans, thanks.

yaarii

05-18-2002, 06:25 AM

In other words, you don't have the answer.

GG Darwoth, please come again.

Darwoth

05-18-2002, 06:52 AM

well since ive nothing better to do for the next 30 or so minutes i guess ill humor you.

once again, as this topic has been discussed a large multitude of times time and again.

americans are more agressive than europeans, australians, canadians etc. etc. as a whole for a few very simple reasons.

1> the society of australia, europe, canada while having some ethnic and cultural diversity is homogenous compared to that of the united states, when you escape the urban areas crime is very low, when you get near the urban areas and have 15 different races, religions, languages and cultures living within a few blocks of each other it breeds trouble.

we also have a plague known as the inner city nigger in our country who is responsible for the vast majority (between 70% and 80% depending on the offense last i stumbled onto the DOJs crime statistics about a year ago) of the violent crime in the united states nationwide. now i do not wish to get into a racial discussion with the apologists who feel guilty for being white because black people were slaves some 200+ years ago, but facts are facts, and the fact is this group of two legged animals are not present in other countries and they are here.

2> in america people are more agressive in general, and on the complete other end of the scale in your country your entire society has been feminized, yes yes i know you will disagree of course, but standing here in the united states it is as clear as day.

so when a guy (or a woman for that matter) gets pissed off here, they tend to handle it the old fashioned way of deciding to knock the shit out of the offending individual much moreso than the other named countries.

sometimes it escalates from there and weapons are involved, *shrug* shit happens.

3> our population is larger, hence more people including the bad ones. hence more crimes.

what exactly is your point your attempting to argue?

are you trying to say that the presence of an inanimate object somehow subdues people into doing bad things?

are you trying to say if guns were made illegal that the criminals would not still have them?

are you trying to say calling the police is reliable?

additionally, a question ive always been curious about, why is it that people from other countries (almost always from europe, then australia and lastly canada in that order) always feel the need to comment on american issues when they live thousands of miles away and the only thing they know about them is whatever sanitized news they read and what plops through the BBC channel?

i dont remember ever coming across an american who gave a shit about what happens in your country (countries) least of all politically. so why are you so interested in our domestic politics?
is american crime rates or agressiveness or the guns in my house effecting your ability to assfuck kangaroos between your daily black tar sessions? what gives?

Busybody

05-18-2002, 07:05 AM

thank you for posting something intelligent. I have no desire to start a debate, but I would like to say something. In regards to your "inner city nigger" comment. Supposing there were exactly 1,000 black people in the world. And 999 of them were the most violent, sickening worthless sacks of snot in the world, does that, or should it reflect on the 1 who is a good person? No.

Just as I don't judge anyone who is white, or latino, or what have you on the crimes that others of their races commit, nor do I stereotype them in discussion, which is what you seem to have done here. If I am mistaken, please correct me.

Besides this I enjoyed your posts and was happy that someone who wasn't simply trying to push an image posted on the subject.

Cheers.

Darwoth

05-18-2002, 07:24 AM

no it shouldnt.

im not a racist as some would assume, i am simply a realist, i see things and make my own decisions based on them be they politically incorrect or not. i judge people on an individual basis, although i will say that while ive met many black people that were awesome folks and i enjoyed their company, the majority of them that ive met are total fucking scum.

but again, this is almost always the "inner city nigger" syndrom as people who dont live in city areas, no matter what race they are tend to be upstanding people.

racial issues in general, particularly white vs black annoy the hell out of me. and i could go on for hours on the double standfards and bullshit but i wont be able to stop myself so i wont go that route, at least not right now.

Busybody

05-18-2002, 07:27 AM

I appreciate the straight-forward answer, as well as the restraint at the end. I am relieved that it was simply an observation and not a rash generalization as many would assume, hence the reason for my previous post.

I've lived both in rural areas as well as the larger cities and I realize the stereotyping and also the vast differences that are alive in both.

Take care.

Mawwle

05-18-2002, 07:30 AM

Amen Darworth!!!

1. A desert eagle is WAY to be to be an effective carry weapon. My .45 almost crosses that border as it is, but i like the ole tried and true.

2. I love debating gun control because its so easy to kick the "anti" ass with a little bit of logic. I will post more on this but i have to get to work, so i'll do it when i get home.

3. I just found new respect for Lova...someone who chooses to not excercise his rights, but also does not wish to ENFORCE his views on me. IF only there were more like you. I am not gonna try to convice you to buy a gun, anyone that doesnt feel comfortable doesnt need one, but i am going to try to change your mind about their "place" in todays world.

4. arg, gotta go, no time for number 4

Mawwle/Vitas

yaarii

05-18-2002, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by darwoth

1> the society of australia, europe, canada while having some ethnic and cultural diversity is homogenous compared to that of the united states, when you escape the urban areas crime is very low, when you get near the urban areas and have 15 different races, religions, languages and cultures living within a few blocks of each other it breeds trouble.

Exactly the same as here, except we manage to have many cultures living side by side without needing to blow each other away as much as you do. Go out in the country and its generally white people and aborigines, but in the cities we have vietnamese, thai, white, greek, italian, tongan, aboriginal, chinese etc etc.

we also have a plague known as the inner city nigger in our country who is responsible for the vast majority (between 70% and 80% depending on the offense last i stumbled onto the DOJs crime statistics about a year ago) of the violent crime in the united states nationwide. now i do not wish to get into a racial discussion with the apologists who feel guilty for being white because black people were slaves some 200+ years ago, but facts are facts, and the fact is this group of two legged animals are not present in other countries and they are here.

There are actually quite a few blacks in europe, especially the UK, who don't seem to cause near as many problems as the ones in your region.

2> in america people are more agressive in general, and on the complete other end of the scale in your country your entire society has been feminized, yes yes i know you will disagree of course, but standing here in the united states it is as clear as day.

so when a guy (or a woman for that matter) gets pissed off here, they tend to handle it the old fashioned way of deciding to knock the shit out of the offending individual much moreso than the other named countries.

sometimes it escalates from there and weapons are involved, *shrug* shit happens.

Depends on where you are. It may seem as clear as day from where you are, however from the rest of the industrialized world it is just as clear.

I'm not doubting that americans are generally more violent, but most people (I would hope) would think it is a rather inefficient, and illogical, cycle to go through. This is the reason why it is generally accepted that negotiation is better than violence, and is to be pursued at all costs.

Of course, there are still some backwards neanderthal types out there who like violence and thinks it results in something positive.

3> our population is larger, hence more people including the bad ones. hence more crimes.

Hence why "x per 100,000 population" is generally used when comparing two areas of differing population.

what exactly is your point your attempting to argue?

I asked a question in my original message.

are you trying to say that the presence of an inanimate object somehow subdues people into doing bad things?

Depends which "inanimate object" you are talking about. Someone gets angry with someone with no weapon and the potential risk of serious injury or fatality is relatively low. The person grabs a blunt instrument such as a hammer, plank of wood, etc, the potential risk of serious injury or fatality increases within a close radius. This is escalated further if the person has a knife, as knives/sharp instruments are easier to weild and cause damage than a blunt object. By logical extension, if the person possesses a pistol, the potential for serious injury or fatality increases, especially at distances larger than what blunt/sharp weapons can be effective at. Furthermore, pistols are generally even easier to use than sharp instuments.

To say that a firearm outright causes someone to be violent is generally false, although it would, at least slightly, increase the risk due to an elevated level of self-esteem and ego. This concept is easy enough to view all through-out society, from school playgrounds, to pubs/bars, to sporting events, etc.

are you trying to say if guns were made illegal that the criminals would not still have them?

No, I guess my point would be that it was a fuckup to let firearms proliferate so much through-out civilian society in the first place.

are you trying to say calling the police is reliable?

I haven't said anything about the police.

additionally, a question ive always been curious about, why is it that people from other countries (almost always from europe, then australia and lastly canada in that order) always feel the need to comment on american issues when they live thousands of miles away and the only thing they know about them is whatever sanitized news they read and what plops through the BBC channel?

i dont remember ever coming across an american who gave a shit about what happens in your country (countries) least of all politically. so why are you so interested in our domestic politics?
is american crime rates or agressiveness or the guns in my house effecting your ability to assfuck kangaroos between your daily black tar sessions? what gives?

You'd love to think america is the benevolent giant of the world wouldn't you? Forever neutral, and always the good guy? Of course, living out in the sticks you probably don't realize how much your country interacts with the rest of the world. Even down to the outright *vain* things such as that recycled "america: the good neighbour" letter from the 70's that got plastered all over the net by americans to prove to other americans that the rest of the world loves americans :)

Konstance

05-18-2002, 08:56 AM

Don't forget Yaarii, the Japanese were comming for Australia after they immobilized the Phillipines. You wouldn't even be alive today if it wasn't for the united States. People seem to be infatuated with the U.S. because.... 1) We have the greatest and most stable economy in the world 2) We back up our shit talk 3) We can afford to help other countries, and even though thier brainwashed by thier governments/dictators, they still think about us all the time. Why do you think the immigrants come to the U.S. We are the land of oppurtunity, nobody wants to go live with Crocodile Dundee and that guy who wrestles crocodiles. Oh yeah, and techno music is fucking gay. Notice how that also went out a long time ago in the U.S. But somehow it's just now mainstreaming in Foriegn countries. Way to steal our ideas assfucks. Go play rugby, football requires to much athletisicm.

yaarii

05-18-2002, 09:46 AM

Grats Konstance, living up to that self-absorbed, illiterate american stereotype.

