Je suis Charlie

Censura Posts : 1560 Join date : 2011-12-27

Paul : Don't underestimate the numbers who educate their children at home in the UK. Last time I checked, the figures were not that much less than the numbers in "public" (i.e. private) schools.

I've a rather different take from either of those expressed here on firearms. Most of my life I have lived in or spent a fair proportion of my time in households that had guns - I doubt if you would have found many farming households that didn't at least have a shotgun, and either an air rifle so powerful that it nowadays would be subject to the "firearms" legislation, or a .22 rifle for vermin control. Where I live now, either would be about as useful as a chocolate fire guard, but I can't regard either as particularly more dangerous than the four-wheeled killing machine I regularly drive.

It seems to me there is a common misconception in the US that "Brits can't own guns". We can, and we do, if we have sufficient reason (such as being a member in good standing of a suitable club), own rifles, though not semi-automatic ones, though only muzzle-loading pistols (that includes quite a few types of revolver) For shotguns the rules are as follows :-

In order to issue a shotgun certificate, the police need to be satisfied that the applicant can possess a shotgun without danger to the public safety or the peace. Part of this involves checking if the applicant has any previous convictions.The new shotgun licence form contains specific health questions that you must answer. You must declare any physical or mental health condition that may affect your ability to possess and use a firearm or shotgun safely. These include epilepsy, stroke, stress-related illness, depression, alcoholism, heart disease, cancer.

Censura Posts : 2772 Join date : 2012-01-16

And down at my level, I can rarely find the phone or the remote control in a hurry so a handy killing tool would be of little use to me about the house. And if it is solely to be a deterrent, does one put up a sign - like having a nasty dog? And the thought of armed teachers - well, what a temptation. Nope I'm just for restricted acquisition and zero tolerance for having killing tools without very, very good reason.

Sorry, Paul - am I being too British? Killing tools - beyond household appliances - are just not for me. - and most other people I know.

Censura Posts : 1522 Join date : 2012-01-09

I think my family, a farming one in rural Southland, NZ, might have been unusual in that we didn't own guns. Though I suspect our next-door neighbour may not have either, since her pond was a refuge for ducks in the duck-shooting season as she didn't allow shooting there. I think perhaps my father's time in WWII which I gather he hated may have had something to do with our lack of guns. But what would we have shot anyway? - no foxes in NZ, rabbits weren't a huge problem where we lived, deer and wild pigs weren't part of our community, and certainly we didn't need to chase away people. I suppose we could have shot suffering animals, though they seemed to die of their own accord. I remember killing animals to eat far more often than to end their suffering. When we did have to kill sheep it was by knife.

Censura Posts : 2602 Join date : 2011-12-27

As an enthusiastic consumer of game I can entirely appreciate that firearms have their place in appropriate settings but not in the sideboard drawer, the glove compartment of the family car or in mum's bag at the supermarket.

Censura Posts : 1560 Join date : 2011-12-27

ferval wrote:: As an enthusiastic consumer of game I can entirely appreciate that firearms have their place in appropriate settings but not in the sideboard drawer, the glove compartment of the family car or in mum's bag at the supermarket.

Agreed. The oddest thing is - one can own an "antique" firearm (say a Martini-Henry) and hang it on the wall - take it to a show for other people to look at (without ammunition) and it becomes a dangerous firearm and must be held on a firearms certificate or deactivated. Now I regard deactivating a historic piece like that as vandalism, unless it has become too dangerous to shoot. Loads of "Martin-Henry" rifles filtered back from Afghanistan a few years ago - mostly more dangerous to the person holding them than to anyone they were pointed at - so-called "Khyber Pass" copies made from steel pipes.

Censura Posts : 1522 Join date : 2012-01-09

Nordman, thank you for that thorough analysis of the situation in the USA. I had wondered if something in the constitution might account for it, though I am still not totally convinced by the argument you presented. Why have the elements attacking the liberal principles of the constitution held more sway than the constitution itself? I understand that the strength of the constitution can of itself mean there are more attacks on it, but don't understand why those attacks have so influenced the character of the American people. Why wouldn't they have stood up more for the ideals behind the constitution rather than picking up on some of the rather peripheral bit, or if not peripheral at least added with different intentions from what people take from it now?

Ferval, this morning my husband has complained that I left the conservatory doors (which face the road, though it is some 30 metres or so from the house) open all night for everyone to see. (Though not apparently for him to see when he came home at 10.20pm.) We seem to have woken up still alive and without the loss of any of our possessions. My main concern with guns being freely available is that people use them rather freely. I frequently hear of events in the United States where a person has been killed speedily by police and think that wouldn't have happened here. There would have been negotiations and some time taken to understand the situation. It's probably the same for individuals - if you haven't got a gun you can't shoot the Halloween kid whose English is poor. You check out what they want first. And if you live where most people don't carry handguns you don't have to fear to the same degree that the person facing you will have one.

Censura Posts : 4377 Join date : 2012-01-05

Parallax wrote:: Yes, allowing firearms, with a minimum control, is one of our most important freedoms. The majority of Americans feel this way. Obama say's he is going to ban guns by "executive order" soon. I would like to see him try it. What evidence do YOU refer to against the wisdom of owning guns? Let's see it.
Nope, I would never tighten up gun control. It's more than adequate now. Doing away with guns would put us all in danger of an abusive government, something we got rid of over two hundred years ago by having guns.
The "inalienable" right of every American citizen to own a gun". The second amendment

Correct me if I'm wrong, Parallax, but does not the Second Amendment give an inalienable right to every American citizen to own a gun as part of an organised militia. In other words, if you want to use a firearm, join the National Guard.

Censura Posts : 1560 Join date : 2011-12-27

Compare and contrast.

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Tue 27 Jan 2015, 13:12

And let's not forget that Switzerland has for the past 500 years maintained its national, sovereign integrity despite having been inherently split internally along religious and ethnic lines. At present 38% of the population profess to being catholic and 27% adhere to the Swiss Reformed Church, with sizeable minorities of all other religions, including about 5% being "muslim types" ..... And the country still has four official languages, with about two-thirds of the population speaking German, around one-fifth French, about 7% Italian, and 1% Romansch. Oh and currently about one-fifth of the population could be classed as immigrants having been born outside the country, mostly in Eastern Europe, Turkey and the Middle East, and for the most part having migrated to Switzerland in only the past 10 years.