You probably haven't noticed that the whole of the western world is being swamped by immigrants, and it has become a large issue in europe and here in australia. We have our Navy patrolling the stretch of sea between northern australia and indonesia because we have Iraqis, Afghanis, Pakistanis etc coming from halfway around the planet to sneak in. But don't let that get in the way of your stupidity.

As for the US's involvement in WW2, the western world owes more to the Russians than anyone else. Without a doubt Germany was the main protagonist in WW2, and it was the Russians who pretty much single handedly destroyed them in a bitter war of attrition, preventing them from link up with the japanese via manchuria.

As for your economy, yes it is the largest in the western world, but then you also have by far the largest population in the western world. No surprises there, although for such a great economy you don't seem to be able to provide for the citizens as well as the social democracies, what with the sky high crime rates, poverty rates and general gap between rich and poor, percentage of people with health cover, quality of public schools etc etc. Although, you do have cheap cars and fuel, so theres a plus I suppose.

But I suppose you'll keep beating your "I AM SO GREAT! I AM SO GREAT!" drum. Btw you forget to repost that ridiculous "america: the good neighbour" letter. A vain post like yours seems empty without it ;(

PS. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of decent americans I've met, it's just that the vast majority I talk to are so vain and self-absorbed that I cannot help mentioning some of the blatant stupidities some americans utter.

Hope this helps.

Noobe

05-18-2002, 10:31 AM

Quit bickering :(

Anyways, am i going to do something to not kill the ram with static or something?

Konstance

05-18-2002, 10:46 AM

Your a fucking idiot Yaarii, what history class did you take. Russia was sided with Germany during WW2 until Hitler turned on them and attacked them to go for the oil barracks via Stalingrad. Russia got what they deserved for flirting with disaster. I wish we never even had the pacific movment, that way I wouldn't have to hear your bullshit in the first place. Go smoke a fucking crack pipe, and next time you shoot up, pass out faster and forget to take off the rubber tie. So your arm falls off, you flaming homo. That way this board doesn't have to be graced with your australian stupidity anymore. Oh and Iraqis no better then to come here. Hence the reason they go to Australia instead to live in the great outback and wrestle crocs, Gooday Mate.

Guznuk

05-18-2002, 11:18 AM

Darwoth have you ever been to Australia? I go there every summer for around 6 weeks to visit family and this may seem like an exageration but here's my theory. The culture of the US does make us more economically/millitarily powerful in the modern world, but that culture will also be the downfall of the United States. When you visit countries like Australia and meet people living there, you'll see what I mean. If you have, then maybe you know where I'm coming from.

/shrug

Guznuk

05-18-2002, 11:21 AM

Konst, Russia got what they deserved? They stopped the onslaught of Germany moving East and thus crippled the German millitary. Their forces were split and now being massacred in Russia. They pushed back to Berlin, and met us there. They had highest casualties in the war, and regardless of "mistakes" they made (you know, being attacked by your ally is really in one's control and everything), we do owe alot to them.

yaarii

05-18-2002, 12:00 PM

Konstance, whats your point? Sure, Russia did not get involved until they were attacked, but then, neither did the US. Both Russia and the US stood back and watched the Axis countries plunder most of europe, asia and north africa. The only real difference was that while Japan simply could not have won in the pacific, Germany had a very real chance of defeating Russia (recon units of Hoths (?) army reached the outskirts of Moscow in early december, 1941).

That said, once the US actually got involved they did fairly badly (like the Russians) for a year or two until they matured in battle, as well, their industry/armed forces weren't ready. Interestingly enough, the US never won a tactical battle in Europe in WW2, the only victories they got were with vast numerical superiority (an enquiry was launched after the war to find out why).

And no, the Japanese weren't planning to invade Australia until 1944 at the earliest, they were more concerned with taking the pacific rim to complete their Asian sphere of influence.

Nexex

05-18-2002, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Guznuk
Bunch of EQ players talking about guns.

/shudder

Sorry I have a life outside EQ guznuk..and guns are 1 of my hobbys...oh and Darwoth>yarrii.

Konstance

05-18-2002, 02:06 PM

I never said we didn't owe Russia alot, they held their own and fought for the pride in thier country. The U.S. didn't get involved because it's population thought it best to stay out of the inter continental turmoil going on over there. We were neutral just as were most of the countries over there at the time. We supplied both sides with weapons/money. But when we saw Germany breaking the rules of war, and doing inhumane acts we got involved in the war. And D-day would have never happened without the U.S. numbers. Russia met us in Germany, but only because Hitler tried to fight a two-front war which has been the demise of many of the great armies of the world throughout history. That was his mistake. But Salin flirted with disaster, and when you mess with fire you get burnt. That is all I meant by that comment. As for Australia, until your country proves it's worth to the world, besides kangaroos for the philadelphia zoo. Or the Olympics once every 12 years or whatever it is, keep your mouth shut. And don't ask my point, you know very well what my point is. your the one that started this debate in the first place.

oopsy, thx for the heads up Arri

Arri Skywolf

05-18-2002, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Guznuk
Konst, Russia got what they deserved? They stopped the onslaught of Germany moving East and thus crippled the German millitary. Their forces were split and now being massacred in Russia. They pushed back to Berlin, and met us there. They had highest casualties in the war, and regardless of "mistakes" they made (you know, being attacked by your ally is really in one's control and everything), we do owe alot to them.

As for the US's involvement in WW2, the western world owes more to the Russians than anyone else. Without a doubt Germany was the main protagonist in WW2, and it was the Russians who pretty much single handedly destroyed them in a bitter war of attrition, preventing them from link up with the japanese via manchuria.

The only thing Russia did was defend itself. It never sent troops to other coountries an ocean away to help people. The US was basically alone in it's war against the japanese. The reason Germany didn't take Russia was because of the timing of it's attacks. The Russian winter caused Germany's army to halt, and they were besieged by the Russians at Stalingrad. They were 20 miles or so outside Moscow before the winter set in and immobilized them. The only reason the Russians entered the war on out side is because Hitler broke a treaty with them. The US however had already been sending old warships, food, and military supplies to the allies before it entered the war in 1941 after the Japanese attacks at pearl harbor. I also notice that you all didn't mention how during and after the war how Russia was oppressing the citizens in it's satellite nations.

Oh and Konstance, not a flame or insult, but the Luscitania's sinking happened in World War 1, and was the catalyst that brought the US into that war in 1914.

Mawwle

05-18-2002, 05:03 PM

A liberal always seems to toss the idea out that any gun toting american is just a bomb waiting to kill people. IF someone cuts him off at a traffic light he's just gonna pull out his pistol and shoot them. When in reallity that is far from the truth.

Issue......Gun carriers and owners are dangerous

Common sense.....Just the fact that a civilian with a gun MIGHT be nearby causes many people to second guess a crime they would have jumped right into otherwise. If a criminal KNEW nobody in that liquor store had a gun and he wanted to rob them, what would stop him? But instead MANY realize "hey, that owner may have a 12 guage behind the counter"

Fact....Liscensed Gun carrying civilians in america stop over 200 thousand violent crimes every year. This same group of people have NEVER murdered another, and have an extremly low rate of other violent crime.(less than 50 in a year)

Fact...Austrailla recently took almost all guns away from its citizens. Since this happened about a year or so ago, gun violence has gone UP 300%. Yes you heard right, the guns were taken away from honest law abiding citizens, and suddenly gun violence tripled. Homocide is also up 47 percent since the confiscation.

Deductive reasoning.....This one is a no brainer, the law abiding citizens were actually detering crime with their firearms.

Liberal says "but 13 kids are killed every day by guns in america"

Fact....they sure are...if you count anyone up to age 21 a kid and you include drug dealers, gang violence, rapists, murderers, thiefs, and carjackers ect.. which accounts for 12.999 of the "kids" killed per day.

In my opinion most of those "kids" got what they deserved.

Liberal says "but guns are dangerous"

Fact...there were 131 accidental gun deaths last year as compared to 80 million gun owners. That puts accidental gun deaths at .000001%, FAR below accidental auto deaths, swimming pool deaths, bicycle deaths, trampoline deaths, and you even have a MUCH higher chance of being killed by a incompetent doctor than by a liscensed gun owner in america.

Fact...the 2 most violent places in America are New York and Maryland.

Fact.... The places in America that place the MOST restrictions on, and make it extremly difficult to own a gun are New York and Maryland.

Fact....If you list every state in the US by crime statistics you will see that the "shall issue"(meaning you WILL get a liscense if you apply) states are the lowest followed by the "may issue" (if you apply and they like what they see they will issue), and the states with the worst crime statistics are the "no issue"(you cant get a carry permit) states.

Many people talk about how bad our "street boys" are and how violent they are, but they fail to mention that this only exisists in states where honest law abiding citizens cannot carry a firearm.

In conclusion...

There are evil people in this world, always have been, always will be. I will always have the means to protect myself and my family from scumbags. In fact I will also be there when Mr. Liberals wife is attacked in a parking lot and someone tries to force her into a van to rape her and leave her on the side of the road for dead. What will he do for my wife? Call the police so they will find the body a little sooner than if he hadnt called. The very fact that I have guns keeps each of you that dont a little bit safer each night. The guy that wants to steal your stuff or rape your wife doesnt know if you are armed or not, that alone is a deterrant. So for anyone anti gun people out there, i have one question.

Would you put a sign in your front yard that says "This is a gun free home?"

Mawwle/Vitas

Noobe

05-18-2002, 05:38 PM

Heh, trampoline deaths. I use to have a trampoline, and it caused more drunken injurys then I can recall. We eventually had to toss it, because the springs all snapped due to my friends and I's abuse :(

Nexex

05-18-2002, 05:50 PM

I totally agree with mawwle. yay! I wana see anyone try to argue with that post.

Chauliodus

05-18-2002, 07:22 PM

UMMMMMMMM, Had Hitler not declared war on the Russians and Americians he would have won the war. Had he just invaded England right after Dunkirk the only force he would face would have been a single Canadian Brigade. If Enland had fallen America would have never had a point to launch attacks on mainland Europe. Hitler biggest mistake was declaring war Russia, such at first they were fucked up with the majority of their mechanized force being 1920s armored cars and multiple turreted tanks which Stalin had a liking for but only worked 20% of the time. But thanks to their massive economy they were able to raise the largest Army ever and one that the Americians only checked in technolagy decades later.

Take a look at a map of Russia, Moscow is right at the far western tip, even if Hitler had taken it, he would never have gone far past it. And if he was able to, the Russians could have fallen back little by little emplying the scortched earth tactic which they had invented during Napoleon's invasion more than half a century before, all the way to Kamchatka. This would never have been since the German amy was only able to top half a million men at its peak, while the Russian army had several divisions consisting of 1-2 million men each. The German army only had 30-40 divisions at the height of the war, Russia had well over 200-300 (before the Germans were at Moscow, Stalin decided to pull out his Siberia army that was waiting for a Japanese invasion, this was a total of 50 divisions). But we all know the Russians would never have stoped at Germany, they would have rolled over the Rhine and taken the whole of Europe. They might not have taken England but they would never have posed a threat. This leads to my belief why America entered the war :)

My lil conspiracy is that FDR forsaw this and manpulated the Japanese to attack the US so that it would give them the reason to enter the European Theater and thus save the western world from Communism. Hence the Allies would have wo without Americian intervention, and the Germans greatest enemies were both the Russian and Hitler himself for biting off more than his Riech could chew.

P.S. The Lusitania was carrying supplies to England, dives have found that the explosion that sank it wasn't the torpedo but one that came from inside the ship, it normally carried nothing that powerful unless it had been carrying arms.... BTW Churchill at the time was apart of an organization (I think it was called Room 46) that deliberately sent the Lusitania into the path of U-boat in an attempted to draw America into WWI

Arri Skywolf

05-18-2002, 07:58 PM

We don't want conspiracy theories. Most of them are lies and rumors spread by anti *insert name here* to make that person look bad.

Konstance

05-18-2002, 08:30 PM

Conspiracy Theories are a bunch of crap. Notice how everything that goes wrong dealing with the government somehow leads up to a conspiracy theory. Even 9-11 is under investigation and criticism now. bluh....

Chauliodus

05-18-2002, 08:46 PM

LoL, It wasn't ment to be a put down for FDR, had I been in his position I would have done it. If he did it or not, he clearly knew that Russia wasn't going to stop at the Rhine.

Maybe I should have called it my theory rather than conspiracy...

Busybody

05-18-2002, 09:15 PM

Just wanted to make a couple points instead of get in to a debate over things that are already established fact. I think it was Konstance (sP) that mocked rugby. Football players are creampuffs compared to those who play rugby. Have you actually ever watched a game of rugby? It's brutal..

Secondly, it was the winter in Russia that initially stopped the Germans. Watch old war films, not only are they informative, but you may actually learn something.

Third, it's a shame so many people out there are, as Tool says in a song, (fuck all you gun toting, hip gangsta wannabees.) It's not the guns that are the real problem here. It's people who think that guns make them a man, or cool, or strong that is the real problem.

^steps off the little podium^

yaarii

05-18-2002, 10:43 PM

Chauliodus, I suggest you do some research on the topic before you talk about it.

Germany had 140 divisions, not 50, when they invaded Russia. By the end of the war they managed to field over 9 million wehrmacht personnel in 304 divisions, although they were mostly understrengthed infantry divisions.

The reason why Moscow was important was that the whole of the Soviet Union was centralized and organized there. All roads led to Moscow, etc. Also, what did play a large part was that during the inital months of the invasion, Germany occupied an area russia with 70 million civilians (ie they couldn't help the soviet war effort).

Btw, the US didn't attack anyone in WW2 - Japan, Germany and Italy declared war or attacked the US first. Had they not attacked the US, I don't have any doubts that the US would have remained out of the war.

And Mawwle, I suggest you check your facts. The last tightening of our gun laws in Australia happened in 1996, not last year. Gun violence has not tripled (mind quoting sources?). Interestingly enough, in a country of almost 20,000,000 people, only 302 were murdered in 2000 (the last statistics that are available at the Australian Bureau of Statistics site), a decrease of 12% on the year before. During the same period robbery rose 3.1% (what happened to the 300% Mawwle?).

So let me get this straight, our entire murder rate is 1.6 per 100,000 people, and falling, and is a failure compared to the US which I believe is at around 7 or 8 per 100,000 people. And the robbery rate increased a whopping 3% overall?

Grats on not knowing what you are talking about. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story eh?

Mawwle

05-19-2002, 08:11 AM

Actually i posted everything from memory, it has been longer than i though on the confiscation of guns, it was just more rescent that the results of than banning have came to light. YOu want sources? well this took me all of 5 minutes to find.
It was Victoria that homocides were up 300 %. YOu'll see tha when ya get near the bottom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britain, Australia top U.S.
in violent crime
Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Jon Dougherty
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."

Highlights of the study indicated that:

The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.

Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;

"After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the London Telegraph said.

England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the "top 10" nations.

The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Denmark was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8 percent.
Interestingly, the study found that one of the lowest victimization rates -- just 15 percent overall -- occurred in Northern Ireland, home of the Irish Republican Army and scene of years of terrorist violence.

Analysts in the U.S. were quick to point out that all of the other industrialized nations included in the survey had stringent gun-control laws, but were overall much more violent than the U.S.

Indeed, information on Handgun Control's Center to Prevent Handgun Violence website actually praises Australia and attempts to portray Australia as a much safer country following strict gun-control measures passed by lawmakers in 1996.

"The next time a credulous friend or acquaintance tells you that Australia actually suffered more crime when they got tougher on guns ... offer him a Foster's, and tell him the facts," the CPHV site says.

"In 1998, the rate at which firearms were used in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery went down. In that year, the last for which statistics are available, the number of murders involving a firearm declined to its lowest point in four years," says CPHV.

However, the International Crime Victims Survey notes that overall crime victimization Down Under rose from 27.8 percent of the population in 1988, to 28.6 percent in 1991 to over 30 percent in 1999.

Advocates of less gun control in the U.S. say the drop in gun murder rates was more than offset by the overall victimization increase. Also, they note that Australia leads the ICVS report in three of four categories -- burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1 percent) and overall victimization (about 31 percent).

Australia is second to England in auto theft (2.1 percent).

In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's widespread gun ban, violent crime had increased in the country.

WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902

OWNED

<snicker>

Mawwle/Vitas

Mawwle

05-19-2002, 08:20 AM

OWNED AGAIN

Australia's Gun Ban, Crime & Video Tape

Between 1980-1995, Australia's firearm-related death rate was cut nearly in half and its firearm-related homicide rate nearly by two-thirds. (The former decreased 46%, from 4.8 deaths per 100,000 population to 2.6; the latter decreased 63%, from eight per 100,000 to three). In 1995, the annual number of firearm-related deaths fell to its lowest point in the 16-year period.

Despite this real progress over a decade and a half, the demented acts of a lone gunman in Port Arthur, Tasmania, on a Sunday in April 1996 were used to launch a massive campaign against law-abiding Australian gun owners. Rather than acknowledging one man's insanity, opportunistic gun control activists and scared politicians rushed to blame "loose gun laws." It didn't matter that those laws required any Tasmanian who wanted to own a firearm or even an air rifle to pass a gun handling course and carry a photo-bearing gun license that had to be produced prior to the purchase of any firearm or ammunition. The end result for all Australians was a government turn-in scheme and the follow-on destruction of more than 640,000 hunting rifles and shotguns.