And yet despite all these potential tensions, coupled with widespread gun ownership, statistically a Swiss citizen is more likely to be killed by a cow than a firearm!

Censura Posts : 4377 Join date : 2012-01-05

I remember doing this anecdote on the BBC boards, for those who may have missed it.

Before the First World War, the Kaiser was on a state visit to Switzerland. The Swiss, knowing his interest in all things military, arranged a demonstration of marksmanship by the top rifleman in the Swiss Army. After a highly successful display of shooting, the marksman was introduced to the Kaiser who asked him;
"How many men in the Swiss Army are as good shots as you?"

"100,000" came the surly reply.

The Kaiser thought about this for a moment then said "And what if I send 200,000 men against you?"

"We'll fire twice"

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Tue 27 Jan 2015, 16:03

MM wrote:: And yet despite all these potential tensions, coupled with widespread gun ownership, statistically a Swiss citizen is more likely to be killed by a cow than a firearm!

Nothing worse than a Swiss cow breaking bad.

Censura Posts : 1560 Join date : 2011-12-27

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2897239/The-HERD-Reich-Farmer-forced-rid-Hitler-s-Nazi-cows-super-aggressive-breed-tried-kill-staff.html

Are these Swiss-German ones that were deported in the 30s? Just goes to show we need to stop EU immigrants from invading our fair land - or our unfair one!

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Tue 27 Jan 2015, 17:28

Death by cow?!? ... I'm just concerned about these modern, degenerate, permissive cultures that encourage people to shoot at each other with domestic animals in preference to using high velocity bullets ... it seems rather unfair on the poor ignorant creatures, as well as the livestock, if nothing else:

"... fetchez la vache...!" (... forward to 2:30min if you're impatient)

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Tue 27 Jan 2015, 17:48

Brilliant, MM!

Censura Posts : 2602 Join date : 2011-12-27

Or death by haggis? I doubt that anyone has died from the impact of a well aimed haggis. Eating one though, well............

Je suis Charlie - Page 3 FREE+TO+USE+-+HAGGIS+HURLING1

Je suis Charlie - Page 3 FREE+TO+USE+-+HAGGIS+HURLING1

Should we lock up the trebuchets and hide the gannets, just in case?

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

nordmann wrote:: So, Parallax. You approve of gay weddings as long they're shotgun weddings. Cute.

If "gay marriage" support by politicians is "just to get votes" then you are admitting that this issue carries broad democratic appeal. Otherwise no one would vote for the supporter, would they?

So what I said earlier still applies. Nonsense about "utopias" aside, do you want to live in a society built on democratic values or do you want to impose undemocratic restrictions on activities that you do not condone? It's a simple question, but if I were you I would be rather more careful how I answered this than in your previous attempts which are coming dangerously close to revealing that you see democracy as the biggest threat of all to your welfare.

Your argument that a tightening of gun control makes you more vulnerable to being the victim of an abusive government is a strange, and rather revealing, admission of what you believe. Besides that this also rather confirms the view that you have no faith therefore in the democratic process in your country (though your definition of "abuse" by government and how you and your gun would prevent this would be most welcome), it also raises the rather sad prospect of just how simplistic and narrow a perspective you actually have on society as a whole. Personally, given the figures involved, I would welcome an actuary's assessment of the likelihood of personal injury or worse for the average individual from a "muslim type" (what is that by the way?) who has crossed the border illegally and is now operating as a mole, as you suggest these "types" are up to, versus being shot and ending up as a fatal statistic amongst, for example, the 11,085 homicides by firearm conducted by beneficiaries of the second amendment in 2010 alone, the last year for which I have a reliable figure.

You might like to live in a society where toddlers "offing" themselves or their moms can be discounted as collateral damage endured for the greater good, but personally I have to wonder just how great that good really is on that basis and what might serve it better?

I lived in the States, in an area which at the time was rather infamous for its racial tensions and flare-ups (and not just the "black" versus "white" version either). During that time I witnessed and experienced several ugly incidents related ultimately to this cause, but it was obvious that outside this district no one really cared to analyse the situation much beyond these stereotypical racial models. This was despite the fact that when it came to firearm related homicides the blacks figured much more as victims than perpetrators and within the so-called white communities internecine aggravation led to even higher numbers of deaths, attributed nevertheless by a lot of the popular media however to "black tensions". It was bad analysis and yet only the people on the ground seemed to know or care about this.

So I don't express surprise at your views, which if they were based on actual information would be remarkable indeed for your failure to actually conclude anything intelligently from the data provided. You live however in a society where lazy analysis and ignorance are par for the course and one has to make a considerably wilful effort to correct the detrimental effect of this personally. The vast majority of Americans don't do this, as far as I could see when living there and nothing in the interim has caused me to change that assessment.

I don't recommend you take time out to broaden your horizons by getting yourself gay-married to a "muslim type" mole, shotgun or no shotgun. Anyway marriage to members of the Talpidæ family could be construed as bestiality in some states, I imagine. But a few baby steps (mind if he's toting a handgun) in the direction of education wouldn't be a bad start.

Why did you refer me to undergrad Rourke's rather ill-thought essay by the way? You never answered me that. Is she your gal?

Odd that I already replied to this post last night. I stated I was breaking for dinner and would be back tomorrow. I don't see my post anywhere so either I did not press the send button or the good fairy removed it. Anyway, I'll try again now.
For openers I submit this data to you:

Summary

The mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., has reignited a national debate on gun control. As elected leaders begin the dialogue, some facts are clear — there has been a massive increase in gun sales. Some things are not so clear — such as whether there is causation between more guns and more violent crimes. And some are contrary to the general impression — for example, the rate of gun murders is down, not up.
We have decided to look at some of the rhetoric and how it squares with the facts, while offering some broader context to inform the debate.

Rep. Louie Gohmert said that “every time … conceal-carry [gun laws] have been allowed the crime rate has gone down.” But that is far from a settled issue in academia.
Dan Gross, head of the Brady Campaign used the number of daily gun murders as proof that “gun violence rates are not” going down. But the rate of gun murder is at its lowest point since at least 1981: 3.6 per 100,000 people in 2010. The high point was 7 in 1993. However, non-fatal gun injuries from assaults increased last year for the third straight year, and that rate is the highest since 2008.
Federal data also show violent crimes committed with guns — including murders, aggravated assaults and robberies — have declined for three straight years.
Rep. Donna Edwards said that “since Columbine, there have been 181 of these school shootings.” That’s an inflated figure. She used a list of “major school shootings” supplied by the Brady Campaign that included incidents that were neither shootings nor at schools. By our count, the list shows 130 school shootings since Columbine that resulted in at least one student or school official being killed or injured — still unacceptably high, but about a quarter fewer than claimed.

Here are some other facts. The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world — by far. And it has the highest rate of homicides among advanced countries. And yet, gun crime has been declining in the U.S. Firearm murders are down, as is overall gun violence – even as gun ownership increases. Read our Analysis for more insight on what these statistics mean.

Frankly I'm beginning to have my doubts about democracy in it's constantly left leaning form and I think that is changing now.

"Academia"...there's that word again. I just can't seem to get away from it.

Yes, I do want to live in a democratic society not a socialistic, or worse, government. Government is not my greatest fear, as you seem to presume, internal violence is, either brought on by natural or man made catastrophe. Mob violence, by any color, that threatens me or my family would be my primary reason to resort to firearms as well as a Tyrannical government.

Regarding Black violence, Blacks target each other more, by far, than any others. They also make up the largest percentage in prisons.

"Muslim" type...Geez...what a nitpicker you are. You know what I meant but you just have to try to make jokes. Give it up, you're not very good at it.
Oh, and about the "bestiality" you mentioned...I think that soon our illustrious politicians will be recognizing marriage by humans and their
animal paramours and possibly giving the animals a vote.

incidentally, I referred you to Rourke simply because I back up what I say and provide you an opportunity to check it. You don't seem to do that...you just spout your 25 cent words like a Gatling gun hoping to hit something. You "miss" a lot that way. You have the words now find the logic to put behind them. "My girl"...how juvenile.

Nobiles Barbariæ Posts : 7223 Join date : 2011-12-25

I'm actually a little disappointed you and Ms Rourke aren't an item. Thought I was on to something there. Though you have to admit you've both a lot in common.

You're going to have to explain to me what a tyrannical government in US terms might be which, after man-made or natural catastrophes and mobs, would have you reaching for your shooter. I'm assuming from the rest of what you say this would be one of those "worse than socialistic" governments you speak of, but I confess I'm struggling to see either the Republicans or Democrats in jack boots and uniforms. Who would the president be? Who would have voted for them? Who would you actually be shooting at? How would you putting holes in other people actually help?

I also confess I am still none the wiser regarding what a "muslim type" might be either. Are they like muslims but not quite, or what? Does a christian creationist count as one of those types? Are Hispanics, who probably account for most cross-border sneaking included? I do however share your dislike of moles. Had terrible problems with them in one house I lived in and might well have resorted to a semi-automatic myself had I had access to one by the end. However true democracy prevailed and I realised I was always going to be out-voted by them, so I graciously ceded victory and moved to a house with a garden run on more socialist principles.

PS: I suspect you have difficulty separating socialist from communist principles. Such seems common in the US, it is a difficulty shared even by prominent talking heads on certain TV networks too I have noticed. In Europe many countries are run by parties which are nominally socialist, elected by quite sane and willing majorities, and are at least vocally supportive of socialist principles if not always equal in their efforts to convert this to policy. However this neither makes them communist nor does it render everyone equal in terms of wealth. Far from it.

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Wed 28 Jan 2015, 10:37

Unfortunately a lot of people here in the UK feel as you do, Parallax, not about guns or communists, but about "Muslim types" or alien "types" generally.

I used to live and teach in a town near Manchester in the north of England. We had a huge immigrant community there - people who had come to the Empire's mother-country from Pakistan and India. I taught their children (most of whom were desperate for an education) and had to control the white kids (most of whom were not).

I had a child in my Year 7 tutor group who, despite his mini-skinhead appearance, was actually a nice little boy. He loved dogs, and I won him over by showing him pictures of the bulldog puppy my husband and I had acquired as a baby substitute. The little lad was overjoyed when we took up his suggestion of a suitable name and called our bulldog "Gnasher".

This boy, now godfather to our puppy, had a fearsome brother in Year 11. He was a nasty piece of work and was a member of a white supremacist organisation. He terrorized the "Muslim type" kids in his year. I was thankful I never had to teach him. I was therefore mystified when this boy and his gang of thugs (none of whom really knew me) suddenly started treating me with enormous respect. Passing me in the corridor, they would incline their heads in acknowledgement, and say, "Miss". Doors were opened for me and I received offers of help when I was carrying big boxes of books. What on earth was going on? Surely nothing to do with my having a bulldog puppy?

Not entirely. The lads had noticed a sticker in my car. It read, "Follow me! Join the National Trust!" (see below). Their reading skills, alas, were not of the best and they had misread this as, "Follow me! Join the National Front!".

This, plus my ownership of a suitably fierce dog, had convinced them that I was "all right".

* National Trust is an organisation for people who love history, stately homes, antique furniture, pictures and nice gardens. The National Front was something quite different.

PS Nice ending to my story. My little bulldog boy eventually fell in love with an Indian girl in our class. Her name was Jabeen and she developed into a real beauty, full of grace and humour. She was brilliant at Bollywood dancing. When they were in Year 10, he followed her around like a besotted puppy, but alas, she refused to become his girlfriend.

Nobiles Barbariæ Posts : 7223 Join date : 2011-12-25

National Trust activists can be a deadly bunch, especially when cornered. When Kilkenny County Council reckoned they could turn the Duke of Ormonde's old gaff into a conference centre some years ago they were soon wishing it was only the National Front they had to deal with. Pitbulls and brains - now there's a lethal combination (as yet untested by "BNF-types")!

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Wed 28 Jan 2015, 14:35

Je suis Charlie - Page 3 English-bulldog-puppies-51855d574bdc6

Who you calling a "pitbull type" then?

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

Temperance wrote:: Parallax, may I ask an odd question? What draws you to this site? Why did you get "a nice feeling" when we showed we were anxious to exchange views with you? What made you return? We may not all be the "left-wing academics" you at first judged us to be, but clearly most of us hold opinions that you would dismiss as liberal nonsense. Yet you seem to feel that dialogue is still worthwhile. At least I think you do - and I hope you do.

Can we deduce anything useful from that thought?