Ban supporters, including gun prohibitionists in the U.S., are actively promoting the legislation's alleged crime-fighting benefits. Crime statistics, however, contradict them. For example, from 1997-1998, assaults and armed robberies increased in all Australian states. Armed robberies increased from 42% of all robberies in 1997 to 46% in 1998. The number of total violent crimes and the numbers of all individual categories of violent crime, with the exception of murder, increased. In addition, unlawful entries rose 3.3% from 421,569 in 1997 to 435,670 in 1998.

The violent crime statistics shown below were retrieved on March 27, 2000, from the Australia Bureau of Statistics website:

VIOLENT CRIME
1997
1998
TREND

Murder
321
284
-11.5%

Attempted Murder
318
382
+20.1%

Manslaughter
39
49
+25.6%

Assault
124,500
132,967
+6.8%

Sexual Assault
14,353
14,568
+1.5%

Kidnaping/abduction
562
662
+17.8%

Armed Robbery
9,054
10,850
+19.8%

Unarmed Robbery
12,251
12,928
+5.5%

TOTAL
161,398
172,690
+7.0%

In a March 22, 2000, letter, Australia's Attorney General Daryl Williams raised objections to an NRA video (www.nralive.com/gunban/gunban.cfm) which asserts that after the Australian government's confiscation of hunting rifles and shotguns, armed robberies rose, assaults with guns rose, murders with guns rose and home invasions rose. Williams said NRA was using "misleading" statistics to make its case against gun control. He also claimed "the national firearms agreement has succeeded in removing more than 640,000 dangerous weapons from circulation in the community." Would he call it "misleading" to say instead that "the national ban has led to the destruction of 640,000 commonplace semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns?"

If the Attorney General has a real problem with NRA's video, his problem is much closer to home than NRA headquarters. The video shows real people protesting their loss of liberty and loss of the right to self-defense. Those people are Australians. And the statistics presented in the NRA video were reported in real newspapers--Australian newspapers. Here are several examples:

"The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.
--Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.

"Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75."
--"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998.

"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%."
--"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.

"Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started."
--"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.

"Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever."
--Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.

"The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago."
--South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.
Attorney General Williams should look closer to home if he truly objects to "misleading" the public policy debate. In fact, he should look directly at the anti-gun group Gun Control Australia (GCA). When the Sporting Shooters Ass'n of Australia (SSAA) recently ran a TV campaign that promoted the shooting sports as activities for the whole family, GCA spokesman Randy Marshall said: "People should not be fooled by pretty images of family life enjoying shooting--shooting is about practising to kill--that's why guns are manufactured. Every person who joins SSAA helps destroy the gun laws which protect Australians."

Posted: 3/28/2000

Scurry

05-19-2002, 10:25 AM

To all of the folks debating history on this thread, props to you for knowing what you know about history to debate it glibly. Wish I knew enough to chime in.

World War II, ummm, yeah...............................

Nexex

05-19-2002, 12:37 PM

DAMN mawwle, u sure did look up alota facts :D

Jimmee

05-19-2002, 01:10 PM

OMG Mawwle using high lvl arguments to take down n0OBs like Yaari and steal their crappy "bleeding-heart-liberal tunics" WHAT A CHEATER!!!!!!

Hoorjah for crushing liberals, go libertarianism!!!!

Nexex

05-19-2002, 01:17 PM

Fuck liberals.

yaarii

05-19-2002, 02:21 PM

Hmm lets take a look at the facts shall we?

Murder
Australia - 1.6 per 100,000
USA - 6.5 per 100,000

Robbery
Australia - 1.2 per 1,000
USA - 3.5 per 1,000

Assault
Australia - 7.3 per 1,000
USA - 23.0 per 1,000

Wow, how could I stand living in such a "crime infested" place like Australia when there is the shining beacon of personal safety - the US - standing out there?

Those are sourced from the latest stats I could find at www.abs.gov.au and http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

If you can come up with a decent explanation of how you manage to have a murder rate *4 times* higher than Australia, be my guest. Likewise, robbery and assault. Howcome all those guns don't make your country a FAR safer place than mine? I mean, with all the bleating about how guns make society safer, you certainly come off with EGG ON YOUR FACE with those standard statistics :)

Of course, one wouldn't expect someone like you to be all too good at that, you'll probably just copy/paste a few more ridiculous articles from worldnetdaily (that lodestar of conservative christian fundamentalism :) ).

Jimmee

05-19-2002, 02:43 PM

Just wondering, but what do you base your "ridiculous" statement on?

Darwoth

05-19-2002, 05:47 PM

"Exactly the same as here, except we manage to have many cultures living side by side without needing to blow each other away as much as you do. Go out in the country and its generally white people and aborigines, but in the cities we have vietnamese, thai, white, greek, italian, tongan, aboriginal, chinese etc etc."

wrong, not exactly the same as the US. white,greek, italian are largely similar, as are vietnames, thai chinese. in the united states there will be blacks, mexicans, cubans, orientals, arabs, whites from all different regionas living in a few blocks of each other.

"There are actually quite a few blacks in europe, especially the UK, who don't seem to cause near as many problems as the ones in your region."

europe is not the united states. i dont care what black people in europe do, the fact of the matter is the blacks in america cause the majority of the crime.

"Depends on where you are. It may seem as clear as day from where you are, however from the rest of the industrialized world it is just as clear.

I'm not doubting that americans are generally more violent, but most people (I would hope) would think it is a rather inefficient, and illogical, cycle to go through. This is the reason why it is generally accepted that negotiation is better than violence, and is to be pursued at all costs.

Of course, there are still some backwards neanderthal types out there who like violence and thinks it results in something positive."

i see, you are one of the kumbya types who thinks the worlds ills can be solved through negotiations.
that explains a lot.

"Hence why "x per 100,000 population" is generally used when comparing two areas of differing population."

um, how many large metropolis does australia have?
how many smaller cities, with a population of a few hundred thousand?
considering half our population lives in said cities, and the majority of crime happens in them, with your population of 20 million and a crime rate about 1/3 of ours it would seem that per capita your crime rate is much higher than ours when you take the cities out of the equation.

"I asked a question in my original message. "

yes, for what purpose? if you dont like our country dont come to it. seems pretty straightforward to me.

"Depends which "inanimate object" you are talking about. Someone gets angry with someone with no weapon and the potential risk of serious injury or fatality is relatively low. The person grabs a blunt instrument such as a hammer, plank of wood, etc, the potential risk of serious injury or fatality increases within a close radius. This is escalated further if the person has a knife, as knives/sharp instruments are easier to weild and cause damage than a blunt object. By logical extension, if the person possesses a pistol, the potential for serious injury or fatality increases, especially at distances larger than what blunt/sharp weapons can be effective at. Furthermore, pistols are generally even easier to use than sharp instuments.

To say that a firearm outright causes someone to be violent is generally false, although it would, at least slightly, increase the risk due to an elevated level of self-esteem and ego. This concept is easy enough to view all through-out society, from school playgrounds, to pubs/bars, to sporting events, etc."

the people who are going to use a weapon against someone in a crime or when they get angry will have them irregardless, ill not surrender my rights and disarm myself because of some gutterscum that shot somebody.

"No, I guess my point would be that it was a fuckup to let firearms proliferate so much through-out civilian society in the first place. "

tell that to old people, or handicapped people, or small women, or someone whos been outnumbered, or the physically weak who have all defended themselves with a gun and avoided death or serious harm.

"I haven't said anything about the police. "

well since you seem to believe that self defense with a weapon is evil incarnate im wondering what you think is the poper path to take when a doped up scumbag has a butcher knife and is chasing you down, or when hes got a weapon pointed at you, or when 10 of his friends decide to stomp a hole in your face for something to do?

"You'd love to think america is the benevolent giant of the world wouldn't you? Forever neutral, and always the good guy? Of course, living out in the sticks you probably don't realize how much your country interacts with the rest of the world. Even down to the outright *vain* things such as that recycled "america: the good neighbour" letter from the 70's that got plastered all over the net by americans to prove to other americans that the rest of the world loves americans"

actually my government does a large number of things i dont agree with.

that doesnt change the fact that i *really* just dont care at all what people do in other countries so long as it does not threaten mine i dont give a fuck, and i CERTAINLY dont give a fuck what politics occurs in them, so why dont you answer the question? why do you care about what america does so much? particularly locally within our own borders?

its simple, if you dont like the fact that americans are free and allowed to own weapons STAY THE FUCK OUT.

i dont know what letter you are referring to, i was born in 81 not the seventies.in any case i hold no false illusions about the world loving us, on the contrary i would think that most of the world dislikes or hates us. jealousy will do that.

Darwoth

05-19-2002, 05:55 PM

again, to emphasize a part of my above post.

how many large metropolis does australia have yaari?
how many cities with a population of a few hundred thousand or more?

when half of the 270 million people in the united states are in the cities under environments ive already mentioned and the vast majority of the crime in this country comes out of the cities.

one would presume that if we take the cities out of the picture and were left with the 120 millon americans living in non urban areas and took their crime rate and compared it to australias that australias population of 20 million or so people would be equal to or superior in violent crimes as americas population of 120 million.