I first came to Historica simply because I enjoy history. After my tiff with nordmann I figured it was best to leave...you know...HIS site and all.
Some posters stated they would like me to stay. Being wanted is always a nice feeling and my interest in history made me change my mind.
I figured the thing with nordmann would pass, but he kept pressing it.
I happen to hold different views than some of you as I do with many of my countrymen but that has nothing to do with history. Why am I still here?...because I don't feel like running away under fire. I can be asked to leave and I will if so asked.
I always think dialogue is worthwhile and I try to offer mine in a benign form but sometimes I do get miffed when the poo gets too thick and I reply in kind.
At the very worst this site seems to show considerably more activity from my posting so that has some value in itself, I would surmise.
Thank you Temperance, for saying you hope I stay...nice to hear.

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

Caro wrote:: Nordman, thank you for that thorough analysis of the situation in the USA. I had wondered if something in the constitution might account for it, though I am still not totally convinced by the argument you presented. Why have the elements attacking the liberal principles of the constitution held more sway than the constitution itself? I understand that the strength of the constitution can of itself mean there are more attacks on it, but don't understand why those attacks have so influenced the character of the American people. Why wouldn't they have stood up more for the ideals behind the constitution rather than picking up on some of the rather peripheral bit, or if not peripheral at least added with different intentions from what people take from it now?

Ferval, this morning my husband has complained that I left the conservatory doors (which face the road, though it is some 30 metres or so from the house) open all night for everyone to see. (Though not apparently for him to see when he came home at 10.20pm.) We seem to have woken up still alive and without the loss of any of our possessions. My main concern with guns being freely available is that people use them rather freely. I frequently hear of events in the United States where a person has been killed speedily by police and think that wouldn't have happened here. There would have been negotiations and some time taken to understand the situation. It's probably the same for individuals - if you haven't got a gun you can't shoot the Halloween kid whose English is poor. You check out what they want first. And if you live where most people don't carry handguns you don't have to fear to the same degree that the person facing you will have one.

If you haven't got a gun you can mention it to the guy breaking down your front door to rob and rape you. Just say..."Hey, I'm not armed", like in the old west. Maybe that will make him go away. Be realistic Caro, this possibility always exists and it does not go away just because you believe it's not a "real" threat. Anyway, it's always better to be prepared for eventualities rather than to be caught unprepared.

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

ferval wrote:: Oh come on Parallax, not that old one, "It's the person, not the gun, that does the killing". At least if the demented one had a knife rather than a gun, wouldn't the body count be somewhat less? But it's not just the availability of the gun but the social acceptance of such that positively encourages its use as a means of resolving a whole range of difficulties: psychological, financial and emotional.

Indeed you are correct in saying that there is something amiss in any society where apparently rational people feel so threatened by violence that a firearm becomes a normal part of household equipment but suggesting that guns are the answer is as sensible as suggesting that burning down the hall would stop a conflagration in the living room spreading to the bedroom.

As far as you are concerned, you seem to believe that everything would be hunky-dory if it wasn't for 'non-european immigrants', the black community, lack of support from the armed forces (there's a difference between supporting the troops and supporting the causes that the poor buggers are sent to fight for), gay marriage and 'permissive' parents, well, that's the way it is and since we here appear to have all of those but I, as a doddery old bat who regularly forgets to lock or even close her back door, manages to survive without a gun, it seems to me that there's something terribly wrong with the US that can't just be blamed on your chosen scape goats.

That ABC of geometry is over two thousand years old but still as true as the day it was written, so age has nothing to do with truth, dear heart.
Yes, the probability of having a gun probably increases accidents and murders but that weighs so small against the rights of so many gun owners...the majority of our citizens own guns, that it would impose fear and perhaps hardship upon them. A man needs to know that he can protect his family, there's nothing new about that.
I understand that a gun can be a fearsome thing to some people, but they are in the minority. To others a gun is peace of mind. Can you imagine if we in the US were all disarmed what the crime rate would look like. Police can only be minutes away but when you are facing someone who has kicked down your door looking for drugs or money, you might well wish you had a pistol to either frighten him away or shoot him, if needed.
Regarding " non-European" immigrants that bird has flown the coop. It's too late to correct that. Our potus would not be in office now if it wasn't for those rainbow immigrants who gave him the vote, both legally and illegally. We would not be $18 trillion in the hole either except for his screwball spending ideas and a lackluster congress.
Yep, the country is sick and you should lock your doors:)

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Wed 28 Jan 2015, 17:39

Parallax.

I was one of those who asked you to stay, I stand by that, as I am interested in points of view who may contradict mine - and thus by closer examination may be as valid as mine.

As has been said, behind the bar there is a cupboard with miffs and huffs and stuff, most have been flown away in by quite a few among us and been returned, if you're really mad then - in the deep cellars of this place there are a number of trebuchets, who - so far - never have been used against us or internally but only against external and common foes. Feel free to inspect and comment on their condition. So far the better ammunition developed have been pickled gannets.
- From this latter paragraph and perhaps others, you will understand that a sense of ridiculessness - and ridicule - is almost an absolute must in here.

PS. I am not an academic, just a historically interested Dane, who happened onto the old BBC boards in search of history and learning the English language, which I am still trying to do, as to being left-wing, well I am generally to the left of what I have understood of the Tea-party-movement.

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Wed 28 Jan 2015, 17:54

Stop it, nordmann.

Smile

parallax wrote:: ...so age has nothing to do with truth, dear heart.

Gosh, that sounds just like - CATTY! Oh, it's not you is it? If only...

Or perhaps another old friend from the BBC? Nah...

PS Parallax, Nielsen is right: one has to have an excellent sense of the absurd to survive here - especially one's own absurdity.

A respectful and genuine question - you are not a Vietnam veteran, are you?

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

Caro wrote:: This has got a little way from a historical discussion, and I will add to that. I haven't lived in a volatile place at all, but like Priscilla the thought of living with a gun in the house is anathema to me. I have lived in safe places, but so do lots of Americans, I presume. Many years ago we locked outselves out the house, and eventually my husband just broke the door off its hinges and in we went. He was quite a slight man, and I decided then that there was no point in worrying about home invasions and burglaries - anyone could get in the house. People say I have little sense of security but, like P, I have decided to live without much fear and if that turns to custard so be it; it seems better than barricading myself up in terror and being totally safe. (Anyway the plane might crash/I might fall and hit my head/someone might crash into our car/etc.)

But on a more historical note, why have Americans not adopted the attitudes of the rest of the western world in respect of the liberal tradition? They seem to have in general a different way of looking at the world from Europeans, Canadians, Australians, NZers, Indians, etc. I think the most right-wing person in NZ would be considered left-wing in the USA. And Americans seem more religious than these other nations (perhaps not Indians), more conservative in some respects. It's a long time since they broke away from Britain, so it's surely not just a reaction to that. I suppose there is an element of pride, wanting to do it their way, but that hardly seems the full answer either. Does anyone have valid theories about this?

Regarding American attitudes...Americans were mostly European stock so any differences would have to be attributed to environment or tradition. Most likely to a combination of the two.
It probably takes one or two generations to absorb the attitude you refer to since the original immigrant parents would still speak a foreign tongue at home, in the case of most.
The Irish, and other English speaking immigrants had it easier because they spoke English and could get the better jobs and so would blend in quicker. Not that they had it easy because they had their share of resentment too..."Irish need not apply", when looking for work. We had Indian wars and gold discoveries and the wild west with it's gunslingers and many sort of things that were different and contributed to our present traditions so we were formed a bit differently as a result.

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

Nielsen wrote:: Parallax.

I was one of those who asked you to stay, I stand by that, as I am interested in points of view who may contradict mine - and thus by closer examination may be as valid as mine.

As has been said, behind the bar there is a cupboard with miffs and huffs and stuff, most have been flown away in by quite a few among us and been returned, if you're really mad then - in the deep cellars of this place there are a number of trebuchets, who - so far - never have been used against us or internally but only against external and common foes. Feel free to inspect and comment on their condition. So far the better ammunition developed have been pickled gannets.
- From this latter paragraph and perhaps others, you will understand that a sense of ridiculessness - and ridicule - is almost an absolute must in here.

PS. I am not an academic, just a historically interested Dane, who happened onto the old BBC boards in search of history and learning the English language, which I am still trying to do, as to being left-wing, well I am generally to the left of what I have understood of the Tea-party-movement.

I'm glad to hear that about ridiculousness. I thought some people were trying to be for real and just coming across that way jocolor

. Sometimes the atmosphere gets a little heavy in here so any break so any humor is welcome. Left or right wing won't change history and an occasional diversion into politics will probably just occur.
No, I'm not really mad...unless you mean my mental state, but I do get miffed now and then.

Censura Posts : 2602 Join date : 2011-12-27

No Temp, definitely not Catty, his repartee was better crafted and his insults not patronising. I miss him but then, he really was an academic historian.

Parallax, I fear you would worry for me if you could know where I live. Let's just say I'm within a few hundred yards of what you would describe as the largest ghetto of 'muslim types' in the country as well as 'Roma types' and asylum seekers of many ethnicities. It has even been so around here, waves of Highlanders, Irish, Lithuanians and Estonians, Jews, Pakistanis, now Eastern Europeans, all moving here, making lives and gradually dispersing outwards, many into the very posh part with its Victorian mansions and leafy grounds. That's just as close to me as the 'ghettos'. I like it like this.

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

Temperance wrote:

Stop it, nordmann.

Smile

parallax wrote:: ...so age has nothing to do with truth, dear heart.

Gosh, that sounds just like - CATTY! Oh, it's not you is it? If only...

Or perhaps another old friend from the BBC? Nah...

PS Parallax, Nielsen is right: one has to have an excellent sense of the absurd to survive here - especially one's own absurdity.

A respectful and genuine question - you are not a Vietnam veteran, are you?

No, actually I'm a WWll submarine sailor, but one that did not see any action because the war ended three months after I enlisted at seventeen. All young men my age tried to enlist in those days. Fortunately my mind is still surprisingly intact...well mostly anyhow:)

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

ferval wrote:: No Temp, definitely not Catty, his repartee was better crafted and his insults not patronising. I miss him but then, he really was an academic historian.

Parallax, I fear you would worry for me if you could know where I live. Let's just say I'm within a few hundred yards of what you would describe as the largest ghetto of 'muslim types' in the country as well as 'Roma types' and asylum seekers of many ethnicities. It has even been so around here, waves of Highlanders, Irish, Lithuanians and Estonians, Jews, Pakistanis, now Eastern Europeans, all moving here, making lives and gradually dispersing outwards, many into the very posh part with its Victorian mansions and leafy grounds. That's just as close to me as the 'ghettos'. I like it like this.

You're correct, I would worry. However, if you enjoy it so be it. With all that diversity around you I'll bet that you have a variety of ethnic foods available. Do you go to ethnic restaurants?

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

Triceratops wrote:

Parallax wrote:: Yes, allowing firearms, with a minimum control, is one of our most important freedoms. The majority of Americans feel this way. Obama say's he is going to ban guns by "executive order" soon. I would like to see him try it. What evidence do YOU refer to against the wisdom of owning guns? Let's see it.
Nope, I would never tighten up gun control. It's more than adequate now. Doing away with guns would put us all in danger of an abusive government, something we got rid of over two hundred years ago by having guns.
The "inalienable" right of every American citizen to own a gun". The second amendment

Correct me if I'm wrong, Parallax, but does not the Second Amendment give an inalienable right to every American citizen to own a gun as part of an organised militia. In other words, if you want to use a firearm, join the National Guard.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever “in-depth examination” of the second amendment’s meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” (id. at 592); that “central to” this right is “the inherent right of self-defense”(id. at 628); that “the home” is “where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” (id. at 628); and that, “above all other interests,” the second amendment elevates “the right of law abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635.^[187]

Censura Posts : 2772 Join date : 2012-01-16

Oh, Pax we've all gone ethnic here in naming foods in recipes - half the time I don't know what the stuff is I'm supposed to add next. It's very trendy and posh to know things like that. And you can get curry sauce and chips at a local Indian and pirri pirri mackeral sandwiches at a local deli. I don't fear that I am losing my identity - my stomach may be thinking the brain is on the way out. But then I am not so scared by diversity....... and managed to stay ever so English abroad all the time. And I don't expect that the US is stuck in the gingham checked curtain/apple pie mode either - which is how we often think of you 'all. And of course we keep our homes protected - we have always been good at castles and fortification - its just that we don't wait with a loaded gun for anyone who can get through them.
Abroad, I had a moslem type gardener who, I found out, always slept across our front door when my husband was away..... so I laughed and asked about the back door and found his son was delegated to do that. And all for free - and there were tears when we all parted.

Censura Posts : 2602 Join date : 2011-12-27

Indeed we do have a good range of ethnic-type restaurants, in fact my city is credited with the invention of chicken tikka masala, allegedly Britain's favourite take-away. On the other hand, it's 'American type' food that seems to be the favourite for new restaurants opening up, we're up to our necks in Bradley smokers, churning out pulled pork, ribs and briskets, not really to my taste.