801

05-19-2002, 08:33 PM

1. every person in texas has guns

2. if you step on someone's front yard they can shoot you for tresspassing

3. texas rangers and bounty hunters walk down the streets with guns on their belts looking for troublemakers

4. its legal to shoot people in the back for any crime

5. if you kill some1 legally you dont even have to tell the police

if you dont beleive me ask any1

DArkfrost187

05-19-2002, 11:19 PM

Reason why Hitler lost the war was Busybody is correct.
German troops were not familiar,and immune to the cold tundras of STalingrad or Russia.
They lost quite alot of tanks,troops,and weaponary.
The day they told Hitler they should call the troops back.
Hitler refused,and he even lost more troops.
So after Germany returned with half their men dead.
Stalin said "Time to pay" !!
Stalin teamed with the allie powers,and took German from the East,and America,England,Canada,etc etc took Germans to the west.
Also Hitler was a nut cause he partyed all night everyday.
He used to sleep in the daytime from all the partying in the night.
So sometimes he couldnt give orders because he would oversleep the day away.
So thats why Germany got weakened.
From the day they tried to take over Russia due to the harsh weather,and conditions.
Also Russians were burning their crops,their houses,so Germany couldnt eat right.
This was called "Scorch Warfare"....
They also cut of Germanys fuel for their tanks.
Also their vehicles were not made for Russias weather...
Just my two cents la ~

Konstance

05-19-2002, 11:47 PM

it's called "Scorched Earth" warfare, sid. Yeah this had alot to do with Germany's downfall. But this never would have happened, had Hitler listened to the advice of his appointed General's. They knew he was crazy, christ his top dawg Erwin Rommel tried to execute him by planting a bomb under his table at a meeting, only to have it misfire and kill the wrong person which led to Rommel's execution. Hitler was a psycho, and now that I look at the facts Stalin was a psycho too. Russia did get what they deserved, in a way they were alot like Cuba is today. They were tought to treat Stalin like he was invincible, which he most definitely wasn't. Stalin and Hitler were both crazy. They both wanted the same thing. To be the ultimate power or Riech, as Hitler would put it. Bottom line, Eisenhower masterminded the D-day invasion. And Yaarii if the U.S. hadn't gotten involded, Britian would have fallen, and everyone knows this. France crumbled like god knows what. Once Hitler marched into the Rheinland(sp?) and the french did nothing, this gave Hitler the balls to send a surprised attack on neighboring country Poland which only boosted his confidence even more. Hitler conquered more of Europe than Napolean did, and he would have conquered it all, if only he had waited maybe to invade Russia. The only reason Russia even stood a chance in fighting against germany was that they utilized Barbarian tactics of old wars, and the bitter winter and starvation of the german troops probably caused more deaths than the russian soldiers themselves. Russia really didn't do their part, and they only reason they did anything was because Hitler went insane and attacked his only worthy ally. Not to mention Soviet Russia had the same motives as Germany during post WW2. They wanted to conquer the world just as much as hitler did. And that's a fact.

yaarii

05-20-2002, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by darwoth

how many large metropolis does australia have yaari?

Sydney 4,000,000
Melbourne 3,300,000
Brisbane 1,500,000
Perth 1,200,000
Adelaide 1,000,000

Those are our cities with 1,000,000+ people.

how many cities with a population of a few hundred thousand or more?

Around 15 or so. As you can see from the populations above, over half of our population lives in 5 cities, with the rest mostly in cities of 50,000 - 1,000,000.

when half of the 270 million people in the united states are in the cities under environments ive already mentioned and the vast majority of the crime in this country comes out of the cities.

That isn't surprising - its not exactly a US-only trend to have higher crime rates in cities, you only have to compare crime rates in any country's major cities to rural areas, and unless there is a civil war, the cities are almost guaranteed to have higher crime.

one would presume that if we take the cities out of the picture and were left with the 120 millon americans living in non urban areas and took their crime rate and compared it to australias that australias population of 20 million or so people would be equal to or superior in violent crimes as americas population of 120 million.

Yes and you'd have to take out a large portion of our population - most of our population and crime occurs in cities as well. Perhaps you have some sort of stereotypical view of life in Australia, that we all live in small villages or something. Most of our population is urbanized, and our population planners are concerned that our cities are growing exponentially, whilst the rural and regional areas are going dead (free market rationalization has led to services being cut from regional areas, hence more people are moving to the major cities).

yaarii

05-20-2002, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Konstance
it's called "Scorched Earth" warfare, sid. Yeah this had alot to do with Germany's downfall. But this never would have happened, had Hitler listened to the advice of his appointed General's.

If Hitler listened to his generals, WW2 wouldn't have started. Hitler used risks early on in the war, that paid off, hence the entire upper echelons of the Nazi leadership ended up drunk on power.

They knew he was crazy, christ his top dawg Erwin Rommel tried to execute him by planting a bomb under his table at a meeting, only to have it misfire and kill the wrong person which led to Rommel's execution.

Rommel commit suicide.

Hitler was a psycho, and now that I look at the facts Stalin was a psycho too. Russia did get what they deserved, in a way they were alot like Cuba is today. They were tought to treat Stalin like he was invincible, which he most definitely wasn't. Stalin and Hitler were both crazy. They both wanted the same thing. To be the ultimate power or Riech, as Hitler would put it.

The world was a far different place prior to, and during the early part of, ww2. Both democracy and communism were in dire straights - only 1 country in the world was communist, and most of the world's democratic countries were taken over by Germany within the first year.

Bottom line, Eisenhower masterminded the D-day invasion.

D-day was essentially redundant, by mid-1944 Germany had lost the war. Russia had pushed Germany back over a thousand miles.

Although, by 1944, both sides knew that the Axis powers were going to lose - they both feared each other more than anything else. D-day was primarily to stop all of Europe falling into Stalin's hands.

And Yaarii if the U.S. hadn't gotten involded, Britian would have fallen, and everyone knows this.

Britain relied on US material goods, yes. However, by the time the US was an actual combatant in ww2, Operation Sealion (the invasion of britain) had been off the table for a year.

France crumbled like god knows what. Once Hitler marched into the Rheinland(sp?) and the french did nothing, this gave Hitler the balls to send a surprised attack on neighboring country Poland which only boosted his confidence even more. Hitler conquered more of Europe than Napolean did, and he would have conquered it all, if only he had waited maybe to invade Russia.

Actually, the Germans left it too late. They spent too much time in the Balkans defeating Yugoslavia and Greece, which postponed operation Barbarossa. Had they started a few months earlier they would have been far more successful.

The only reason Russia even stood a chance in fighting against germany was that they utilized Barbarian tactics of old wars, and the bitter winter and starvation of the german troops probably caused more deaths than the russian soldiers themselves.

No. The Germans hadn't prepared for a fight during the winter, their equipment wasn't suited to cold weather running etc, so every winter the Russians mounted an offensive using their winter-suited equipment.

Russia really didn't do their part, and they only reason they did anything was because Hitler went insane and attacked his only worthy ally.

Russia *did* do their part. They single handedly destroyed Germany's war machine. There were no americans, british, french etc at stalingrad and kursk....

Not to mention Soviet Russia had the same motives as Germany during post WW2. They wanted to conquer the world just as much as hitler did. And that's a fact.

Both the US and the USSR wanted to "conquer" the world. Just look at the number of useless wars and interventions both countries got involved in during the postwar years. Afghanistan and Vietnam. All the pissing around in africa and south america, where both countries were trying to have friendly regimes put in place. (ironically, both countries didn't think much of letting those countries become democracies, they were more concerned about stopping the other side from "taking" a country, so democracy was pretty much written off as they tried to install all sorts of crackpot governments).

Darwoth

05-20-2002, 03:39 AM

ok and by your own admission australias crime rate is about 1/3 of the US.

therefore when you have 150 million people living in cities as opposed to the 10 - 12 million you currently have and still have a crime rate 1/3 of the united states then you can run your mouth about crime rates compared to your country.

by simple math it would appear if you did have our population it would be your countrys crime rate that would be on the heavy end of the scale.

Chauliodus

05-20-2002, 07:12 AM

Rommel wasn't apart of the assasination plot against Hitler, he was forced to kill himself after failing to prevent the Allied landing on Normandy, had he not Hitler threatened to kill his whole family.

England would never have fallen after the Battle of Britan, by the time. It would have if Hitler had went along with its original date, instead of being so leary about Britans air power which was posed no resistance in the beginning.

As for the winter the Germans faced, it only prevented them from taking Mascow, they would never have been able to defeat Russia once their factories in the Urals began to work at a steady pace.

The Germans didn't spend too much time in Greece, the Balkans and Greece were the responsibility of the Italians, who were supose to have defeated the countries in those lands as Barbarossa was being launched. But the Germans were forced to send a sizable portion of their invasion force to help the Italians.

Oh and who ever said that if it wasn't for the Americians, the Aussies would have been under Japanese control. The Japanese would never have been able to emass a force capable to invade Australia. Australia would have been in the same situation as England, couldn't be invaded, couldn't fight.

yaarii

05-20-2002, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by darwoth
ok and by your own admission australias crime rate is about 1/3 of the US.

That is correct.

therefore when you have 150 million people living in cities as opposed to the 10 - 12 million you currently have and still have a crime rate 1/3 of the united states then you can run your mouth about crime rates compared to your country.

Overall population is irrelevant when using per 100,000 indicators.

by simple math it would appear if you did have our population it would be your countrys crime rate that would be on the heavy end of the scale.

What math? If Australia's population increases, then overall crime increases, however the rate of crime stays the same unless some sort of antagonist is involved (ie poverty increasing etc).

See, this is why there are "x per 100,000" rates as crime indicators. It allows for the comparison of two demographic areas with different populations. Has this gone over your head? Probably yes, if you were educated in an american public school, but eh, one day you might learn.

Noobe

05-20-2002, 08:34 AM

doetn u diss usas edukatn u homofag

yaarii

05-20-2002, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Chauliodus

England would never have fallen after the Battle of Britan, by the time. It would have if Hitler had went along with its original date, instead of being so leary about Britans air power which was posed no resistance in the beginning.

Hitler actually made a fatal mistake during the battle of britain. Initially the Luftwaffe targetted Britains air infrastructure, airfields, hangars, planes etc, in the hope of destroying british air power.

However some Luftwaffe bombers on a night raid accidentally bombed London (i think they were going to Coventry), and London up until that point had been off limits. The british retaliated and managed to get a few bombers all the way to Berlin and drop a few bombs. The total damage of the two raids was poor, and the losses in aircraft high, although the raid on Berlin infuriated Hitler, and the Luftwaffe then started mass attacks on civilian populations.

The luftwaffe was extremely close to crushing the British air force (who were the second best airforce in the world behind the Luftwaffe, at the outbreak of hostilities) before Hitler interfered.

As for the winter the Germans faced, it only prevented them from taking Mascow, they would never have been able to defeat Russia once their factories in the Urals began to work at a steady pace.

That is true, however you are underestimating the amount of centralization in the Russian economy. At the time, all roads led to Moscow, everything was run and organized from there, had it fell it would have sent Russia into disarray. This is why the capture of cities like Kiev and Stalingrad didn't phase the Russians as much as they should have (ie they didnt totally disrupt the Russian war machine).

That said, the war wouldn't have been "over" straight away had the Germans taken Moscow, although it would have left the Russians far too disorganized to mount any offensive operations during the winter, hence giving the Germans an advantage during the summer of 1942.

Oh and who ever said that if it wasn't for the Americians, the Aussies would have been under Japanese control. The Japanese would never have been able to emass a force capable to invade Australia. Australia would have been in the same situation as England, couldn't be invaded, couldn't fight.

Yep. Most of our troops were fighting in the middle east and whatnot, and given our small population we could only manage 300,000 or so armed forces personnel. Australia's geography gives it a massive advantage for defence, as there is virtually nothing "*to* conquer for several thousand miles - no infrastructure, no population, no industry until the cities all along the east coast.

The japanese landed a few small scouting parties and even set up a few airfields in northern australia, but that was it as far as invasions went (although there was bombing raids and also midget submarine attacks in Sydney Harbour).

Darwoth

05-20-2002, 12:47 PM

the per 100,000 bullshit is easily skewed that is why its bullshit.

its easy to take a low crime area and compare it to a high crime area and vice versa, the national results are much more accurate for a real representation.

if asutralia has less than a 10th our population but yet a third of our crime rate, that tells anyone who doesnt have their veins full of heroin and are still able to think properly very clearly that if you had our population youd be far over our crime rate.

Arri Skywolf

05-20-2002, 12:59 PM

I stopped debating the WW2 issue when people started throwing out their own facts.

DArkfrost187

05-20-2002, 04:58 PM

He eats just like a POW in STalag 13 ....

Konstance

05-20-2002, 05:16 PM

Hey Chlaudious, watch the history channel much?? Pretty sure Rommel played a part in the attempted assassination of Hitler. Watch the history channel, it's healthy for you. It also enables you to post true facts instead of stupid chit that has no validity.

Konstance

05-20-2002, 05:22 PM

Oh yeah and Rommell commited suicide to avoid execution. Forgot to mention that, my mistake.

Busybody

05-20-2002, 08:12 PM

Kon's right this time as my memory serves. Watch the history channel people, it's pretty hip. :)

Konstance

05-20-2002, 08:30 PM

Thank you Busy, and yes the histroy channel rocks. watch it every night while I'm doing push ups being bored off my ass. ;)

Nexex

05-20-2002, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by DArkfrost187
He eats just like a POW in STalag 13 ....

BWAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHA

Chauliodus

05-20-2002, 09:52 PM

He was a sympathizer of Stauffenburg, but had no involment in the attempt on Hitlers life. I don't get the History Channel, live in Canada, I have our own version, it has alot of great shows but way to much Canadian crap.

Konstance

05-20-2002, 10:01 PM

That's funny because I could have sworn the program said he was directly involved in the attempt to take hitler's life. Maybe it's just me but I dunno. I'm pretty sure I'm correct though. Wish I could find that tape somewhere, I know I recorded that program for history class. hmm....

Mawwle

05-20-2002, 10:42 PM

Yarri Wrote

"If you can come up with a decent explanation of how you manage to have a murder rate *4 times* higher than Australia, be my guest. Likewise, robbery and assault. Howcome all those guns don't make your country a FAR safer place than mine? I mean, with all the bleating about how guns make society safer, you certainly come off with EGG ON YOUR FACE with those standard statistics "

Well yarri, thats a simple one, how bout actually challenging me. The crime rates and murder rates in the U.S are high because of the highly restrictive cities such as New York where it is all but impossible to get a liscense to carry a weapon. If you ONLY count the U.S. cities where the law abiding citizens are allowed to carry fire arms, you will find that our murder and gun violence rates are MUCH lower.

So now i ask you. Can you explain why in a city where its illegal to carry a weapon, crime and murder is exteremly high, yet in EVERY city where it is easy for citizens to arm themselves, crime is extremly low?

Can you explain why Australia's gun violence rate dropped steadily for 16 years, untill 1996 when the population was disarmed, then it suddenly started turning back up?

Can you explain why Britian disarmed its populace and now for the first time in history the Bobby's who have always prided themselves on only being armed with a billy stick are now carrying guns?

Can you explain why in MY HOME TOWN a law was passed about 15 years ago REQUIRING EVERY home to have a gun in it, and since that time there has been 1 and only 1 murder, and other gun related crimes DROPPED over 300%?

Now, enough about facts, lets try some common sense..

If you are not armed what will you do when someone with ill intent breaks down your front door? Look at him with a phone in your hand and say "I have already hit 911, you take one more step and i'm gonna hit SEND....im not kidding!!!!" Well, tell ya what i will do, i will remove one scumbag from society, so he can victimize nobody else.

What are you gonna do when your in restuarant and some whacko decides everyone in there needs to die for whatever reason? You gonna just run? save yourself, screw everyone else eh? Well, its ok, go ahead and run, i'll be there to save the life of your wife and child.

And lets not forget the primary reason our second ammendment was even created... what are you gonna do when an army of terrorists crosses your borders with intent to kill everyone and take over? Myself and 80 million other americans will slow them down, a lot.......What are you gonna do when your government becomes tyranical? Suddenly the people in control decide a dictatorship would be best, and suicide bomings are not a bad idea, and all citizens should pay 95 % of their income in taxes...ect....You gonna stand up and say, "hey i dont think thats a good idea"....Well, thats probably what i will say, only my statement will carry a bit more weight since I, as well as MANY others, will be armed.

Yea i know its NOT very likely for the last example to happen...but then again how likely was it for the 2 towers to fall.

BTW Jimmie I voted Harry Brown :) Libertarian is the only party that makes sense any more.

Nexex, it took me all of 5 minutes to find all those facts :)

Later

Mawwle/Vitas

P.S. i was moving all day sunday and just got my pc set up tonight, thats why it took me so long to respond. I am on dialup till saturday(bleh).

yaarii

05-21-2002, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by darwoth
the per 100,000 bullshit is easily skewed that is why its bullshit.

How? It is the average amount, nationwide.

its easy to take a low crime area and compare it to a high crime area and vice versa, the national results are much more accurate for a real representation.

Dipshit - its a national rate.

if asutralia has less than a 10th our population but yet a third of our crime rate, that tells anyone who doesnt have their veins full of heroin and are still able to think properly very clearly that if you had our population youd be far over our crime rate.

Clearly, you are a terminal retard.

I'll explain it for you clearly. In 2000, 304 people were murdered in ALL of australia. This gives a rate of 1.6 per 100,000 people murdered.

In 2000, roughly 15,000 people were murder in all of the US. This gives a rate of 6 per 100,000.

Do you understand this yet? 304 vs 15,000. If I compared the raw numbers, Australia has 50 times less crime, but that wouldn't be fair as there is a large population, which is *why you use x per 100,000 rating*.