Oh dear, this really is getting so far off topic, it's disappearing up............
Sorry!

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

Priscilla wrote:: Oh, Pax we've all gone ethnic here in naming foods in recipes - half the time I don't know what the stuff is I'm supposed to add next. It's very trendy and posh to know things like that. And you can get curry sauce and chips at a local Indian and pirri pirri mackeral sandwiches at a local deli. I don't fear that I am losing my identity - my stomach may be thinking the brain is on the way out. But then I am not so scared by diversity....... and managed to stay ever so English abroad all the time. And I don't expect that the US is stuck in the gingham checked curtain/apple pie mode either - which is how we often think of you 'all. And of course we keep our homes protected - we have always been good at castles and fortification - its just that we don't wait with a loaded gun for anyone who can get through them.
Abroad, I had a moslem type gardener who, I found out, always slept across our front door when my husband was away..... so I laughed and asked about the back door and found his son was delegated to do that. And all for free - and there were tears when we all parted.

Your gardener must have been devoted to you. He and his son certainly went above and beyond the call sleeping on your doorstep. That's an interesting occurrence, one which I've never heard before.
I have much time on my hands so I've taken to doing experimental cooking, whereby you fiddle with the recipe a little and see what happens.
I have made some terrible meals but also some good ones, more bad than good though. I enjoy cooking but I always keep some frozen dinners in the frig. for my wife.

"Ever so English"...that's charming. It reminds me of things like "Gunga Din" and British colonial times in India.

Censura Posts : 1560 Join date : 2011-12-27

I think I've invented a new fusion recipe - a cross between matar pulao and Jamaican peas and rice. Went down well with the girl Siduri and The Monsters.

Censura Posts : 2772 Join date : 2012-01-16

Mmm - charming I am - like Puss in Boots in Shrek, actually. Never lay out all the cards, dear, as mother probaly never said. We digress. All ferv and I are trying to say is that you probably have many needless fears about other communities. There is a skill in being security aware and always having a plan B. It was one of my responsibilities for 26 years abroad for about 130 people - when static -mand a few when travellinhg about in very wild places. I had many offers of protection when caught up in riots, too.

Censura Posts : 2772 Join date : 2012-01-16

Gill, matar pillau is the same as Jamaican peas and rice. And ferv, chicken tikka masala is an English indian dish - never heard of there. Chicken tikka is a charcoal roasted half chicken cooked on the street after marinading in spices and probably dirty water and possibly yoghurt - all very secret. It is a street food and best eaten fresh out of old newspapers with a hot greasy paratha and a handul of raw onion. Never made me ill. Clubs and hotels serve it but it is not the same. Masala just means spiced - usually in a sort of a fry up. Who cares, anyway. I quite like the UK version.
But then there is much I miss - such as my cook's verion of Cornish pasties which - he, with little English, called plastic cornies.- as did we eventually. I am digressing again. We didn't do guns anywhere, 'never not no 'ow.'.... cockney expression - well, estuary English.

Censura Posts : 2602 Join date : 2011-12-27

The story here is that the customers in the Shish Mahal near the Mitchell Library really liked tikka but complained it was too dry so the chef mixed a tin of cream of tomato sauce with spices and yoghurt and tipped it over the chicken and, lo, tikka masala was born. There have even been moves to have it designated with a European Protected Designation of Origin. Lonely Planet agrees so it must be true!

However, His Enormity will be deeply displeased at our wanderings so I will shut up.

Censura Posts : 1560 Join date : 2011-12-27

Isn't the rise of the farrago in the UK more to do with eastern european immigrants than fear of muslims - common or garden xenophobia?

my recipe uses the onion, coconut milk and beans of the Jamaican variety plus the wholly different spices and green peas of the pulao. I'll try it with added chick peas next time - just keep the legumes to the correct overall quantity.

Censura Posts : 4377 Join date : 2012-01-05

Thanks for your reply Parallax, despite the ruling I'm still not convinced the Founding Fathers had this in mind when drafting the Constitution;

Je suis Charlie - Page 3 KleinsAd1963

Personally, I'd have gone the extra few bucks and got the Enfield rather than the Caracano

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

Triceratops wrote:: Thanks for your reply Parallax, despite the ruling I'm still not convinced the Founding Fathers had this in mind when drafting the Constitution;

Personally, I'd have gone the extra few bucks and got the Enfield rather than the Caracano

At those prices I would have bought the whole page. Smile

Censura Posts : 1560 Join date : 2011-12-27

Not the sporterised Lee-Enfield - unless you are planning to fight a trench war, and .303 ammo is getting scarcer and more expensive all the while. The so-called "American 1917" is actually a Pattern 1914 Enfield, which was intended to replace the Smellie if WWI had not broken out when it did, and has the best features of that with the best features of the Mauser, which was re-engineered to fire 30-08 in 1917 because the US did not have sufficient rifles so they modified the Pattern 1914 and had the 3 US factories which had been producing rifles for British second-line forces go over to that type. I'd go for the M1 Garand - no need to work the bolt, like the SLRs we were trained on, it will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.
Of course, unless you are prepared to put in the time to stay in practice, a pump-action 12 gauge is probably the best bet to blast the ungodly as they break down your door.

Censura Posts : 4377 Join date : 2012-01-05

Parallax wrote:: At those prices I would have bought the whole page.

Very good, Parallax, very good indeed.

Just in case anyone is wondering, the advert is from 1963 (the relevant firearm is in the left hand column, third from the top)

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

nordmann wrote:: I'm actually a little disappointed you and Ms Rourke aren't an item. Thought I was on to something there. Though you have to admit you've both a lot in common.

You're going to have to explain to me what a tyrannical government in US terms might be which, after man-made or natural catastrophes and mobs, would have you reaching for your shooter. I'm assuming from the rest of what you say this would be one of those "worse than socialistic" governments you speak of, but I confess I'm struggling to see either the Republicans or Democrats in jack boots and uniforms. Who would the president be? Who would have voted for them? Who would you actually be shooting at? How would you putting holes in other people actually help?

I also confess I am still none the wiser regarding what a "muslim type" might be either. Are they like muslims but not quite, or what? Does a christian creationist count as one of those types? Are Hispanics, who probably account for most cross-border sneaking included? I do however share your dislike of moles. Had terrible problems with them in one house I lived in and might well have resorted to a semi-automatic myself had I had access to one by the end. However true democracy prevailed and I realised I was always going to be out-voted by them, so I graciously ceded victory and moved to a house with a garden run on more socialist principles.

PS: I suspect you have difficulty separating socialist from communist principles. Such seems common in the US, it is a difficulty shared even by prominent talking heads on certain TV networks too I have noticed. In Europe many countries are run by parties which are nominally socialist, elected by quite sane and willing majorities, and are at least vocally supportive of socialist principles if not always equal in their efforts to convert this to policy. However this neither makes them communist nor does it render everyone equal in terms of wealth. Far from

If Ms Rourke and I were an item we would probably make history. My age precludes that, so much for the validity of your assumptions. That's more an expectation for old professors and their young charges these days.
Socialism is just a stepping stone to communism.
The rest of your post is just so much hot air...perhaps I can bring my balloon around for a fill?

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

Gilgamesh of Uruk wrote:: Not the sporterised Lee-Enfield - unless you are planning to fight a trench war, and .303 ammo is getting scarcer and more expensive all the while. The so-called "American 1917" is actually a Pattern 1914 Enfield, which was intended to replace the Smellie if WWI had not broken out when it did, and has the best features of that with the best features of the Mauser, which was re-engineered to fire 30-08 in 1917 because the US did not have sufficient rifles so they modified the Pattern 1914 and had the 3 US factories which had been producing rifles for British second-line forces go over to that type. I'd go for the M1 Garand - no need to work the bolt, like the SLRs we were trained on, it will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.
Of course, unless you are prepared to put in the time to stay in practice, a pump-action 12 gauge is probably the best bet to blast the ungodly as they break down your door.

A 12 gauge pump is the recommended primary weapon indeed.

Here's an article that should at least favor firearms, even with the non-believers:

World War II: Emergency American Arms to Britain (June 1940)

Figure 1.--

The evacuation at Dunkirk saved the British Army, but its equipment had to be abanoned on the beachs and surrounding countryside. The First Canadian Army was the only fully equipped force in Britain prepared to resist a German invasion. If the Germans had been able to invade at the time, they would have encountered a largely disarmed Britain. British factories could rapidly produce the needed arms and equipment, but they needed time and the Germans were not prepared to give them time. Britain turned to the United States for emergency arms delivries. President Roosevelt responded immediately and ordered U.S. military arsenals to send all available war materiel to Britain. Many in America opposed this step, including General Marshall. Arms for Britain mean that the Ameican Army would be less prepared. Roosevelt was, howevr adament. The shipments included a great del of World War I equiment. America shipped 500 French 75 artillery pieces as well as 0.5 million 500,000 Enfield rifles, 500 mortars and machine guns, and large quantities of amunitin which had also been left at Dunkirk. The rifles and machine guns proved to be of only limited use because the American 30-06 round was completely incompatible with the British 303 round. (This was a problem not resolved until the formation of the North Atlantic Trreaty Organization (1948). The American rifles were used mainly to arm the Home Guard and for training. The American artillery pieces and mortars, however, ewre vital. These shipments were only a fraction of the Lend Lease arms that were to follow, but they came when Britain was desperate. During the crucial summer of 1940, the Americn arms were a substantial part of the artillery available to the British Army. The RAF narrowly managed to preent the expected invasion, but if the Germans had come that summer this woukd have been the artillery available to the Army. [Moss] Roosevelt's decesion was made not only opposition from the U.S. Army, but in theface of the powerful Isolationist Movement that was organzing to ensure that he would not be reelected.

So how can anyone say weapons are bad. These guns were never used as anticipated. I believe I read somewhere that Americans donated some of their personal weapons to this effort also. The "gun toting" Americans had the guns to help when needed.:)

Censura Posts : 2772 Join date : 2012-01-16

Ah - goal posts moved from civilians with guns to war time, so here goes. Look, I am only a an ever so English woman - with little knowledge of weapons after 300BC but I have lived through 3 wars from beginning to end and so have a sort of opinion here to offer.

Even had we all had guns in the house - my mum and little me - my dad was away in the war for nearly 5yrs and no home leave - and though we were but less than 100 miles away from the migty of a huge army, I can't see that community resistance would have been of much use. If The Few had not done what they did and if invasion had come - what then? Civilian capitualation seems inevitable...... UK did have a resistance army in place ...Look up Coles Hill for details - and about which of our local one I now know a great deal.

But that was then. And even then, I hope your shelters are in tact because war seems to come at you from above. In my time I have have slept in cellars, shelters, understairs and under reinforced tables in my time- or not bothered and just sat outside watching the flak and arial displays. Had we suffered land attack I doubt if waving a gun about would have saved us for long.

And now something I really am curious about. For many months our WW11 area was swamped with US troops and airmen - kind, happy, friendly men White and Black - several of whom both, my gran invited to tea - I don't recall that any were armed though in uniform - and we were but a few water miles away from the enemy. Do servicemen in the States ever carry weapons when out and about in uniform? All the men in our family were in the services and no one thought to have a weapon in the house later when it was all over. Two had awards for bravery. My friend/writer/ 'mentor,' a naval commander who had been one of the Enigma team of 4 concerned with U boat and submarine warfare at Bletchley..... I only learned the details from his Long 'Time' Obituary, did not have a weapon in the home when it was all over. he deplored them.

Paul on this site, had a very hairy time of occupation and hardship perhaps has a different tale to tell.

And a final word of advice - should you be in the tropics and it looks like war, be careful with digging slit trenches - in any shape - they fill up with snakes first. Several friends put children in first too. Every war seems to demand different circumstances. I am also pleased that we finished paying for the US Lend -Lease Bill in 2000 or thereabouts. Debt is such a dreadful thing.

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Fri 30 Jan 2015, 12:42

Priscilla wrote:: Civilian capitualation seems inevitable......

Capitulation? Never. I was born after the war, but I like to think that, had I been around and the Germans had invaded, I would have died fighting rather than surrender.

Churchill was right, surely: "We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be"?

I haven't got a gun, but I'd have whacked any Nazi with my garden rake.

Oh dear, what am I saying?