My god, I didn't think you were that stupid, Darwoth.

yaarii

05-21-2002, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Mawwle

Well yarri, thats a simple one, how bout actually challenging me. The crime rates and murder rates in the U.S are high because of the highly restrictive cities such as New York where it is all but impossible to get a liscense to carry a weapon. If you ONLY count the U.S. cities where the law abiding citizens are allowed to carry fire arms, you will find that our murder and gun violence rates are MUCH lower.

There has never been comprehensive carry concealed laws anywhere in Australia, and we manage far lower rates than every US city.

So now i ask you. Can you explain why in a city where its illegal to carry a weapon, crime and murder is exteremly high, yet in EVERY city where it is easy for citizens to arm themselves, crime is extremly low?

NFI, all I do know is, is that *our* cities have better crime rates than both of them, and they've never had carry concealed laws.

Can you explain why Australia's gun violence rate dropped steadily for 16 years, untill 1996 when the population was disarmed, then it suddenly started turning back up?

The population wasn't "disarmed", as such. There was a ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Pump action shotguns are still legal as long as you are a member of a gun club that owns a large rural property. No pistols were affected.

What you are failing to realize is that this isn't the US. There has never been a massive amount of defensive use's of firearms, there really isn't the need. The idea that criminals suddenly thought "wow the population is disarmed now, I should commit some crimes" is untrue, as there wasn't a risk of a firearms being defensively used *before* the gun laws were passed. Also, before the gun laws, firearms were required to be in a locked safe at all times.

By no means does it resemble the US, where guns are allowed to be carried around, left lying around the house, hidden under beds etc.

By the way, in the years since 1996, gun crime hasn't steadily risen, it has gone up and down. There is also the matter of our government (which is centre-right) implementing welfare reform, cuts in public services etc, increasing poverty, which has resulted in increases in key areas of crime, most notably robbery, theft etc, whereas areas that aren't profit-motivated have continued to trend down, ie murder, sexual assault etc.

Can you explain why Britian disarmed its populace and now for the first time in history the Bobby's who have always prided themselves on only being armed with a billy stick are now carrying guns?

Shrug, I don't know all too much any antagonizing factors.

Can you explain why in MY HOME TOWN a law was passed about 15 years ago REQUIRING EVERY home to have a gun in it, and since that time there has been 1 and only 1 murder, and other gun related crimes DROPPED over 300%?

Predictable. The US is past the point of no return, imo. The sheer scale of firearm use in society is at a point where it can't be turned back, essentially. Most crimes in the US involve firearms etc.

That isn't the case here. Firearms are a comparitive rarity, if a crime is committed against you, most likely it won't involve a firearms etc. By raising the bar, ie arming everybody, it just raises the stakes, and a situation like the US occurs.

Now, enough about facts, lets try some common sense..

Ugh, is this sort of like religion and morality?

If you are not armed what will you do when someone with ill intent breaks down your front door? Look at him with a phone in your hand and say "I have already hit 911, you take one more step and i'm gonna hit SEND....im not kidding!!!!" Well, tell ya what i will do, i will remove one scumbag from society, so he can victimize nobody else.

Depends who the "someone" is. Remember, a criminal isn't a criminal until they commit a crime.

The reason for our gun laws was because Martin Bryant, who legally owned an Ar-15 and an SKS, killed 35 people with those firearms. Now fair enough, if everyone else was carrying firearms there may have been less deaths. However, most murders occur against people that are known by the murderer. It isn't "random" attacks, that are a problem here. By arming everyone, you are inadvertantly arming all potential criminals as well (keep in mind, this is in a country where most potential criminals cannot get a hold of firearms).

What are you gonna do when your in restuarant and some whacko decides everyone in there needs to die for whatever reason? You gonna just run? save yourself, screw everyone else eh? Well, its ok, go ahead and run, i'll be there to save the life of your wife and child.

Of course I'll save myself.

And lets not forget the primary reason our second ammendment was even created... what are you gonna do when an army of terrorists crosses your borders with intent to kill everyone and take over? Myself and 80 million other americans will slow them down, a lot.......What are you gonna do when your government becomes tyranical? Suddenly the people in control decide a dictatorship would be best, and suicide bomings are not a bad idea, and all citizens should pay 95 % of their income in taxes...ect....You gonna stand up and say, "hey i dont think thats a good idea"....Well, thats probably what i will say, only my statement will carry a bit more weight since I, as well as MANY others, will be armed.

Yeah, when australia turns into a totalitarian regime, I'll bow down to ou and say "Oh Holy One, you were right, may I please have a gun!". :)

Btw - the most effective way of protesting is non-violent protest/civil disruption.

Yea i know its NOT very likely for the last example to happen...but then again how likely was it for the 2 towers to fall.

Well, there is simply no method by which one could create a totalitarian regime here. We don't have the armed forces to create a situation of martial law. We don't have any support system for fringe groups, like the US. Our fringe groups aren't as militant as they are in the rest of the world. We have numerous failsafes against an aggressive takeover, not least of which is all those in power who have a stake in the current system etc.

Illusive

05-21-2002, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by yaarii
The population wasn't "disarmed", as such. There was a ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Pump action shotguns are still legal as long as you are a member of a gun club that owns a large rural property. No pistols were affected.

What you are failing to realize is that this isn't the US. There has never been a massive amount of defensive use's of firearms, there really isn't the need.

Yaarii that's not the point... the overall thing is; in the US the right to bear arms is a civil right, along with freedom on speech/press/religion etc etc. The foundation of the United States is one of freedom. Sorry I quoted the wrong text~

That isn't the case here. Firearms are a comparitive rarity, if a crime is committed against you, most likely it won't involve a firearms etc. By raising the bar, ie arming everybody, it just raises the stakes, and a situation like the US occurs.

You watch the news too much. We're not a bunch of gun-toting thugs that'll shoot anyone that looks at us the wrong way... and I bet at least half if not 3/4 of the people that were murdered in the US deserved it(i.e. drug dealers).

Speaking of the news, remember the "anthrax scare"? Something the media created that made every senior citizen wet their pants and night and go the the pharmacy and buy some Cipro. Sup about 5 people died from it, and it was probably naturally occuring anthrax.

The reason for our gun laws was because Martin Bryant, who legally owned an Ar-15 and an SKS, killed 35 people with those firearms. Now fair enough, if everyone else was carrying firearms there may have been less deaths. However, most murders occur against people that are known by the murderer. It isn't "random" attacks, that are a problem here. By arming everyone, you are inadvertantly arming all potential criminals as well (keep in mind, this is in a country where most potential criminals cannot get a hold of firearms).

Keep in mind, armed civilians in the US deter two-hundred THOUSAND crimes per year. That number is a *lot* higher than the number of crimes comitted with guns.

Btw - the most effective way of protesting is non-violent protest/civil disruption.

Yeah... tell that to the chinese who protested in Tiananmen Square in 1989~

DArkfrost187

05-21-2002, 05:35 AM

Yeah Staffaunberg sp ? was a soldier in the reich that had a wooden leg,and patch on his eye.
He and a bunch of other Nazis went to Hitlers "Wolf Den" to plant a bomb in a gray briefcase....{puts it under the table}
So Hitler gets killed,and the war ends.
Unfortunatly Hitler survives,and since the men were identified asap when they entered.
He gathers them up,and executes them in a fire squad.
JUst think if Staffaunbergs plan worked.
That war wouldve been so over....

I always loved history...

Mawwle

05-21-2002, 07:36 AM

Ive got to get to work and dont have time for a real reply atm, but i love how you failed to answer ANY of my challanges except the one in which you mistated facts. Australia does NOT have a lower crime rate than every U.S. city. Only the highly populated ones with restrictive gun laws.

Try comparing your crime rates to some of the NON- drug infested cities where law abiding citizens are allowed to protect themselves. As i said, in my home town gun crime is virtually non existant. And as i stated before and as Sid said... Gun carriers in the U.S. stop WAY more crime than is commited with guns. I wont argue the fact that we have a drug problem....and if the dealers/users wanna kill each other, then more power to them.

The problem is the media consistantly states figures from these areas as if they are the general populace.

13 kids per day are killed by guns....rofl...you can make anything true if you skew the way the numbers are collected.

Mawwle

Busybody

05-21-2002, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Illusive
Sup about 5 people died from it, and it was probably naturally occuring anthrax.

Hi, ever watch the news? Naturally occuring anthrax? Yeah, it naturally occured in HUGE quantities on letters mailed to important political and news figures. I'm not getting in the middle of this piss-fest, but I gotta say, that was kind of ridiculous.

Konstance

05-21-2002, 10:49 AM

You know why Australia doesn't go to war and keeps their mouth shut on current world issues?? Because they have no surrounding land. A country with Nuclear power (which is pretty much every country in the world after Russia had to rebuild it's economy) would drop a Nuke on Australia so fast they wouldn't be able to say, "Crikey! Run for your lives, Mate!" Maybe that's why Australia is a non-factor in today's modern politics. Not to mention your landscape is horrid.

Mawwle

05-21-2002, 06:58 PM

As i said in my previous post, your statement that austraila has lower crime than all U.S. cities is FAR from the truth. Yea we have a massivly high crime rate in some extremly populated and drug infested cities, however lets look at these cities.