Nobiles Barbariæ Posts : 7223 Join date : 2011-12-25

It is perhaps a natural consequence of never having experienced actual invasion that people within such a society harbour extremely fanciful notions of how they would react in a real scenario of that nature, as well as an unrealistic notion of what options actually exist. One only has to examine the actual experience however of Dutch, Belgian, French, Norwegian, Greek and other proudly nationalistic peoples, who by and large resented having been invaded and conquered by Germany during the period 1939 to 1945 (and beyond), to have a pretty good indication of what would have happened in Britain too. The reality is a mixture of compliance and resistance, often a sordid and ugly mixture at that, as well as a proof of how real heroics occur in ways and by people one would least have expected beforehand (as too does rather shameful behaviour on the part of others). Guns play a minor role indeed.

In Norway as late as 2007 the surviving "krigsbarn" and their families had finally managed to get their case heard in the European Court of Human Rights where they met a concerted (and ultimately successful) counter by the Norwegian government, denying effectively the decades of official policies directed against them which were born out of an utter contempt and desire for retribution, claiming these actions by the state were "natural consequences of unnatural unions" (that phrase was really used!). The disgust in which these children were held and which had seen them institutionalised, systematically abused, experimented upon, taken from parents, sometimes exiled and never allowed to avail of full citizenship in the post-war Norwegian state had revealed itself not to have dissipated significantly in the intervening years. In some quarters it actually seems to have intensified.

One spokesperson for the krigsbarn, then a man in his sixties, was asked what he and the others might do now, now that this avenue had been closed to them. His answer was enigmatic - "I suppose we will just have to wait until Norway is no longer occupied and fighting to reclaim its independence." This confused the reporter so he elaborated. "Now it is not grey-uniformed Germans they are fighting but memories of what they themselves have done, a far more vicious enemy than anything the Wehrmacht sent their way. Unfortunately we children were, and still are, reminders of both these foes."

In the scenario you describe, Temp, the only sane and logical thing to do perhaps is probably to use the garden rake on yourself with deadly effect. What is saved in the aftermath of occupation is never what one has set out to save, and in some cases one is forced to face the ugly possibility that it might not be worth saving at all.

Subject: Re: Je suis Charlie Fri 30 Jan 2015, 13:28

It is interesting that in 1939/40 private sales of pistols soared in Britain, but ammunition sales did not (the figures are complicated being often mixed in with official purchases by local authorities). Nevertheless it seems* that those that could obtain personal defence firearms - army officers, the gentry, people of good standing in the community - were arming their families, but not to defeat the hun at the garden gate but rather for the purposes of suicide: "My darling - kill the chldren and save the last bullet for yourself", an' all that.

*I'm summarising, and surmising a bit, from numbers given in 'Wartime Britain' by Juliet Gardiner.

Nobiles Barbariæ Posts : 7223 Join date : 2011-12-25

Parallax wrote:: If Ms Rourke and I were an item we would probably make history. My age precludes that, so much for the validity of your assumptions.

Defeatist talk, sir. But then, I think from her essay that Ms Rourke prefers men made of even rather sterner stuff than your good self anyway so perhaps that is all for the best!

Parallax wrote:: Socialism is just a stepping stone to communism.

Really? This is bad news indeed for most of the so-called western world which has so willingly embraced socialist policies over the last several generations. We're doomed, I tell ye, doomed!

Parallax wrote:: The rest of your post is just so much hot air...perhaps I can bring my balloon around for a fill?

If this is a euphemism for your grey matter then by all means, it is more than welcome to expand at the expense of my ventilations. But be warned. If you come round Thursdays you'll have to get past a few "muslim types" on the way in - that's when we run our "how to remain almost a muslim while nearly a communist and still like HBO" classes. Pinko is not required apparel but a healthy dollop of it is always advised, just in case someone suddenly decides to gay marry a mole before the evening is out - such things can happen after the fifth Guinness.

Aediles Posts : 80 Join date : 2014-12-12

Priscilla wrote:: Ah - goal posts moved from civilians with guns to war time, so here goes. Look, I am only a an ever so English woman - with little knowledge of weapons after 300BC but I have lived through 3 wars from beginning to end and so have a sort of opinion here to offer.

Even had we all had guns in the house - my mum and little me - my dad was away in the war for nearly 5yrs and no home leave - and though we were but less than 100 miles away from the migty of a huge army, I can't see that community resistance would have been of much use. If The Few had not done what they did and if invasion had come - what then? Civilian capitualation seems inevitable...... UK did have a resistance army in place ...Look up Coles Hill for details - and about which of our local one I now know a great deal.

But that was then. And even then, I hope your shelters are in tact because war seems to come at you from above. In my time I have have slept in cellars, shelters, understairs and under reinforced tables in my time- or not bothered and just sat outside watching the flak and arial displays. Had we suffered land attack I doubt if waving a gun about would have saved us for long.

And now something I really am curious about. For many months our WW11 area was swamped with US troops and airmen - kind, happy, friendly men White and Black - several of whom both, my gran invited to tea - I don't recall that any were armed though in uniform - and we were but a few water miles away from the enemy. Do servicemen in the States ever carry weapons when out and about in uniform? All the men in our family were in the services and no one thought to have a weapon in the house later when it was all over. Two had awards for bravery. My friend/writer/ 'mentor,' a naval commander who had been one of the Enigma team of 4 concerned with U boat and submarine warfare at Bletchley..... I only learned the details from his Long 'Time' Obituary, did not have a weapon in the home when it was all over. he deplored them.

Paul on this site, had a very hairy time of occupation and hardship perhaps has a different tale to tell.

And a final word of advice - should you be in the tropics and it looks like war, be careful with digging slit trenches - in any shape - they fill up with snakes first. Several friends put children in first too. Every war seems to demand different circumstances. I am also pleased that we finished paying for the US Lend -Lease Bill in 2000 or thereabouts. Debt is such a dreadful thing.

The first thing that comes to mind is that although the British army lost all their weapons at Dunkirk, they themselves were returned to England...by that gallant team of fishermen and Naval personnel, so they certainly would have been able to use the weapons (if they had the proper ammunition in 30-06 caliber). I would suppose that was the intent of the US and the British, but I have no idea why the correct ammunition was not sent with the guns? I can't believe that this basic observation regarding difference of caliber could have been overlooked by the many hands that it must have passed through, especially the military ones on both sides. Anyway, the weapons were sent because they were requested by Britain.

No, military personnel never carry weapons in the US, with the exception of the military police.

I have to agree with your opinion about having had a gun during an invasion. It would have been useless, in your case.

I'll keep an eye on my trenches, but perhaps the snakes will eat the rats, that also live there, and so control one another.