1. The cities in the U.S. with high gun violence rates have the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S......Meaning law abiding citizens can not carry a weapon....

2. Most of the crime in these cities is gang or drug related, your a fool if you think that these people wouldnt find other ways of killing each other if suddenly all guns disappeared.

So how is it that allowing people to defend themselves is causeing the crime when it is very clear that the worst crime places are where people are NOT allowed to defend themselves?
You failed to answer this question.

Oh btw yes Australia's gun related crime has steadily increased since 1996 when the ban was impossed. Yet the previous 16 years it had steadily dropped. You failed to answer how this is possible if disarming the populace is supposed to reduce crime.

You said
"Most crimes in the US involve firearms etc. "

Again untrue.. yes you can find some statistics that will say that, but they have all had their bluff called. Many anti -gun statitcians were counting ANY crime in which a gun was present "a gun related crime" It didnt matter if the gun was actually used in any way in the crime, nor did it matter if the gun was legally owned by the person commiting the crime. For example: if someone got pulled over for drunk driving and the officer spotted a gun in his front seat, or later found one in his trunk, this was counted as a gun related crime. It didnt matter that the gun was never a factor, was never pointed at anyone or no trheats of pointing it at anyone were made. All that mattered was it was present. This is a very common practice of liberals when quoting statistics.

You failed to answer my question as to what you would do if someone with ill intent broke down your door.....

This is one that really gets me. If you dont want to protect your family thats fine, but people like you want to make it illegal for me to protect my family, and thats not fine.

I suppose you did show your true colors with the resturant scenario. So while your running to save your ass, I'll be the one there to help stop the scumbag so no more innocent people are hurt.

Why cant you gun o phobics understand that disarming law abiding citizens will do NOTHING to stop crime.....If you wanna make a law that says "you cant own a gun if your gonna use it for murder", feel free. But stop trying to target the very people who save lives every single day from gang members, druggies and psycho's.

Mawwle/Vitas

Arri Skywolf

05-21-2002, 07:35 PM

Your 'left lying around the house' statement is bullshit and you're just trying to insult people.

I'm not a huge gun advocate, but most states in the US require: To buy a rifle, you must not have been convicted of a felony *background check* and be 18, to buy a handgun, you must be 21, no felonies. To keep and store firearms, you must buy a trigger guard. If you keep it in a car, it cannot be tucked under a seat, unless you have your CCW permit. The only other time it can be 'out of sight' is if it is in a case where it is not easily accessible. Otherwise if you're in your car it must be within sight * on a seat *.

Those are what I'm fairly sure about, I'm not completely sure on some other points so i didn't post them.

Ghecko

05-21-2002, 07:48 PM

-nt

Arri Skywolf

05-21-2002, 07:52 PM

lol dude, you working on that 'project'?

Nexex

05-21-2002, 08:22 PM

Yaarii, you jelious because u cant afford a gun...oh btw, america>your herion addict ass.

Chauliodus

05-21-2002, 08:53 PM

He placed the briefcase next to the seat Hitler sat on during every single meeting there, just happened by chance that Hitler decided to sit in another chair and avioded the killing blast radius.

The question of wether the war would have endded there or not.... its my view that if Hitler had been killed, his generals would have been freed from his stupidity and the war would have dragged on for many more months, possable into '46.

Konstance

05-21-2002, 09:14 PM

well it's my belief that since Rommel and Stauffenburg (sp?) seem to have the biggest impact on WW2 as general's than they would have influenced the population as well as the other brainwashed general's to steer away from hitler's teachings and open his eyes to the fact that he was a madman. And WW2 would have ended alot sooner. But hey we all have our beliefs.

Illusive

05-21-2002, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Busybody

Hi, ever watch the news? Naturally occuring anthrax? Yeah, it naturally occured in HUGE quantities on letters mailed to important political and news figures. I'm not getting in the middle of this piss-fest, but I gotta say, that was kind of ridiculous.

I don't think you quite understood what I was saying or maybe I said it wrong. First off, take note that 'zero' political and news figures contracted anthrax.

Sorry but CNN + friends blew it way out of proportion. And yes, anthrax does occur naturally....

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/anthrax_g.htm

My point was - why attempt to scare 300 million people over something that couldn't possibly pose a threat to the country or even a significant number of people. I bet more people died in 1 week from falling down the stairs than from anthrax in an entire year.

And I do think that rather rude reply was uncalled for~(as well as taking my quote out of context)

Ghecko

05-21-2002, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Arri Skywolf
lol dude, you working on that 'project'?

I will be tonight =p

Nexex

05-21-2002, 10:31 PM

Ghecko, gemme a ringaling, got a lil sumthin sumthin u might want :D.

Ghecko

05-22-2002, 03:09 AM

I bet my shits better =p

Arri Skywolf

05-22-2002, 05:16 AM

I have a small penis.

yaarii

05-23-2002, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Mawwle
As i said in my previous post, your statement that austraila has lower crime than all U.S. cities is FAR from the truth. Yea we have a massivly high crime rate in some extremly populated and drug infested cities, however lets look at these cities.

[QUOTE][B]
1. The cities in the U.S. with high gun violence rates have the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S......Meaning law abiding citizens can not carry a weapon....

So you can list many major US cities with less than a 1.6 per 100,000 murder rate?

2. Most of the crime in these cities is gang or drug related, your a fool if you think that these people wouldnt find other ways of killing each other if suddenly all guns disappeared.

They would probably find another, more difficult way of killing each other, yes. The reason why they use firearms is because its easier to shoot you than get close and stab you.

So how is it that allowing people to defend themselves is causeing the crime when it is very clear that the worst crime places are where people are NOT allowed to defend themselves?
You failed to answer this question.

You failed to give examples. I'd still like to see those major carry-concealed major cities with extremely low crime rates.

Oh btw yes Australia's gun related crime has steadily increased since 1996 when the ban was impossed. Yet the previous 16 years it had steadily dropped. You failed to answer how this is possible if disarming the populace is supposed to reduce crime.

The gun laws of 1996 weren't actually designed to reduce crime in general, they were a knee-jerk reaction to a nutcase with *completely legal firearms* murdering 35 people. That actually hasn't happened since the laws, so in that sense they are successful.

As I've explained before, there are antagonists to crime other than guns. What will increase crime rates generally is poverty, which Australia is seeing in increasing amounts ever since the center-right government was elected in *1995*. But wait, that should be discarded, right?

Btw most increases are statistically insignificant given the level of crime, especially in murders and the such, where there is less than 1 per day in the whole of the country. Increases and decreases occur frequently for no apparent reason (hence..).

You said
"Most crimes in the US involve firearms etc. "

Again untrue.. yes you can find some statistics that will say that, but they have all had their bluff called. Many anti -gun statitcians were counting ANY crime in which a gun was present "a gun related crime" It didnt matter if the gun was actually used in any way in the crime, nor did it matter if the gun was legally owned by the person commiting the crime. For example: if someone got pulled over for drunk driving and the officer spotted a gun in his front seat, or later found one in his trunk, this was counted as a gun related crime. It didnt matter that the gun was never a factor, was never pointed at anyone or no trheats of pointing it at anyone were made. All that mattered was it was present. This is a very common practice of liberals when quoting statistics.

Both sides skew statistics - its what happens in every democratic country on the planet :)

You failed to answer my question as to what you would do if someone with ill intent broke down your door.....

This is one that really gets me. If you dont want to protect your family thats fine, but people like you want to make it illegal for me to protect my family, and thats not fine.

I suppose you did show your true colors with the resturant scenario. So while your running to save your ass, I'll be the one there to help stop the scumbag so no more innocent people are hurt.

Why cant you gun o phobics understand that disarming law abiding citizens will do NOTHING to stop crime.....If you wanna make a law that says "you cant own a gun if your gonna use it for murder", feel free. But stop trying to target the very people who save lives every single day from gang members, druggies and psycho's.

I'm not "gun-o-phobic". My father is a dead-set gun nut and owns plenty of firearms (including firearms you mistakenly listed as banned...), and I've fired most of them.

What this comes down to, imo, is the way you view a problem. I tend to view problems like this at a societal level, using more logic than emotion, whereas you will divide it down to an individual level using fear (what if someone bashed down your door with an ak-47!!!!! etc), rather than weighing plus's and minus's.

Clearly, you only have to look at the US's crime rates to see how widespread gun use affects a society, you may want to toss off over how there is a 3% increase or whatever in our crime rates - come back when ours are half of what yours are. It's a trend all across the developed world, and you seem to be ignoring everything but the most critical elements (guns causing gun crime? never! its the ghetto blacks, gang members and drug dealers, and the liberal conspiracy!). That's not to say that guns are the true root of the US's problem, most countries in the western world (including australia) allow firearms to be owned - only their use is far more limited, and it shows.

By the way, tell me how many people used firearms to defend themselves here in australia before and after 1996? That might give you a hint as to the actual effects of the gun laws, rather than other antagonists.

Hope this helps.

(ps. I am so sure of my country's safety that I willingly walk around totally unarmed and have never been a victim of crime, nor seen anything worse than shoplifting, and I live in public housing in australia's third largest city.)